Slim decided that leading british paper is not a reliable source Options

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?




down the rabbit hole we go

In addition to the "Observer" they are talking about blanking links to The Grauniad. Amusingly, Slim has previously de-linked The Guardian, stating that they are "biased against Israel". It seems she can deem anything she does like as "not reliable". However, Slim's position on "Bios of Living Persons" is in fact supported by some here on WR, but in cases like this, I agree with you, it is another example of spin and abuse -- especially the extension of the prohibition to talk pages.

Slimey's explanation is "people keep adding links to the Observer article, which was not entirely pleasant (and the newspaper was almost certainly tipped off by a Wikipedian), and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is self-referential and unusable as a source.". So if I "tip off" a New York Times reporter, that makes anything he or she writes "self-referential". What a crock of feces.

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?
down the rabbit hole we go

This is the article in question . This is the newspaper article in question.

Rather than the "Observer" I believe you mean The Grauniad.

No, it's the Observer, the Guardian's sunday newspaper. We have had previous discussions about this person here and here.

Well I think this was well done. (removing this off his talk pag and freezing the page)

Are you guys not aware that: Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.

It was criminal that this even happened.

If Slim wants to cover it up, more power to her. It was complete crap that the article ever happened, the author used "wikipedia vocabulary" as if it were real English (calling the professor a "disruptive editor" which goes beyond being unkind - it is professionally insulting). The man never made a rude edit on wiki, and he gets that? For arguing with people about substance?

I think that the entire Observer article should be retracted. And certainly not mentioned on his talk page for God's sake.

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 9:39pm

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. [/b] Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

I can't speak to ancient disputes, but, in my more recent experience, Slim Virgin is not bad on BLP and privacy-related issues. Whether she's always been this way, or if it's a reaction to what's been done to her, I can't say, but I'd trust her on this kind of thing more than I would trust most editors. I can also assure that it's not the first decent thing she's done - she gave me the opportunity to argue to Jimbo and several arbitrators why Wikipedia should stop attacking my real world identity (unsuccessfully, I'm sorry to say.)

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. [/b] Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

I can't speak to ancient disputes, but, in my more recent experience, Slim Virgin is not bad on BLP and privacy-related issues. Whether she's always been this way, or if it's a reaction to what's been done to her, I can't say, but I'd trust her on this kind of thing more than I would trust most editors. I can also assure that it's not the first decent thing she's done - she gave me the opportunity to argue to Jimbo and several arbitrators why Wikipedia should stop attacking my real world identity (unsuccessfully, I'm sorry to say.)

Bringing a case where you are concerned about your identity to Arbcom was a BIG mistake.

The only way to handle that is with a nice demeanor and a BIG STICK in your back hand - ONE that they can SEE.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 10:05pm

I don't like double standards. The WikiClique has one, and WR likes to rub its nose in it, but WR has one of its own; it seems to be the party line around here that coverups, secrecy, and censorship are bad when they're done to protect the WikiCliqueistas, but good when they're done to protect people WR likes. I don't buy this, and oppose coverups, secrecy, and censorships no matter where the chips fall.

I'm with Dan on this one. If Slim had done this same thing, but the article were about Durova instead, nobody here would say "but she was protecting her privacy, so it's okay!" Wikipedia editors don't forfeit their rights to privacy any more than banned wikipedia editors do.

I don't like double standards. The WikiClique has one, and WR likes to rub its nose in it, but WR has one of its own; it seems to be the party line around here that coverups, secrecy, and censorship are bad when they're done to protect the WikiCliqueistas, but good when they're done to protect people WR likes. I don't buy this, and oppose coverups, secrecy, and censorships no matter where the chips fall.

I sense a split in opinion of critics here, between those who feel Wikipedia is itself an "attack site" (and should quit being one,) and those who feel the concept of an "attack site" should be discarded in favor of free speech. If it's taken me awhile to respond to your essay, it's because I've been considering this issue. For my own part, I think Wikipedia should be a deadly serious scholarly project (think "encyclopedia,) not an exercise in unregulated free speech, and thus take responsibility for the content of every single word it publishes, including talk pages and links. That would put me directly at odds with both yourself and the honorable Alecmconroy, sooner or later.

*However*…unregulated free speech is preferable to a racket under which Wikipedians freely attacks others, then appeal to privacy and responsibility when they're attacked in return. And I've reluctantly concluded that, for now (and maybe forever) this is all that's on offer. I would prefer a situation where no one gets attacked, but I now wonder if that isn't very naïve of me, that the control over content which accompanies such a goal won't inevitably be hijacked in the service of an unaccountable attack-machine.

The fact is that right now, Wikipedia is attacking all sorts of people, and has no moral status to complain about anyone serving them back their own medicine. There's no hypocrisy in distinguishing between Wikipedia victimizers and their victims in this context. The double standards you allege are so only for those who advocate openness as a matter of first principle, rather than a means towards the more practical goal of checking the abuses of the leadership.

For my own part, if Wikipedia leadership played the part of a responsible publisher, I would have no trouble with their proceedings being opaque to the outside world - indeed, they would have to be. For example, when The New York Times decides what to print and what not to print, obviously this mission is defeated if these erstwhile internal proceedings themselves go to print.

I'm with Dan on this one. If Slim had done this same thing, but the article were about Durova instead, nobody here would say "but she was protecting her privacy, so it's okay!" Wikipedia editors don't forfeit their rights to privacy any more than banned wikipedia editors do.

That's a worthy standard to bear in mind - Wikipedia editors deserve as much privacy as they (ideally individually) allow to banned editors and others (e.g. anonymous IPs) without standing in the WP heirarchy. Durova was an attack machine who took pride in denouncing banned editors, outing anonymous IPs, and messing with their lives.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 18th December 2007, 11:45pm

I agree with Dan, as well.

Consumers of Internet media may be entitled to privacy and anonymity, but producers of content that characterize or report on real people and their work need to be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that includes disclosing their identity and credentials.

I agree with Dan, as well.

Consumers of Internet media may be entitled to privacy and anonymity, but producers of content that characterize or report on real people and their work need to be held to a higher standard of accountability, and that includes disclosing their identity and credentials.

Maybe, but only in an environment where the people around them are accountable as well, as is the publication as a whole.

I strongly support real-names only policy on Wikipedia *if and when and only if and when* 1) it applies to all editors, at the very least to all administrators 2) potentially libelous statements about editors are reliably deleted (*not* preserved on a public URL in the history!) in short order, and if this isn't done, someone is held directly responsible.

You can't expect openness about identity in a flame-war environment.

I would be satisfied if an accountable admin assumed responsibility for each article and for the content added by otherwise anonymous subordinant editors whom that admin is supervising.

Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.

I would be satisfied if an accountable admin assumed responsibility for each article and for the content added by otherwise anonymous subordinant editors whom that admin is supervising.

That would be a great start. As it is, power on Wikipedia is utterly disconnected from responsibility.

Well, I think it is rather amusing that they are being selective over the mainstream papers not being reliable sources.

I find it ironic that the powers that be in the form of Marskell objected to the qualification of reliable sources with regards to newspapers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171862774

and others here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170953901

yet here we are with admins disqualifying a mainstream newspaper as a reliable source. What is a poor Wikipedian to do? Slim is quite keen on newspapers trumping nasty old primary sources when it suits her sourced based research, as if some disinterested editor and legal proof reader can retrofit facts into a journalist's article.

So there two different issues:

Should Wikipedia be used to besmirch characters? No, Slim is right on that issue (but it appears to me to be based on her paranoia rather than an ethical stance).

Do you implement BLP policy by disputing reliable sources - and the Guardian or Observer are no worse than most? No, you have an ethical policy in the first instance so bastardising sourcing guidelines is not an issue.

Part of the problem is that a paper can legitimately report on some controversy where partisan figures are leveling otherwise unproven charges, without elevating those charges to the status of fact.

But then naive editors on WP will take the published report about controversy and either amplify it or (worse yet) convert some of the unproven charges to the status of fact.

Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.

I admit it's been awhile since I've checked Britannica, but I'd be extremely surprised and dismayed to see pages filled with malicious attacks on me (or on any of the people we're talking about) therein.

Of course negative information shouldn't be censored simply because it's negative, but most of the important figures in history either are no longer alive, or are public figures (not just "notable".) If Wikipedia stuck to its stated mission of being an encyclopedia, these issues would come up far less often than they would at a newspaper.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 19th December 2007, 12:16am

Anyway, if a leading paper has no issue with publishing some information, there's no reason that an admin would be qualified to say "no, this is a WP:ATTACKPAPER". Yes, this means some people may be harmed. But an encyclopedia written such that there is no negative information given on anyone would be even more useless than Wikipedia.

I admit it's been awhile since I've checked Britannica, but I'd be extremely surprised and dismayed to see pages filled with malicious attacks on me (or on any of the people we're talking about) therein.

Of course negative information shouldn't be censored simply because it's negative, but most of the important figures in history either are no longer alive, or are public figures (not just "notable".) If Wikipedia stuck to its stated mission of being an encyclopedia, these issues would come up far less often than they would at a newspaper.

I don't think anyone really intended Wikipedia to be an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense of the term. Having said that, it would probably be preferable if they started doing what the American mainstream media are (stupidly) doing, and only report what people have said instead of making judgements on what is right. They've taken some steps towards this, but the information which only needs to be "verifiable" is still printed as though it is true. If that were to stop, there would be no issue here, since what the newspaper said is unquestionable.

I don't like double standards. The WikiClique has one, and WR likes to rub its nose in it, but WR has one of its own; it seems to be the party line around here that coverups, secrecy, and censorship are bad when they're done to protect the WikiCliqueistas, but good when they're done to protect people WR likes. I don't buy this, and oppose coverups, secrecy, and censorships no matter where the chips fall.

Dan,

The only way this would be a double standard is if every person who had a community ban or Arbcom session published in the newspaper. They dont.

None of you guys read the Arbcom session. I did. I looked at his history. He tried to reason with these people in a pretty collegial fashion. He also fought for his inputs - which may have been not feasible, but THIS? DOES NOT DESERVE.

Ok, lets have a look at the article in question, and the names he's called in it.

THE SLIMING OF AN HONEST PROFESSOR WHO USED HIS REAL NAME TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA

• following a scandal in which a world-renowned computer scientist has been banned from editing the online collaborative encyclopaedia.
• --------------------------WHAT SCANDAL? BANNINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.)
• Senior academics in his field say the changes he made have rendered some entries in effect useless.
• --------------------------(WHAT SENIOR ACADEMICS? NAMES??)
• contribution to Wikipedia was seen as so damaging that one administrator involved in an arbitration concluded: 'I do not believe Wikipedia would be improved by allowing Carl to edit articles on computer science, physics and mathematics.'
• -------------------------- (DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW DAMAGING THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE THIS IS? TELL ME WHAT HE DID TO DESERVE IT - diffs)
• ..He has requested that his biography be deleted from the encyclopaedia, blaming 'repeated vandalism' for making it 'continually inaccurate' so that it 'significantly misrepresents both me and my work.' An arbitration committee has rejected his request, and his biography stands with Hewitt powerless to change it.
• --------------------------(SOUND FAMILIAR?? HELLO BRANDT???)
• ...The banning of Hewitt shows that the academic community is in fact actively involved in editing Wikipedia
• --------------------------(SAYS WHO? MOST OF HIS BANNING COMMITTEE DIDNT HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE)
• ....As users prepare to redraft the computer science articles without Hewitt's input, no one is sure why a world-class expert would go to such extremes to promote himself
• --------------------------(ANYONE HEAR "COI VICTIM" HERE? - the poor man should never have used his own name)

I don't think anyone really intended Wikipedia to be an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense of the term. Having said that, it would probably be preferable if they started doing what the American mainstream media are (stupidly) doing, and only report what people have said instead of making judgments on what is right. They've taken some steps towards this, but the information which only needs to be "verifiable" is still printed as though it is true. If that were to stop, there would be no issue here, since what the newspaper said is unquestionable.

This was the crux of the issue that I fought. Wikipedia has no business elevating to the status of fact one person's haphazard opinion that appeared in one citation in one newspaper story and nowhere else, whilst ignoring credible evidence to the contrary.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 19th December 2007, 12:35am