The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

8 Pages V « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> VOTE YES ON DELETION- Early and Often, Don Murphy Article Deletion
JohnA
post Wed 19th March 2008, 8:43am
Post #81


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



***AN EXTREMELY OBVIOUS POSTING***

The problem with Wikipedia and BLPs is, simply stated, that no one person stands up and is legally, morally or ethically responsible for the historicity, the tone, the content, the spelling, in short the integrity of the biography before the Law.

So whether WP finally becomes part of a profit-making enterprise or is hosted by Franciscan monks who have taken a lifelong vow of poverty, the problem with BLPs remains until somebody somewhere becomes responsible for the biographies of living persons working with the subjects themselves as well as with legal counsel and can prevent vandalism being added to the biography BEFORE the biography is published, indexed and scraped on the Internet.

Anything else is deckchair rearranging on the Titanic.

***THAT WAS AN EXTREMELY OBVIOUS POSTING***
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kurt M. Weber
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 5:52am
Post #82


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun 21st May 2006, 10:44pm
Member No.: 199

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(ColScott @ Mon 17th March 2008, 10:44pm) *

The Merits are simple

Outside of Hollywood ask 10,000 people who I am

NO ONE WILL KNOW.




Irrelevant.

You exist. Therefore, you are a worthy subject for inclusion.

The deletionist vandals will claim otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic.

If you don't want an article on you, well, tough shit.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UseOnceAndDestroy
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 11:59am
Post #83


Über Member
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri 7th Dec 2007, 3:43pm
Member No.: 4,073



QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 5:52am) *
Irrelevant.
You exist. Therefore, you are a worthy subject for inclusion.

The deletionist vandals will claim otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic.

If you don't want an article on you, well, tough shit.

There's that warm-glow of self importance again.

Out here in the real world, of course, we know there are no "deletionists" or "inclusionists" - just people who can put pressure on wikia/wikipedia until it caves in and respects others.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Unrepentant Vandal
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 5:10pm
Post #84


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 6th Sep 2006, 12:38pm
Member No.: 394



QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 5:52am) *

QUOTE(ColScott @ Mon 17th March 2008, 10:44pm) *

The Merits are simple

Outside of Hollywood ask 10,000 people who I am

NO ONE WILL KNOW.




Irrelevant.

You exist. Therefore, you are a worthy subject for inclusion.

The deletionist vandals will claim otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic.

If you don't want an article on you, well, tough shit.


Well, sure you have a right to come up with a website with those kind of rules, but that doesn't make it right and there's little reason why Wikipedia should adopt such bat shit insane policies.

But the more it does, the more it gives me the moral high ground when I disrupt it. So I'm alright jack.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 6:14pm
Post #85


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953




QUOTE(ColScott @ Mon 17th March 2008, 10:44pm) *

The Merits are simple

Outside of Hollywood ask 10,000 people who I am

NO ONE WILL KNOW.




Maybe some won't- (except transformers or other film fans), but you've done and produced something well known, and you've been mentioned in numerous articles. That's what counts as far as notability is concerned. Hence "I've never heard of him" is not a viable argument in a deletion debate. Every individual has numerous things they've never heard of, that are well known in some circles and have been in reputable papers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 6:24pm
Post #86


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Fri 21st March 2008, 10:52pm) *

QUOTE(ColScott @ Mon 17th March 2008, 10:44pm) *

The Merits are simple

Outside of Hollywood ask 10,000 people who I am

NO ONE WILL KNOW.




Irrelevant.

You exist. Therefore, you are a worthy subject for inclusion.

The deletionist vandals will claim otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic.

If you don't want an article on you, well, tough shit.


\When Wikipedia gets rid of all vandals on BLPs and provides someone who is legally responsible for them, you can argue that. Until then, it is utterly absurd to say that by my existence, anonymous vandals have a right to defame me on Wikipedia if they so choose.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 6:35pm
Post #87


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



any bollox just gets removed by OTRS, if you communicate with them. It's not still in the article as it stands, is it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 6:40pm
Post #88


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 11:35am) *

any bollox just gets removed by OTRS, if you communicate with them. It's not still in the article as it stands, is it.


That bad information can be removed when the subject notices is a very small comfort. Look at what happened to Seigenthaler.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 6:47pm
Post #89


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



admin or a lot of editors would remove any of that- loads of people are watching that article now.

Obviously it's a big site and not all of it can be watched systematically, as these are volunteers. There are quite a few bots for obvious vandalism- which unfortunately aren't that good.

But in a well-watched article like that, I doubt any probs would stand for long.

I have removed BLP issues myself on some articles I've happened to look at.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 6:55pm
Post #90


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



They are watching the article now, because Mr. Murphy has been so adamant about it. People should not have to complain to Wikipedia in order to protect themselves from defamation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 7:00pm
Post #91


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



As I said- I've revered BLP on Liza Minelli, Megan Meiers, probably others, without any prompting from anyone else.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert Roberts
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 7:10pm
Post #92


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon 29th Jan 2007, 10:23am
Member No.: 890



I know of one article that has had a sly reference to a living figure winning an award for being a champion pedophile for at least six weeks, I keep checking and it's still there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 7:14pm
Post #93


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 12:00pm) *

As I said- I've revered BLP on Liza Minelli, Megan Meiers, probably others, without any prompting from anyone else.


I'm happy that you're doing your part. But can you cover all of Wikipedia's BLPs?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:17pm
Post #94


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



No- precisely- but it's a volunteer site. Like any other site, can only remove any libelous or inappropriate content when they are made aware of or see it. That is all that most sites, not just WP, have in their terms and conditions. Because no admins or mods can be monitoring their site every second- there'll always be some time delay before they find inappropriate content.

Do you thing WP should have some paid admins/mods, who have to systematically check articles? I think there would have to be a fair few to cover the millions of articles. Anyway, there would be a small time delay.

Robert R- PM me the link to the person's article which has a paedo accusation if you really want it removed, and (assuming it isn't sourced smile.gif ), I'll remove it.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:26pm
Post #95


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:17pm) *

Robert R- PM me the link to the person's article which has a paedo accusation if you really want it removed, and (assuming it isn't sourced smile.gif ), I'll remove it.

Seeing as it's been up for weeks, and Robert must be familiar with how a wiki works, I think it's a kind of experiment. Actually, I was happy that it's not easily google-able from Robert's description (doesn't use the term "champion pedophile.") I'm curious about how shitty Wikipedia is myself in this enlightened post-Seigenthaler era.

As for your reasonable delay point: it is true that people could add defamatory information, say, in the comments to blogs. However, Wikipedia is unique for giving the whole world a chalkboard that shows up on the top of almost every google search. Requiring that editors look at the damn thing is a modest suggestion.

This post has been edited by One: Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:27pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 9:10pm
Post #96


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



Of course false information can be removed, and I do it fairly often. But it can still be up there for some time (I believe there was some in the Seigenthaler article for weeks even after all the fuss). Also, some of this is quite subtle. I have no way of knowing whether everything is correct or what might be embarrassing to the subject if it is false.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 10:54pm
Post #97


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 5:52am) *

You exist. Therefore, you are a worthy subject for inclusion.

The deletionist vandals will claim otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic.

If you don't want an article on you, well, tough shit.

So here we have a brave new world where "anything that exists" - including, for example, Kurt M. Weber's sex life, presuming it exists - "is a legitimate article topic."…don't want one? Well, tough shit.

On the more cheerful side, I can write an article about my pet parakeet: he exists. How about the space three inches south of the northwest corner of my house, near the ceiling? It exists.

Reliable sources? No trouble. We can use people's own self-published material, I mean, for non-controversial about themselves, right? Or something only they would know. If you have a website, well, you're a public figure! So all I have to do is start a website on behalf of that parakeet, on behalf of that space. Website = "notable," right?

Of course, then, it's probably self-promotion. But if someone hostile to these things that exist wrote it…problem solved.

Stepping of reductio ad absurdum mode, the proposal that "anyone and anything that exists, is a legitimate article topic," is insane. Batshit insane. A panopticon, and dangerous.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 23rd March 2008, 7:38am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 11:20pm
Post #98


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



Anything that exists should have a Wikipedia article? That would take away the designation of "encyclopedia," wouldn't it?

And don't even get me started on whether we or anything really exists or not. Descartes is not just something you carry your groceries in, you know.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert Roberts
post Sat 22nd March 2008, 11:28pm
Post #99


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon 29th Jan 2007, 10:23am
Member No.: 890



QUOTE(One @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 8:17pm) *

Robert R- PM me the link to the person's article which has a paedo accusation if you really want it removed, and (assuming it isn't sourced smile.gif ), I'll remove it.

Seeing as it's been up for weeks, and Robert must be familiar with how a wiki works, I think it's a kind of experiment. Actually, I was happy that it's not easily google-able from Robert's description (doesn't use the term "champion pedophile.") I'm curious about how shitty Wikipedia is myself in this enlightened post-Seigenthaler era.



I'll let people know what it was once someone has found it and got around to removing it (note: I didn't add it to the article) - I'm interested to see how long it takes for a regular to find it as part of their normal routine.

This post has been edited by Robert Roberts: Sat 22nd March 2008, 11:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Sun 23rd March 2008, 12:13am
Post #100


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Sat 22nd March 2008, 1:17pm) *

No- precisely- but it's a volunteer site. Like any other site, can only remove any libelous or inappropriate content when they are made aware of or see it. That is all that most sites, not just WP, have in their terms and conditions. Because no admins or mods can be monitoring their site every second- there'll always be some time delay before they find inappropriate content.

Do you thing WP should have some paid admins/mods, who have to systematically check articles? I think there would have to be a fair few to cover the millions of articles. Anyway, there would be a small time delay.


The thing is, most sites with user-contributed content are forums like this. They don't present random people's statements as encyclopedia articles. These sites say "this is a forum, on which users say things; they may or may not be accurate".

Wikipedia bills its articles as an encyclopedia, and that should not be done without someone who has said "yes, this information is accurate". Nor without someone who is responsible when the information is innaccurate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 11 14, 8:22pm