BLP in Wikipedia Options

[Milton Roe]

Recently with the Jimbo controversies involving Marsden and Merkey, there have been suggestions that the BLP policy needs revising. To wit, that it could simply be cut down and refined to "paper general-topic encyclopedia" standards of notoriety (in order to avoid notoriety-creep and severely cut down the number of biographically target-able living people). And that anything else, without the subject's explicit permission, is essentially immoral because it involves invasion of privacy, harassment without provocation, and not something many of the editors who defend it would be willing to put upwith, themselves.

No good. Mostly just a bunch of anonymous editors mouthing Wales' BLP, NPOV, V, and NOR policies. Not a single person willing to think for themselves. It's incredible. I know the theory behind it, but never having been in the military or any kind of cult, I've never quite seen it so blatantly in action. Their brains are completely taken over. They have no independent ethical awareness at all. Shiver.


This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Thu 13th March 2008, 5:52am

[Somey]

You're referring to this thread on the WP:BLP talk page...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...er_encyclopedia

Admittedly, that would be a much more, er, aggressive policy standard than even I would suggest. Not that I'm against the idea, of course... It's just that there are so many people who want biographies of themselves on WP, even with the occasional inaccuracy or vandal-edit, the backlash against WP for deleting that many articles would be enormous. It would dwarf anything else they've done in terms of negative attention from the media and the blogosphere, probably ever.

I mean, for me the ultimate goal has always been deletion of the article named after the subject on request of the subject, no questions asked. Other articles mentioning the subject would just have to go through the regular deletion process. Over time, I and others have compromised to the point where we'd be willing to say that such requests could be reasonably ignored if there were already a printed biography of the subject, which might include an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica... or if the person were an elected official, or the CEO or Chairman of a major corporation. The opposition hasn't really budged much at all, of course.

Regardless, it's essential to keep fighting against the "JoshuaZ Principle," of "allowing courtesy deletions of someone if they are not a willing public figure." That's a code-phrase for keeping any article about anyone who has their own website, essentially. There's a big difference, as far as WP is concerned, between being a "willing public figure" and being a willing public figure who's the target of someone using Wikipedia as a cheap revenge platform, often with the approval or even complicity of admins, if not Jimbo himself. The fact that JoshuaZ refuses to recognize that, and continues to push this idea, is what makes him (in my opinion) the single most awful and infuriating Wikipedian there is - something only slightly ameliorated by his having been desysopped a while ago.

[wikiwhistle]

anything else, without the subject's explicit permission, is essentially immoral because it involves invasion of privacy, harassment without provocation,

Are you sure about that? Just writing an article, based on articles already in print, is "harrassment" and "invasion of privacy"? I'd love to see that case come to court.


What I mean is, in principle, having an article about someone who already has articles written about them is ok. It's if it's done in an unreasonable way and with personal vendettas within the system that aren't "supposed" to exist that it's not.


But I would love those claiming "harrassment" or "invasion of privacy" to put their money where there mouth is and see what view a court takes of their cases, honestly. It would be in everyone's best interests.

[dtobias]

Are you sure about that? Just writing an article, based on articles already in print, is "harrassment" and "invasion of privacy"? I'd love to see that case come to court.

That's the Daniel Brandt meme that's highly popular around here.

[Jonny Cache]

Once you accept the WikiPremiss that WikiPedia has any Real World justification for advertizing itself as a Real World encyclopedia — instead of What It Is (WII), a Bunch Of People And Robots Keeping Internet Files On Stuff 'Cause They Wanna — then all hope of Real World rationality is pretty much abandoned.

So Why Go There?

Jonny

[Random832]

I mean, for me the ultimate goal has always been deletion of the article named after the subject on request of the subject, no questions asked.

Where do you stop, though? Can George W. Bush ask for his article to be deleted?

[papaya]

Someone else gets caught in the BLP glare and objects:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Muirhead

He was a minor (but widely recognized) Beeb voice who went on to a disastrous and short TV career in the Channel Islands, and now runs a men's clothing establishment. Of course, since he made a minor fuss at the time of his departure from the media, he's "notable" and cannot get his bio to go away.

[Count DeMonet]

Of course, since he made a minor fuss at the time of his departure from the media, he's "notable" and cannot get his bio to go away.

Maybe he should try bunging Jimbo a few quid?


(or shagging him!)

[Kato]

I mean, for me the ultimate goal has always been deletion of the article named after the subject on request of the subject, no questions asked.

Where do you stop, though? Can George W. Bush ask for his article to be deleted?

Jesus Christ.

How often do we have to keep listening to this?

WIKIPEDIA CHANGE NUMBER ONE WHICH SHOULD BE ENACTED IMMEDIATELY : IF A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A BIOGRAPHY IN PRINT EXPRESSES THE WISH TO HAVE THEIR BIOGRAPHY REMOVED, THEIR WISH SHOULD BE GRANTED.

WP:OPT OUT/ WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES

That doesn't include George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Charlie Freakin' Manson. OK?

[Random832]

I mean, for me the ultimate goal has always been deletion of the article named after the subject on request of the subject, no questions asked.

Where do you stop, though? Can George W. Bush ask for his article to be deleted?

Jesus Christ.

How often do we have to keep listening to this?

WIKIPEDIA CHANGE NUMBER ONE WHICH SHOULD BE ENACTED IMMEDIATELY : IF A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A BIOGRAPHY IN PRINT EXPRESSES THE WISH TO HAVE THEIR BIOGRAPHY REMOVED, THEIR WISH SHOULD BE GRANTED.

WP:OPT OUT/ WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES

That doesn't include George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Charlie Freakin' Manson. OK?

That, umm... isn't what Somey said just now. Maybe it's what he meant, but I didn't know the history, I only knew what he actually said just now in this thread that was right here in front of me at the time I replied. Which said nothing about it not applying to people who have been the subject of a biography in print. He in fact said "no questions asked" - which implies that "well, what about all those biographies / encyclopedia articles / etc in print?" is one of the questions that ought not be asked.

I asked "where do you stop?". you answered it. Somey's post, which I was replying to, did not contain an answer to that, it contained "no questions asked". There's no need to scream.

I actually agree, I think, with your proposed rule. It seems a lot like Durova's proposed rule, actually. But it is not the same as a "no questions asked" rule. Just because YOUR rule doesn't allow "Charlie Freakin' Manson" to have his biography pulled doesn't mean that _all_ proposed BLP opt-out rules don't allow it, and as far as I can tell from his actual words unless there is further clarification, Somey's rule does allow it.

This post has been edited by Random832: Thu 13th March 2008, 6:15pm

[Kato]

WIKIPEDIA CHANGE NUMBER TWO WHICH SHOULD BE ENACTED IMMEDIATELY : LOCK ALL BIOGRAPHIES FROM IP EDITS. JIMBO ALREADY HAS THAT PRIVILEGE ON HIS BIO AND HAS DONE FOR YEARS. EXTEND IT.

[Milton Roe]

anything else, without the subject's explicit permission, is essentially immoral because it involves invasion of privacy, harassment without provocation,

Are you sure about that? Just writing an article, based on articles already in print, is "harrassment" and "invasion of privacy"? I'd love to see that case come to court.


What I mean is, in principle, having an article about someone who already has articles written about them is ok. It's if it's done in an unreasonable way and with personal vendettas within the system that aren't "supposed" to exist that it's not.

Sigh. Your qualification of "as long as not done in unreasonable way with vendettas within the system" pretty much nullifies your argument. How in the world are you going to enforce THAT, against such temptations, both pro and con? We've SEEN those now for 4 years-- how many more examples is it going to take? Are you going to have to have sex with some high-WMF to get a lotion-job on your bio? (Hey, that metaphor works). How much palm-greasing is it going to take to make sure that the giant cyborg that is wikipedia is lubricated sufficiently to treat your own bio in a thoroughly "neutral" way (whatever that is). That metaphor is only slightly worse. This whole thing is completely untenable, and should be, MUST be, abandoned.

Every encyclopedia article, BLPs not excepted, is an original synthesis. That should be apparent, res ipsa loquitur, but because the idea violates WP:NOR, the people who run WP simple refuse to recognize it as a fact. Faith is not the ability to move mountains: faith is the ability to not see it, when mountains move. To keep your eyes shut. To keep your fingers in your ears. The fact that BLPs are original syntheses means that they are nasty and dangerous things, even IF all the information in them is potentially reachable separatly, in bits, by GOOGLE (which it often is not-- there's stuff in most BLPs which is very hard or expensive to find otherwise, and begins to look like somebody paid for a background check. And then you have to figure out WHY somebody did that. And then somebody has to pay to keep result of the background check off being the first entry in GOOGLE. This is EVIL.).

And why hasn't it been taken to court? For the same reason that all those redevelopment housing "condemnation" cases in the US weren't all immediately taken to court, and reversed. It doesn't happen because the judge personally doesn't have a Bio on Wikipedia, nor the members of the average jury, either. So they don't give a shit. It's the old human problem of lack of empathy, due to lack of imagination. See "stupidity". Except this is "effective stupidity" brought about by ignorance and sloth. How many kids were killed by drunk drivers before MADD finally got the laws toughened? This is a LONG process. Wikipedia is in the Wild West days of drunk driving here, circa 1960. Why hasn't something already been done about it? Because even justice takes time to obtain, if somebody has vested interests in the opposite.

Do you know how long human slavery went on before the Western world outlawed it? Burning at the stake? Forced sterilization? Apartheid laws based on race? The list is endless. Wikipedia's abuses are minor dramas compared to what has gone before and is still occuring. They will eventually be fixed, due to the fact that what goes around, eventually comes around (as I've said). But it will long, and slow, and painful for everybody.

Say, have I mentioned the US medical insurance crisis? How come that hasn't been fixed? Where are the courts of law? Could the basic problem be that not every voter in the US needs a doctor very badly RIGHT NOW? Duh. Maybe. Juuuust maybe.


Milt

[Random832]

WIKIPEDIA CHANGE NUMBER TWO WHICH SHOULD BE ENACTED IMMEDIATELY : LOCK ALL BIOGRAPHIES FROM IP EDITS. JIMBO ALREADY HAS THAT PRIVILEGE ON HIS BIO AND HAS DONE FOR YEARS. EXTEND IT.

I'm not sure how that would be helpful; IP edits are more traceable than edits under a username. Brandt found the guy who edited the Siegenthaler article because he was an IP; he wouldn't have been able to if it had been a throwaway username. Requiring real-name accountability for editing BLPs would be a more meaningful step (but is never going to happen)

This post has been edited by Random832: Thu 13th March 2008, 6:54pm

[Jonny Cache]

I think the principle that sensible people are trying to articulate here is something like this:

Wikipedians constantly insist that Wikipedia is a Non-Publication. Wikipedians, when pressed, standardly confess that Wikipedia is Non-Authoritative.

Being, by the admission of its own promoters, a Non-Authoritative Non-Publication, something that sensible people would call the Moral Equivalent of the Irresponsible Press (IP), Wikipediots, if they know what's good for them, had better be certain that everything they publish, er, e-mit to the Internet, especially everything they appear to assert about Living People, is either clearly marked in the customary ways as Chatter, Fiction, Hot Air, Opinion, Parody, or Speculation, or else have its Buck Authorized by sources that do in fact take Responsibility for what they Publish.

Wikipediots, if they know what's good for them, will do this, not so much because they can easily be sued, but because doing otherwise will e-ventually e-rode the freedom that all of us e-joy of e-mitting Chatter, Fiction, Hot Air, Opinion, Parody, and Speculation.

That Is All …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th March 2008, 7:24pm

[Joseph100]

I think the principle that sensible people are trying to articulate here is something like this:

Wikipedians constantly insist that Wikipedia is a Non-Publication. Wikipedians, when pressed, standardly confess that Wikipedia is Non-Authoritative.

Being, by the admission of its own promoters, a Non-Authoritative Non-Publication, something that sensible people would call the Moral Equivalent of the Irresponsible Press (IP), Wikipediots, if they know what's good for them, had better be certain that everything they publish, er, e-mit to the Internet, especially everything they appear to assert about Living People, is either clearly marked in the customary ways as Chatter, Fiction, Hot Air, Opinion, Parody, or Speculation, or else have its Buck Authorized by sources that do in fact take Responsibility for what they Publish.

Wikipediots, if they know what's good for them, will do this, not so much because they can easily be sued, but because doing otherwise will e-ventually e-rode the freedom that all of us e-joy of e-mitting Chatter, Fiction, Hot Air, Opinion, Parody, and Speculation.

That Is All …

Jonny

Lets make it very simple.... DO you want to have some 15 year old, redbull fueled, punk, above the law and untouchable, to edit or administrate your biography???

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Thu 13th March 2008, 7:43pm

[Milton Roe]

Lets make it very simple.... DO you want to have some 15 year old, redbull fueled, punk, above the law and untouchable, to edit or administrate your biography???

It really is that simple. But the people who run Wikipedia think it's not, and never will be, their problem, because either they don't have bios now and don't expect to have them ever (they're even anonymous as administrators), or else, if they have them, they have enough power to control their content in ways that the average person does not, ala Jimbo. So they don't care.

I am most impressed, as I've said, by the amount of sheer pain that Jimbo is willing to take, rather than to admit that his basic Torah-like commandments, as interpretted Talmudically by a bunch of (quite often Jewish) admins, is not the total answer to how this project can run seamlesslessly and well, as a way of life. WP is well on the way to being halachic (we don't quite yet have 619 guidelines, but we're getting there), and yet it's still not working. But JMWH, the sky-god of Wikipedia, is a jealous god, and has a Whim of Iron.

This sort of reminds me of Albert Einstein, who, rather than give up Maxwell's equations as the word of "God", decided that the very nature of time and space had to be screwed with, ala Lorentz. But really, really screwed with, and no kidding. Shoot on sight. And he was RIGHT.

So I have to ask: is this, like, a Jewish thing?? Whether good or bad, is there some unwillingess to put up with ambiguity, in this culture? Which can result in an Einstein, or a Jimbo, or a Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud, or some new branch of Hasidim, or whatever? I know that the Jews have no monopoly on fundamentalist thinking ™ from given premises, but on the other hand, when they do it, they seem to be so good at it, ala Spinoza.

-- Milt

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Thu 13th March 2008, 8:06pm

[Jonny Cache]

Yes, Uncle Berlinger, Wikipedia Is Chicken Soup 4 Da Sole Flounder …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th March 2008, 8:05pm

[Milton Roe]

Yes, Uncle Berlinger, Wikipedia Is Chicken Soup 4 Da Sole Flounder …

Jonny

Thanks a lot. Well, the parallel with Randroid Objectivism has already been made. Gak, is all I can say. "AND I MEAN IT!"

[Jonny Cache]

But Serially, Φolks,
∃'s a Huge Φreakin Δ between ∃instein's Relativism and Ayn ®and's OneStone Fits ∀ MonoLilithIsm.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th March 2008, 8:20pm

[guy]

So I have to ask: is this, like, a Jewish thing?? Whether good or bad, is there some unwillingess to put up with ambiguity, in this culture? Which can result in an Einstein, or a Jimbo, or a Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or Sigmund Freud, or some new branch of Hasidim, or whatever?

Jimbo's Jewish? Oh, this is proof that Wikipedia was actually devised by Larry Sanger who is undoubtedly Jewish.