Doc Glasgow's BLP solution, 15 words or less Options Rating

[Kato]

This is taken from another thread...

Pitch your BLP solution DocG.

15 words or less....

In the case of BLPs, change the AfD default to delete. We only keep bios if there's a positive consensus we need to.

Swift, easy, and all the marginally notable stuff will die.

The full solution is a bit more nuanced - see here

Here is Doc Glasgow's solution in more detail :

Doc Glasgow's BLP solution

A solution that does not (necessarily) involve the subject asking, and does not need us to define "marginal notability" - I'd like a way where it is easier to be rid of troublesome BLPs, but the community alone gets to decide on a case by case basis, what to keep and what to remove. Here's my idea:

Change the deletion criteria for AfD to read:

In the case of biographies of living people, where a number of editors have expressed the opinion either

a ) that the biography could cause distress to the subject, or
B ) that the biography will be particularly difficult to maintain in a fair and accurate state - due to the poor available sourcing or it being of such low interest that few but biased editors will be willing to maintain it,

In such cases, the closing administrator shall close the debate as keep only where there is a consensus that Wikipedia should retain the article. In all other cases the default shall be to delete the article, or to relist where participation has been low.

The advantages are

1. We get rid of troublesome BLPs
2. We don't need to involve the subject at all, or consider their views
3. We don't end up with the nonsense of having bios of four members of a gang, but none for the the fifth, cos he didn't like the idea.
4. We don't need any new process or policy, we just use afd
5. We don't have to define "marginal notability" or "private person" - afd can decide each on its merits
6. No power is given to individual admins or OTRS people - everything gets an open community debate
7. We don't end up deleting an article because it falls foul of some arbitrary definition - we consider everything on a case-by-case basis. If you can convince people that this BLP is needed, we keep it.
8. Daniel Bradts, Allison Stokke, Brian Peppers, Angela Beesly articles probably die on the first afd, and don't become community footballs. Even an AfD on Don Murphy is likely to give us a clear answer - although it may be "keep".

[Doc glasgow]

Wow, a whole WR thread about me. Fame!

Can I suggest to anyone who's seeing this for the first time, that they might like to read my essay at User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem first. It has it's faults, but it will save rehashing some of the background here.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Sat 19th April 2008, 1:43pm

[Kato]

Wow, a whole WR thread about me. Fame!

Whaddya mean? There's a whole editorial devoted to this issue and your study!

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080415/t...people-problem/

and a blog post by Lar

http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2...blp-policy.html

[No one of consequence]

This is taken from another thread...

Pitch your BLP solution DocG.

15 words or less....

In the case of BLPs, change the AfD default to delete. We only keep bios if there's a positive consensus we need to.

Swift, easy, and all the marginally notable stuff will die.

The full solution is a bit more nuanced - see here

Changing the assumption at AfD from "keep unless consensus to delete" to "delete unless consensus to keep" (in other words, "no conensus" defaults to delete) seems like a very good idea. It may not go far enough, but it is worth trying. It takes very few fans of the latest dead white girl to say "notable, has sources" (meaning, of course, news stories about the murder and not actually biographical information) to generate a "no consensus" verdict but considerably more support to actually generate a keep consensus.

Definitely worth trying.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cache-22, of course, is this:

Does DG mean WP:"Consensus" or Normal People "Consensus"?

The first, of course, is meaningless.

Well, except in practice, it means something like "2 or 3 Wikipedia Admins organize a lynch mob involving 5 or 6 other editors, the gang of which meets in the middle of the night (EDT) and expresses their intent to carry out a particular action, making sure to intimidate all potential dissentors with banishment for even thinking of opposing their will".

Next plan please …

Jon

[Moulton]

Two or three Wikipedia Admins organize a lynch mob involving five or six other editors, the gang of which meets in the middle of the night (EDT) and expresses their intent to carry out a particular action, making sure to intimidate all potential dissenters with banishment for even thinking of opposing their will.

That's pretty much how it operated in the case of my own delightful fun-ride on the Spammish Inquisition.

That's the dysfunctional systemic infrastructure that needs to be dismantled and discarded before any progress can be made, along the lines that 'R Physicist' had the temerity to dream of.

[Daniel Brandt]

The Doc_glasgow solution and the Durova dead-tree standard should be applied simultaneously. They complement one another. It would mean that if someone wants out of their Wikipedia bio but are also in some paper encyclopedia or who's who, then it goes to AfD where Doc's solution is implemented.

Without an opt-out option by the subject in the vast majority of cases, the BLP problem will be only marginally improved. That's because Wikipedia is an anarchy, and "consensus" can change from one day to the next depending on who shows up for the party on a particular day. There are no definitions of a quorum, of who's qualified to vote, whether canvassing or campaigning is allowed, of how long one must wait until the AfD can be brought up again, etc.

I'll stick with the dead-tree standard, and I encourage Doc to set up my proposed six-month dead-tree walk-out petition page, and be the first to sign it.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is an anarchy

It's an oligarchy.

[Kato]

The Doc_glasgow solution and the Durova dead-tree standard should be applied simultaneously. They complement one another. It would mean that if someone wants out of their Wikipedia bio but are also in some paper encyclopedia or who's who, then it goes to AfD where Doc's solution is implemented.

Without an opt-out option by the subject in the vast majority of cases, the BLP problem will be only marginally improved. That's because Wikipedia is an anarchy, and "consensus" can change from one day to the next depending on who shows up for the party on a particular day. There are no definitions of a quorum, of who's qualified to vote, whether canvassing or campaigning is allowed, of how long one must wait until the AfD can be brought up again, etc.

I'll stick with the dead-tree standard, and I encourage Doc to set up my proposed six-month dead-tree walk-out petition page, and be the first to sign it.

Wikipedia biographies need all three of these proposals to become policy in unison :

1. Semi-Protection of All BLPs (these flagged revisions show no sign of even being debated yet)
2. WP:OPT-OUT / WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES / WP:DEAD TREE SOURCES Subject can opt-out if not covered by dead tree biographies.
3. Doc Glasgow's deletion debate policy Default deletion for biographical subjects where no consensus to keep has been formed.

[Doc glasgow]

I encourage Doc to set up my proposed six-month dead-tree walk-out petition page, and be the first to sign it.

Which I would happily do, if the strategy wasn't entirely counter-productive.

Since I am not really interested in editing wikipedia if it can't sort the ethical issue - I will probably have given up if there isn't major change within six months, and I'm happy to support the "dead tree" standard, and to do so publicly. It does not go far enough for me, and isn't proactive enough, but whatever.

However, any wikipedian who signed such a pledge would be a lame duck in terms of assisting in the goals here. The community's response to drama queens who threaten to leave unless they get their way is generally "well, goodbye then." Threatening the community - especially with pretty ineffective threats - just makes the bloody-minded resistance worse. And the fact that anyone signing it was seen as giving in order to get themselves off hivemind would just discredit them further.

Explain to me how such a move would help effect a BLP policy change?

[Kato]

Explain to me how such a move would help effect a BLP policy change?

It's a Publicity Stunt.

In a dramacracy such as Wikipedia, such publicity stunts are often the only the way to get things done.

People will be interested, and will start watching the thing more closely. Tension builds. Posters update with the latest details of the pledge. Dramas break out and so on.

It keeps the clock ticking and the engine running. All the time, people are working out this issue for themselves.

Listen, Wikipedia isn't a place where rational discussion can lead to a consensus towards implementing change. It isn't a professional outfit. It isn't the serious world. It isn't even this site, where even we have rational discussions and make positive decisions accordingly. No. At Wikipedia, Drama Rules.

So to contrive some kind of dramatic ultimatum at the dramacracy makes perfect sense.

When in Rome...

[Jon Awbrey]

But when the wine had stolen about the wits of the Cyclops, then I spoke to him with gentle words:

"Cyclops, thou askest me of my glorious name, and I will tell it thee; and do thou give me a stranger's gift, even as thou didst promise. Noman is my name, Noman do they call me — my mother and my father, and all my comrades as well."

Homer, The Odyssey, 9.362–367, A.T. Murray (trans.), Loeb Classical Library.

Wikipedia is an anarchy

It's an oligarchy.

No, Man, Nemocrasy.

Jon

[thekohser]

It's a Publicity Stunt.

In a dramacracy such as Wikipedia, such publicity stunts are often the only the way to get things done.

Case in point was the Wikia "Spanking Art" site. A couple of us complained about the content and the framing on that site, on site. We were laughed out of the forum.

Slap together a shocking Powerpoint presentation, with the names and logos of the site's advertisers prominently displayed, and threaten to make it a viral e-mail to parents across the United States...

The Wikia management complained that we had gone about it "the wrong way", but guess what -- that offensive site was off Wikia's servers in the next 48 hours.

Publicity stunts are about the ONLY thing Wikipediots will react to.

Good thing we have another doozy of a high-profile stunt up our sleeves.

Greg

[JohnA]

But its not a thread devoted to Doc Glasgow - merely to his proposals for BLP reform.

So fucking well get over yourself, Doc.