Strip Search Prank Call Scam, Yup, there's an article on this stuff... Options

[the fieryangel]

At least they got rid of the picture. This article is a disaster waiting to happen.

Would Britannica have an article on this?

[Milton Roe]

At least they got rid of the picture. This article is a disaster waiting to happen.

Would Britannica have an article on this?

Well, at least there's nothing about people being ordered by an ostensible goverment phone-call to strip search themselves.

"Fine, ma'm. Now that the underwear is off, what color is it?"

There are many Engvall signs waiting to be passed out on this one.

[the fieryangel]

At least they got rid of the picture. This article is a disaster waiting to happen.

Would Britannica have an article on this?

Well, at least there's nothing about people being ordered by an ostensible goverment phone-call to strip search themselves.

"Fine, ma'm. Now that the underwear is off, what color is it?"

There are many Engvall signs waiting to be passed out on this one.

If people at WP had any smarts, they'd monitor 4chan and ED to find things to semi-protect, like this article.

I don't know if everybody really understands that there was a link to an actual film of the Kentucky incident on the article. It was there for several days. Yet another problem that "flagged revisions for BLPs" wouldn't fix, because they wouldn't think to flag things like this.

[CharlotteWebb]

I don't know if everybody really understands that there was a link to an actual film of the Kentucky incident on the article. It was there for several days. Yet another problem that "flagged revisions for BLPs" wouldn't fix, because they wouldn't think to flag things like this.

Actually it wouldn't work because people wouldn't think to override the default state of "flaggedrevs disabled" on this article (in a two-tier system where this is initially machine-recognized as an unimportant "non-BLP" article).

How much you want to bet I'd be reverted or blocked for removing the names.

[the fieryangel]

How much you want to bet I'd be reverted or blocked for removing the names.

Probably very likely.

The thing is: if you wrote an article about any of the principles in this incident, it would probably get deleted. However, you can still include all of this damaging information to Wikipedia when you frame it in terms of one, isolated incident. The BLP harm is just as great, and yet this is somehow more "acceptable".

[CharlotteWebb]

How much you want to bet I'd be reverted or blocked for removing the names.

Probably very likely.

The thing is: if you wrote an article about any of the principles in this incident, it would probably get deleted. However, you can still include all of this damaging information to Wikipedia when you frame it in terms of one, isolated incident. The BLP harm is just as great, and yet this is somehow more "acceptable".

Yes, you have summarized Cool_Hand_Luke's Google-juice argument precisely. In fact good luck getting the WR mods to move this to the BLP sub-forum.

I'm working on the article right now, so don't edit-conflict me. This is just taking forever because the clueless but innocent victim is referred to as "Ogborn" at every mention, while the fucking sick twisted fuck calling from the fucking payphone, Mr. David R. Stewart is generally referred to as "the caller".

What flavor is this juice anyway...

[One]

How much you want to bet I'd be reverted or blocked for removing the names.

Probably very likely.

The thing is: if you wrote an article about any of the principles in this incident, it would probably get deleted. However, you can still include all of this damaging information to Wikipedia when you frame it in terms of one, isolated incident. The BLP harm is just as great, and yet this is somehow more "acceptable".

Yes, you have summarized Cool_Hand_Luke's Google-juice argument precisely. In fact good luck getting the WR mods to move this to the BLP sub-forum.

I'm working on the article right now, so don't edit-conflict me. This is just taking forever because the clueless but innocent victim is referred to as "Ogborn" at every mention, while the fucking sick twisted fuck calling from the fucking payphone, Mr. David R. Stewart is generally referred to as "the caller".

What flavor is this juice anyway...

I see you took it upon yourself to use the name "Stewart" repeatedly instead, although he was acquitted. The fieryangel was right: this article is a libel magnet. I didn't think it would be coming from Wikipedia Review though.

Clue: if reliable published sources don't call him "Stewart," you have no right to exact wikivengeance against him. Let me know when you're done so I can fix it.

This post has been edited by One: Sun 15th March 2009, 1:03am

[CharlotteWebb]

Clue: if reliable published sources don't call him "Stewart," you have no right to exact wikivengeance against him. Let me know when you're done so I can fix it.

With what, a rollback? Go right ahead. I fucking dare you.

[One]

Clue: if reliable published sources don't call him "Stewart," you have no right to exact wikivengeance against him. Let me know when you're done so I can fix it.

With what, a rollback? Go right ahead. I fucking dare you.

No, by following the reliable sources and replacing the name with "the caller." What's your issue?

Done. A piss-poor performance, but a good demonstration of how easy it is for even well-intentioned users to violate BLP. Wikipedia ought not be a place where pseudonymous editors can exact google revenge against "fucking sick twisted fucks."

This post has been edited by One: Sun 15th March 2009, 1:19am

[CharlotteWebb]

No, by following the reliable sources and replacing the name with "the caller." What's your issue?

Done. A piss-poor performance, but a good demonstration of how easy it is for even well-intentioned users to violate BLP. Wikipedia ought not be a place where pseudonymous editors can exact google revenge against "fucking sick twisted fucks."

If you are implying that repeating the victim's name 55 times was okay, or that there was no BLP problem prior to my involvement, you can go to hell as I have nothing more to say to you.

I'd rather you assure me you just get some kick out of playing devil's advocate. Maybe I'd feel less repulsed right now.

[Noroton]

The girl's name had to be taken out for simple humanitarian reasons, and the other guy had to be removed, too. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying someone committed alleged acts after that person has been acquitted of them, if only to protect WP from a libel suit. Both Charlotte and One improved the article.

I'm a bit perplexed about Donna S----, the assistant manager, who is in the odd position of having been both a victim and one of the accused. She complied with what the caller told her to do, apparently in good faith. She was charged, but a judge initially threw out the charges; then her criminal case closed with a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine (in which she only admitted that the state had enough evidence to result in a likely conviction), and she was given probation. With an Alford plea, the common practice for news organizations (and I guess Wikipedia) is to consider the person guilty. In this case, she's won $1.2 million in damages from McDonalds in a civil suit, although McD's is appealing. It's not atrocious that she's named in the article, and maybe not actually wrong -- but I never would have typed her name into it unless I saw something in her conduct that pointed to malice.

[CharlotteWebb]

... and the other guy had to be removed, too.

You mean the "27-year-old man" Jason B———, no? Yeah, this guy didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't do anything right either.
I also reduced the amount of lurid detail. Any perverts who want to know every last thing that went on can go watch the fucking video.

[Noroton]

... and the other guy had to be removed, too.

You mean the "27-year-old man" Jason B———, no? Yeah, this guy didn't do anything wrong, but he didn't do anything right either.
I also reduced the amount of lurid detail. Any perverts who want to know every last thing that went on can go watch the fucking video.

No, I meant Stewart, the guy accused of making the calls. We can't say Stewart did the things he was accused of doing because of libel law. In practical terms, OTRS would go to the article after a complaint and just take it out to avoid legal liability. So we have to say "the caller" said/did those things. Nothing prevents us from mentioning that he was accused and arrested (as long as we add that he was acquitted at trial), or from saying that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding him (it's been reported that phone cards he bought were used to make the calls). And it's been reported that the calls stopped or almost entirely stopped after his arrest. I think all that information is helpful to the reader, and that outweighs any humanitarian concerns I have about continuing to publicize his name. Actually, given the circumstances, I have zero sympathy for him. But I wouldn't edit the article without knowing more about the case. The information you and One removed didn't require knowing much about the case -- it was just obviously wrong for those names to be in there the way they were.

[One]

No, I meant Stewart, the guy accused of making the calls. We can't say Stewart did the things he was accused of doing because of libel law. In practical terms, OTRS would go to the article after a complaint and just take it out to avoid legal liability. So we have to say "the caller" said/did those things. Nothing prevents us from mentioning that he was accused and arrested (as long as we add that he was acquitted at trial), or from saying that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding him (it's been reported that phone cards he bought were used to make the calls).

This is all spot-on. People sometimes escape justice, but Wikipedia must take the roll of reporter, not judge.

[the fieryangel]

No, I meant Stewart, the guy accused of making the calls. We can't say Stewart did the things he was accused of doing because of libel law. In practical terms, OTRS would go to the article after a complaint and just take it out to avoid legal liability. So we have to say "the caller" said/did those things. Nothing prevents us from mentioning that he was accused and arrested (as long as we add that he was acquitted at trial), or from saying that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding him (it's been reported that phone cards he bought were used to make the calls).

This is all spot-on. People sometimes escape justice, but Wikipedia must take the roll of reporter, not judge.

I agree with this sentiment (indeed, with all of the sentiments in these wonderful, thoughtful responses), but I am becoming interested in the underlying process here. It seems that the interest of having the article in the first place seems to be in judging the intent behind the actions of the subjects in the article. So we have "she was really stupid to have fallen for this: serves her right that she got in the article" or "he seems suspicious, so it's okay to use his name".

I'm going to warn all of you that intent is the subject of my next Akahele post and this is sort of a control experiment. (I promise not to use anything other than generalities in my discussion of this, however).

However, leaving the legalities aside, would you all agree that the power to pass judgment over the subjects of such an incident via the medium of Wikipedia significantly adds to the interest of the activity of editing? And the fact that these judgments can and often do affect their real lives is part of the attraction here?

[Eva Destruction]

However, leaving the legalities aside, would you all agree that the power to pass judgment over the subjects of such an incident via the medium of Wikipedia significantly add to the interest of the activity of editing? And the fact that these judgments can and often do affect their real lives is part of the attraction here?

Depends who you're talking about. I know this is one of my pet themes, but WR understandably tends to only notice the problem cases, whereas most editors couldn't affect real lives if they tried. Taking me as the example I know best – as 95% of my article work is on early rail electrification schemes or the architecture of the Moselle valley, the only "real life" I could conceivably affect would be a slight impact on book sales (either positive, if readers find the articles interesting enough to want to learn more, or negative if having read the article they decide they now know enough so don't buy a book on the topic – but negligible either way). And that's a pattern repeated across Wikipedia – to take an example I use all the time, nobody here notices User:Realist2's work on the potential BLP hell of Michael Jackson precisely because he doesn't act like a wannabe-tabloid journalist and only cares about keeping it accurate. And for every Slim or Jayjg, there are a dozen Realists.

[the fieryangel]

However, leaving the legalities aside, would you all agree that the power to pass judgment over the subjects of such an incident via the medium of Wikipedia significantly add to the interest of the activity of editing? And the fact that these judgments can and often do affect their real lives is part of the attraction here?

Depends who you're talking about. I know this is one of my pet themes, but WR understandably tends to only notice the problem cases, whereas most editors couldn't affect real lives if they tried. Taking me as the example I know best – as 95% of my article work is on early rail electrification schemes or the architecture of the Moselle valley, the only "real life" I could conceivably affect would be a slight impact on book sales (either positive, if readers find the articles interesting enough to want to learn more, or negative if having read the article they decide they now know enough so don't buy a book on the topic – but negligible either way). And that's a pattern repeated across Wikipedia – to take an example I use all the time, nobody here notices User:Realist2's work on the potential BLP hell of Michael Jackson precisely because he doesn't act like a wannabe-tabloid journalist and only cares about keeping it accurate. And for every Slim or Jayjg, there are a dozen Realists.

I'm not disputing that there are non-problematic editors. I'm only trying to understand the underlying processes here. I am reminded of the former Crystal Gail Mangum article in which it was obvious that the woman was being singled out for an attack article, and the male suspects were hardly even named in the corresponding "incident" article.

I am guessing that there is a group effect going on here, where one person adds a negative comment and then others chime in to create a "punishment" for the stupid people who are part of these messes. This is only a working hypothesis, though.

[Eva Destruction]

However, leaving the legalities aside, would you all agree that the power to pass judgment over the subjects of such an incident via the medium of Wikipedia significantly add to the interest of the activity of editing? And the fact that these judgments can and often do affect their real lives is part of the attraction here?

Depends who you're talking about. I know this is one of my pet themes, but WR understandably tends to only notice the problem cases, whereas most editors couldn't affect real lives if they tried. Taking me as the example I know best – as 95% of my article work is on early rail electrification schemes or the architecture of the Moselle valley, the only "real life" I could conceivably affect would be a slight impact on book sales (either positive, if readers find the articles interesting enough to want to learn more, or negative if having read the article they decide they now know enough so don't buy a book on the topic – but negligible either way). And that's a pattern repeated across Wikipedia – to take an example I use all the time, nobody here notices User:Realist2's work on the potential BLP hell of Michael Jackson precisely because he doesn't act like a wannabe-tabloid journalist and only cares about keeping it accurate. And for every Slim or Jayjg, there are a dozen Realists.

I'm not disputing that there are non-problematic editors. I'm only trying to understand the underlying processes here. I am reminded of the former Crystal Gail Mangum article in which it was obvious that the woman was being singled out for an attack article, and the male suspects were hardly even named in the corresponding "incident" article.

I am guessing that there is a group effect going on here, where one person adds a negative comment and then others chime in to create a "punishment" for the stupid people who are part of these messes. This is only a working hypothesis, though.

I suspect in a fair few cases it's a group of friends or people with a shared interest rallying round to protect-and-defend each other and reinforcing each other in their shrillness. This isn't unique to Wikipedia or the internet – read the letters page in any popular-science journal or music paper for some prime examples – but the immediate-response nature of teh interwebs removes the cooling-off period given by publication lag in print media.

[the fieryangel]

However, leaving the legalities aside, would you all agree that the power to pass judgment over the subjects of such an incident via the medium of Wikipedia significantly add to the interest of the activity of editing? And the fact that these judgments can and often do affect their real lives is part of the attraction here?

Depends who you're talking about. I know this is one of my pet themes, but WR understandably tends to only notice the problem cases, whereas most editors couldn't affect real lives if they tried. Taking me as the example I know best – as 95% of my article work is on early rail electrification schemes or the architecture of the Moselle valley, the only "real life" I could conceivably affect would be a slight impact on book sales (either positive, if readers find the articles interesting enough to want to learn more, or negative if having read the article they decide they now know enough so don't buy a book on the topic – but negligible either way). And that's a pattern repeated across Wikipedia – to take an example I use all the time, nobody here notices User:Realist2's work on the potential BLP hell of Michael Jackson precisely because he doesn't act like a wannabe-tabloid journalist and only cares about keeping it accurate. And for every Slim or Jayjg, there are a dozen Realists.

I'm not disputing that there are non-problematic editors. I'm only trying to understand the underlying processes here. I am reminded of the former Crystal Gail Mangum article in which it was obvious that the woman was being singled out for an attack article, and the male suspects were hardly even named in the corresponding "incident" article.

I am guessing that there is a group effect going on here, where one person adds a negative comment and then others chime in to create a "punishment" for the stupid people who are part of these messes. This is only a working hypothesis, though.

I suspect in a fair few cases it's a group of friends or people with a shared interest rallying round to protect-and-defend each other and reinforcing each other in their shrillness. This isn't unique to Wikipedia or the internet – read the letters page in any popular-science journal or music paper for some prime examples – but the immediate-response nature of teh interwebs removes the cooling-off period given by publication lag in print media.

Let me show a bit more of my hand: I've been thinking a great deal lately about this experiment, and specifically this paragraph in the article:

Harris wanted to see what would happen if he exposed his entire life to the public, and planned to live like this for three months. He even planned for his girlfriend to conceive in public.

"Our life became tied to the watchers," remembers Harris. "They were actually another brain that was controlling us ... they were influencing, maybe not controlling, but they were certainly influencing us and sometimes we didn't know that they were doing it."

Danièle Citron refers to this as "swarming" in her "Cyber Civil Rights paper and also speaks of a mob effect seeking to control others.

Can the existence of these sorts of "attack" articles, which appear to objectively punish those who become subjects scrutinized by this "hive" (sorry, but that is the best expression in this context), also be seen as another manifestation of this kind of group behavior?

[Eva Destruction]

Can the existence of these sorts of "attack" articles, which appear to objectively punish those who become subjects scrutinized by this "hive" (sorry, but that is the best expression in this context), also be seen as another manifestation of this kind of group behavior?

I think (personal opinion only) that in a lot of cases it's a false premise to assume they're conceived as attack pages. I'd lay money that were you to take the editors who worked on one of these "attack" articles and analyse their motivations, the majority would genuinely believe they were writing a neutral biography. The "if it's in the media it must be noteworthy; if it's noteworthy it needs an article; if it needs an article the article should include as much information as possible" syllogism is very strong (check out Category:Murdered students for some prime cases); anyone who's ever written a long article (anywhere, not just on Wikipedia) will know that the urge to throw in factoids to bulk it out can be hard to resist.

[the fieryangel]

Can the existence of these sorts of "attack" articles, which appear to objectively punish those who become subjects scrutinized by this "hive" (sorry, but that is the best expression in this context), also be seen as another manifestation of this kind of group behavior?

I think (personal opinion only) that in a lot of cases it's a false premise to assume they're conceived as attack pages. I'd lay money that were you to take the editors who worked on one of these "attack" articles and analyse their motivations, the majority would genuinely believe they were writing a neutral biography. The "if it's in the media it must be noteworthy; if it's noteworthy it needs an article; if it needs an article the article should include as much information as possible" syllogism is very strong (check out Category:Murdered students for some prime cases); anyone who's ever written a long article (anywhere, not just on Wikipedia) will know that the urge to throw in factoids to bulk it out can be hard to resist.

This brings back One's idea that BLP harm can be caused unintentionally by those who are trying to consciously "fix" those issues, by making unconscious choices which lead to POV being inserted unintentionally.

I don't have the answer to this one yet, but I'm thinking about this quite a bit.

[Luís Henrique]

This brings back One's idea that BLP harm can be caused unintentionally by those who are trying to consciously "fix" those issues, by making unconscious choices which lead to POV being inserted unintentionally.

I don't have the answer to this one yet, but I'm thinking about this quite a bit.

Human beings are never neutral. We always act guided by our prejudices, theories, partial knowledge, etc, which are at times conscious, but more often unconscious. Class, nationality, gender, race, profession, age, all of that changes any individual perspectives in significant, if not univocal, ways.

Wikipedia's premise is that different people's biases would neutralise each others, resulting in a "neutral" product. That's the problem: does this happen?

Quite certainly not, because besides the individual biases, there is also a collective bias - assumptions that are taken for granted by most, if not all, individuals. And individuals who actually reject those assumptions are labeled "excentric", "fringe", "freaks", "extremists", or "crazy", depending on the quality and intensity of their dissent.

Luís Henrique