Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: People who refuse to equally protect BLPs
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Kato
This is a dynamic list of Wikipedia editors who refuse to offer Wikipedia's innocent victims the same privileges offered to Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, who has his biography permanently protected / semi-protected from drive-by vandalism at all times. Certain other subjects, such as Wales's former bed partner Rachel Marsden are also permanently protected.

By practice, Wikipedia editors do not offer this to other article subjects. And hence, these innocent bystanders are repeatedly subjected to defamatory attacks, some of which stay on their articles for months and years. Every week, another story comes out of a victim having to confront their own biography and WP's shameful practices. Today it was Walter Mondale.

This is the most obscene hypocrisy that blights Wikipedia. And so far, over 100 Wikipedia editors below support this ongoing disgrace - in the face of good faith efforts by many to sort it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pro...on_for_all_BLPs

Here is the list of people who refuse to offer equal protection to BLP victims. The names accompanied by red ALERT tags are samples of those who offer BLP-extremist / WP cultist excuses that allow for the ongoing mass defamation of WP outsiders. Non alert names tended to oppose for weak reasons hoping that Flagged Revisions would sort out the problem - even though Flagged Revisions was promised presently almost a year ago and shows no signs of being implemented yet. From the list, it is possible to identify BLP extremists, present and future.

Almost all the responses by the below extremists make no reference to equal protection of BLP victims, but think purely in terms of protecting "The Project" or "Community" and protecting their own rights as anonymous contributors.
Eva Destruction
I'm certainly not disagreeing with your basic premise – I'm the first name in the "support protection" column – but it needs to be pointed out that many of those opposing this are opposing protection in the context of this discussion (about flagged revisions) in the sense that they support flagged revisions instead of semi-protection, rather than actively favoring a no-protection-at-all free-for-all.
EricBarbour
The ones who say things like;
QUOTE
# Damn right. Wikipedia should be as open and free as possible - if American libel laws require that we change that, we should move the servers to a different country. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
really crack me up.
So, Mr. "Explodicle", are you willing to keep moving the servers from country to country?
And who will pay for this?

At least the majority are leaning toward flagged revisions, meaning they are starting to admit there's a problem with the status quo.
(Oh, the horror.) But they still have no idea what to do about BLP defamation.
Coren
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 27th December 2008, 9:44pm) *

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your basic premise – I'm the first name in the "support protection" column – but it needs to be pointed out that many of those opposing this are opposing protection in the context of this discussion (about flagged revisions) in the sense that they support flagged revisions instead of semi-protection, rather than actively favoring a no-protection-at-all free-for-all.


Indeed, I fully support flagged revisions for all BLPs (and, indeed, in general but that is considerably less likely to come to pass).

Perhaps it would be more constructive to temper that list by removing, or at the very least annotating, those who are against semi-protection because they feel it is overkill but support flagged revision to protect the subject of biographies?

-- Coren

tarantino
There are currently 359 BLPs indefinitely protected from edits by IPs. Some have been for many months. Here's the list:

50_Cent (T-H-L-K-D)
Aaron_Carter (T-H-L-K-D)
Aaron_Klein (T-H-L-K-D)
Aaron_Rodgers (T-H-L-K-D)
Abigail_and_Brittany_Hensel (T-H-L-K-D)
Adam_Cooney (T-H-L-K-D)
Alex_Curran (T-H-L-K-D)
Alex_Ferguson (T-H-L-K-D)
Alfred-Maurice_de_Zayas (T-H-L-K-D)
Al_Gore (T-H-L-K-D)
Alicia_Keys (T-H-L-K-D)
Alicia_Sacramone (T-H-L-K-D)
Amy_Winehouse (T-H-L-K-D)
Anand_Jon (T-H-L-K-D)
Angelina_Jolie (T-H-L-K-D)
Angel_Locsin (T-H-L-K-D)
Anna_Paquin (T-H-L-K-D)
Ann_Coulter (T-H-L-K-D)
Anneka_Rice (T-H-L-K-D)
Ari_Gold_(musician) (T-H-L-K-D)
Armando_Estrada (T-H-L-K-D)
Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger,_Jr. (T-H-L-K-D)
Ashley_Tisdale (T-H-L-K-D)
Austin_Kincaid (T-H-L-K-D)
Avril_Lavigne (T-H-L-K-D)
Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali (T-H-L-K-D)
Bam_Margera (T-H-L-K-D)
Barack_Obama (T-H-L-K-D)
Barry_Bonds (T-H-L-K-D)
Belinda_Stronach (T-H-L-K-D)
Beyoncé_Knowles (T-H-L-K-D)
Bill_Clinton (T-H-L-K-D)
Bill_Cunningham (T-H-L-K-D)
Bill_Gates (T-H-L-K-D)
Bob_Barker (T-H-L-K-D)
Bobby_Farrell (T-H-L-K-D)
Bob_Enyart (T-H-L-K-D)
Bob_Kinnear (T-H-L-K-D)
Bow_Wow (T-H-L-K-D)
Brad_Pitt (T-H-L-K-D)
Brandi_Carlile (T-H-L-K-D)
Brandon_Novak (T-H-L-K-D)
Brett_Favre (T-H-L-K-D)
Brian_Vickers (T-H-L-K-D)
Britney_Spears (T-H-L-K-D)
Brooke_Shields (T-H-L-K-D)
Cam'ron (T-H-L-K-D)
Carl_Freer (T-H-L-K-D)
Carlos_Mencia (T-H-L-K-D)
Cheri_DiNovo (T-H-L-K-D)
Chevy_Chase (T-H-L-K-D)
Chris_Brown_(entertainer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Chris_Jericho (T-H-L-K-D)
Chris_Mordetzky (T-H-L-K-D)
Chris_Rock (T-H-L-K-D)
Christina_Aguilera (T-H-L-K-D)
Christina_Applegate (T-H-L-K-D)
Christina_Ricci (T-H-L-K-D)
Christopher_Hughes (T-H-L-K-D)
Chuck_Norris (T-H-L-K-D)
Chuck_Yeager (T-H-L-K-D)
Ciara (T-H-L-K-D)
Cindy_McCain (T-H-L-K-D)
Condoleezza_Rice (T-H-L-K-D)
Craig_Charles (T-H-L-K-D)
Daniel_A._McGowan (T-H-L-K-D)
Darko Trifunović (T-H-L-K-D)
Dave_Batista (T-H-L-K-D)
Davey_Havok (T-H-L-K-D)
David_Bret (T-H-L-K-D)
David_Gest (T-H-L-K-D)
David_L._Cook (T-H-L-K-D)
David_Miliband (T-H-L-K-D)
David_Osborne_Hagger (T-H-L-K-D)
David_Petraeus (T-H-L-K-D)
David_Suzuki (T-H-L-K-D)
Dayana_Mendoza (T-H-L-K-D)
Derek_Smart (T-H-L-K-D)
Des'ree (T-H-L-K-D)
Dick_Cheney (T-H-L-K-D)
Dillon_Freasier (T-H-L-K-D)
Donald_Trump (T-H-L-K-D)
Don_Murphy (T-H-L-K-D)
Dudley_Benson (T-H-L-K-D)
Ehren_McGhehey (T-H-L-K-D)
Elaine_Paige (T-H-L-K-D)
Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom (T-H-L-K-D)
Elizabeth_Taylor (T-H-L-K-D)
Elton_John (T-H-L-K-D)
Emily_Gimmel (T-H-L-K-D)
Eminem (T-H-L-K-D)
Emma_Watson (T-H-L-K-D)
Eric_the_Midget (T-H-L-K-D)
Evan_Montvel_Cohen (T-H-L-K-D)
Fidel_Castro (T-H-L-K-D)
Florence_Devouard (T-H-L-K-D)
Frank_McCourt (T-H-L-K-D)
Fred_Phelps (T-H-L-K-D)
Gabe_Saporta (T-H-L-K-D)
Gabrielle_Giffords (T-H-L-K-D)
Gary_Glitter (T-H-L-K-D)
Gary_Radnich (T-H-L-K-D)
Genie_(feral_child) (T-H-L-K-D)
George_Elokobi (T-H-L-K-D)
George_H._W._Bush (T-H-L-K-D)
George_W._Bush (T-H-L-K-D)
Gerard_Way (T-H-L-K-D)
Germaine_Greer (T-H-L-K-D)
Glenn_Danzig (T-H-L-K-D)
Gloria_Macapagal-Arroyo (T-H-L-K-D)
G._Simon_Harak (T-H-L-K-D)
Gucci_Mane (T-H-L-K-D)
Guo_Jingjing (T-H-L-K-D)
Haim_Saban (T-H-L-K-D)
Hal_Turner (T-H-L-K-D)
Hazel_Mae (T-H-L-K-D)
H._D._Deve_Gowda (T-H-L-K-D)
Henry_Rzepa (T-H-L-K-D)
Hilary_Koprowski (T-H-L-K-D)
Hillary_Rodham_Clinton (T-H-L-K-D)
Howard_Stern (T-H-L-K-D)
Hugo_Chávez (T-H-L-K-D)
Ian_McDiarmid (T-H-L-K-D)
Ian_Thorpe (T-H-L-K-D)
Iga Wyrwał (T-H-L-K-D)
Ike_Awgu (T-H-L-K-D)
Isis_Gee (T-H-L-K-D)
Jack_Layton (T-H-L-K-D)
Jack_Nicholson (T-H-L-K-D)
Jake_Hager (T-H-L-K-D)
James_Earl_Jones (T-H-L-K-D)
Janet_Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
Jason_Acuña (T-H-L-K-D)
Jay-Z (T-H-L-K-D)
Jeff_Gordon (T-H-L-K-D)
Jeff_Ray (T-H-L-K-D)
Jeffree_Star (T-H-L-K-D)
Jeff_Rense (T-H-L-K-D)
Jennifer_Hawkins (T-H-L-K-D)
Jennifer_Lopez (T-H-L-K-D)
Jennifer_Love_Hewitt (T-H-L-K-D)
Jeremy_Kyle (T-H-L-K-D)
Jeremy_Stangroom (T-H-L-K-D)
Jerry_Springer (T-H-L-K-D)
Jesse_Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
Jessica_Alba (T-H-L-K-D)
Jessica_Simpson (T-H-L-K-D)
Jim_Carrey (T-H-L-K-D)
Jim_Inhofe (T-H-L-K-D)
Jimmy_Reiher,_Jr. (T-H-L-K-D)
Jimmy_Wales (T-H-L-K-D)
J._K._Rowling (T-H-L-K-D)
Joe_Jonas (T-H-L-K-D)
Joel_C._Rosenberg (T-H-L-K-D)
Joe_Lieberman (T-H-L-K-D)
Joe_Viglione (T-H-L-K-D)
John_Cena (T-H-L-K-D)
John_Howard (T-H-L-K-D)
John_Michell_(writer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Johnny_Knoxville (T-H-L-K-D)
John_O'Shea (T-H-L-K-D)
John_Seigenthaler (T-H-L-K-D)
John_Terry (T-H-L-K-D)
JoJo_(singer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Joko_Beck (T-H-L-K-D)
Jonathan_Gould_(television_presenter) (T-H-L-K-D)
Jonny_Evans (T-H-L-K-D)
Jon_Richardson_(entertainer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Joshua_Blahyi (T-H-L-K-D)
Julia_Alexandratou (T-H-L-K-D)
Julia_Allison (T-H-L-K-D)
Juliusz_Nowina-Sokolnicki (T-H-L-K-D)
Justin_Timberlake (T-H-L-K-D)
Kalib_Starnes (T-H-L-K-D)
Kanye_West (T-H-L-K-D)
Karl_Rove (T-H-L-K-D)
Karl_Stefanovic (T-H-L-K-D)
Katie_Hoff (T-H-L-K-D)
Kearnan_Myall (T-H-L-K-D)
Kelly_Ripa (T-H-L-K-D)
Keshav_Malik (T-H-L-K-D)
Kevin_Federline (T-H-L-K-D)
Kimbo_Slice (T-H-L-K-D)
Kim_Hagger (T-H-L-K-D)
Kim_Jong-il (T-H-L-K-D)
Kirsten_Prout (T-H-L-K-D)
Kobe_Bryant (T-H-L-K-D)
Krayzie_Bone (T-H-L-K-D)
Kyle_Eckel (T-H-L-K-D)
Lacey_(wrestler) (T-H-L-K-D)
Lady_Sovereign (T-H-L-K-D)
Laura_Ingraham (T-H-L-K-D)
Lauren_Booth (T-H-L-K-D)
Lene_Marlin (T-H-L-K-D)
Leonardo_Domenici (T-H-L-K-D)
Lev_Leviev (T-H-L-K-D)
Lil_Wayne (T-H-L-K-D)
Lily_Allen (T-H-L-K-D)
Lindsay_Lohan (T-H-L-K-D)
Liv_Tyler (T-H-L-K-D)
Liza_Fernández_Rodríguez (T-H-L-K-D)
Liz_Fuller (T-H-L-K-D)
Lloyd_Banks (T-H-L-K-D)
Lon_Horiuchi (T-H-L-K-D)
Lu_Sheng-yen (T-H-L-K-D)
Maddox_(writer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Madonna_(entertainer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Marcus_Einfeld (T-H-L-K-D)
Margaret_Thatcher (T-H-L-K-D)
Mariah_Carey (T-H-L-K-D)
Marilyn_Manson (T-H-L-K-D)
Mark_Hamill (T-H-L-K-D)
Mark_Henry (T-H-L-K-D)
Mark_Hoppus (T-H-L-K-D)
Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen (T-H-L-K-D)
Massimo_D'Alema (T-H-L-K-D)
Matt_Morgan_(comedian) (T-H-L-K-D)
Matt_Sanchez (T-H-L-K-D)
Mehdi_Kazemi (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Clarke_Duncan (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Jordan (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Klonsky (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Lucas_(director) (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_McKenzie (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Moore (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Phelps (T-H-L-K-D)
Michael_Roach (T-H-L-K-D)
Michel_Aoun (T-H-L-K-D)
Michelle_McManus (T-H-L-K-D)
Michelle_Obama (T-H-L-K-D)
Mike_DiBiase_II (T-H-L-K-D)
Mitt_Romney (T-H-L-K-D)
Monica_Conyers (T-H-L-K-D)
Montel_Vontavious_Porter (T-H-L-K-D)
Muhammad_Ali (T-H-L-K-D)
Mumia_Abu-Jamal (T-H-L-K-D)
Nabih_Berri (T-H-L-K-D)
Naomi_Campbell (T-H-L-K-D)
Naomi_Oreskes (T-H-L-K-D)
Narendra_Modi (T-H-L-K-D)
Natalie_Portman (T-H-L-K-D)
Nat_Wolff (T-H-L-K-D)
Naveen_Jain (T-H-L-K-D)
Nelson_Mandela (T-H-L-K-D)
Nicholas_Angell (T-H-L-K-D)
Nicholas_Hagger (T-H-L-K-D)
Nick_Abbot (T-H-L-K-D)
Nicole_Wray (T-H-L-K-D)
Nigel_McGuinness (T-H-L-K-D)
O._J._Simpson (T-H-L-K-D)
Orfeh (T-H-L-K-D)
Osama_bin_Laden (T-H-L-K-D)
Pamela_Anderson (T-H-L-K-D)
Paris_Hilton (T-H-L-K-D)
Pat_Patterson_(wrestler) (T-H-L-K-D)
Paul_Barresi (T-H-L-K-D)
Paul_Burrell (T-H-L-K-D)
Pauline_Hanson (T-H-L-K-D)
Pervez_Musharraf (T-H-L-K-D)
Pete_Doherty (T-H-L-K-D)
Peter_Evans_(swimmer) (T-H-L-K-D)
Peter_Nguyen (T-H-L-K-D)
Pope_Benedict_XVI (T-H-L-K-D)
Preston_Lacy (T-H-L-K-D)
Quinton_Jackson (T-H-L-K-D)
Rachel_Marsden (T-H-L-K-D)
Radovan Karadžić (T-H-L-K-D)
Randy_Orton (T-H-L-K-D)
Randy_Savage (T-H-L-K-D)
Ray_Stevens (T-H-L-K-D)
Reese_Roper (T-H-L-K-D)
Reid_Baer (T-H-L-K-D)
Rey_Mysterio,_Jr. (T-H-L-K-D)
Richard_Simmons (T-H-L-K-D)
Richard_Steve_Goldberg (T-H-L-K-D)
Rick_Astley (T-H-L-K-D)
Rick_Kosick (T-H-L-K-D)
Rick_Reilly (T-H-L-K-D)
Ricky_Hatton (T-H-L-K-D)
Rihanna (T-H-L-K-D)
Rik_Waller (T-H-L-K-D)
Robert_Gilbert_(chemist) (T-H-L-K-D)
Robert_Pattinson (T-H-L-K-D)
Rob_Schneider (T-H-L-K-D)
Roger_Miret (T-H-L-K-D)
Rose_McGowan (T-H-L-K-D)
Rosie_O'Donnell (T-H-L-K-D)
Rush_Limbaugh (T-H-L-K-D)
Russell_Brand (T-H-L-K-D)
Ryan_Lochte (T-H-L-K-D)
Ryan_Pinkston (T-H-L-K-D)
Ryan_Sheckler (T-H-L-K-D)
Sachin_Tendulkar (T-H-L-K-D)
Salman_Khan (T-H-L-K-D)
Sam_Nazarian (T-H-L-K-D)
Santino_Marella (T-H-L-K-D)
Saša Toperić (T-H-L-K-D)
Sasha_Grey (T-H-L-K-D)
Scott_Carson (T-H-L-K-D)
Scott_Mills (T-H-L-K-D)
Shahrukh_Khan (T-H-L-K-D)
Shannen_Doherty (T-H-L-K-D)
Shia_LaBeouf (T-H-L-K-D)
Shoaib_Malik (T-H-L-K-D)
Shuki_Levy (T-H-L-K-D)
Simon_Cowell (T-H-L-K-D)
Simon_Wessely (T-H-L-K-D)
Solomon_Trujillo (T-H-L-K-D)
Soulja_Boy_Tell_'Em (T-H-L-K-D)
Sourav_Ganguly (T-H-L-K-D)
Stan_Lee (T-H-L-K-D)
Star_Wars_Kid (T-H-L-K-D)
Stephen_Colbert (T-H-L-K-D)
Stephen_Harper (T-H-L-K-D)
Stephen_M._Cohen (T-H-L-K-D)
Steve_Bucknor (T-H-L-K-D)
Steve_Jobs (T-H-L-K-D)
Steve_McFadden (T-H-L-K-D)
Steven_Plaut (T-H-L-K-D)
Steve-O (T-H-L-K-D)
Surya_Das (T-H-L-K-D)
Taliana_Vargas (T-H-L-K-D)
Tania_Head (T-H-L-K-D)
Taylor_Swift (T-H-L-K-D)
Ted_DiBiase,_Jr. (T-H-L-K-D)
Telat Üzüm (T-H-L-K-D)
Terry_Kennedy_(skateboarder) (T-H-L-K-D)
Terry_Lake (T-H-L-K-D)
The_Game_(rapper) (T-H-L-K-D)
The_Great_Khali (T-H-L-K-D)
Theodore_Kaczynski (T-H-L-K-D)
The_Undertaker (T-H-L-K-D)
Tiger_Woods (T-H-L-K-D)
Tim_Tebow (T-H-L-K-D)
Tom_Cruise (T-H-L-K-D)
Tom_Green (T-H-L-K-D)
Tommy_Dreamer (T-H-L-K-D)
Tony_Blair (T-H-L-K-D)
Tony_Maudsley (T-H-L-K-D)
Travis_McCoy (T-H-L-K-D)
Triple_H (T-H-L-K-D)
Trita_Parsi (T-H-L-K-D)
Tucker_Max (T-H-L-K-D)
Usain_Bolt (T-H-L-K-D)
Vanessa_L._Williams (T-H-L-K-D)
Vera_Lynn (T-H-L-K-D)
Vincent_Margera (T-H-L-K-D)
Vince_Young (T-H-L-K-D)
Vin_Diesel (T-H-L-K-D)
Violet_Blue_(author) (T-H-L-K-D)
Wayne_Gretzky (T-H-L-K-D)
Wayne_Rooney (T-H-L-K-D)
William_Rodriguez (T-H-L-K-D)
William_Shatner (T-H-L-K-D)
Will_Smith (T-H-L-K-D)
Yusuf_Ergin (T-H-L-K-D)
Zac_Efron (T-H-L-K-D)
Zaid_Hamid (T-H-L-K-D)
Kato
QUOTE(Coren @ Sun 28th December 2008, 4:17am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 27th December 2008, 9:44pm) *

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your basic premise – I'm the first name in the "support protection" column – but it needs to be pointed out that many of those opposing this are opposing protection in the context of this discussion (about flagged revisions) in the sense that they support flagged revisions instead of semi-protection, rather than actively favoring a no-protection-at-all free-for-all.


Indeed, I fully support flagged revisions for all BLPs (and, indeed, in general but that is considerably less likely to come to pass).

Perhaps it would be more constructive to temper that list by removing, or at the very least annotating, those who are against semi-protection because they feel it is overkill but support flagged revision to protect the subject of biographies?

-- Coren

No.

Too late.

Flagged Revisions were expected over two years ago, and were due to be implemented in Spring 2008. However, no serious effort has be made to progress this, and hence the "Community" has failed BLP targets. Your claims about Flagged Revisions can be dismissed as misdirection - you are clinging to something doesn't seem to exist. Not good enough, I'm afraid.

As for "annotating" people on the basis of their views of "flagged revisions" - I already did - read the post again. I already cover this.

Anyway, here is the isolated sample of twenty hardcore BLP extremists on the basis of the attitudes on display in the survey. These are people who are having too much fun on Wikipedia and couldn't give a squat about BLP subjects. I've separated them from Coren / Durova and others who simply preferred flagged revisions, which may help if they feel that association with The Twenty would tarnish their reputations.
  1. Protonk (T-C-L-K-R-D) - ALERT dismisses Equal Protection against defamation as "BLP paranoia" and continues with more twaddle further down the page.
  2. JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) - Notorious BLP extremist - previously sanctioned for abusing multiple accounts to persecute BLP victims who tried to opt out of WP.
  3. Skomorokh (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT dismisses Equal Protection as: "another kick in the face for anonymous editing"
  4. Nihiltres (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT dismisses Equal Protection as: "systematic protection of any level is simply unacceptable" - despite Jimbo Wales and others enjoying it for years.
  5. MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT Asks "Is there evidence of anonymous users or brand new users causing significantly more harm to BLPs than autoconfirmed users?" - there are many links.
  6. editorofthewiki (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT Wikipedia Cultist response about Equal Protection preventing "anyone-can-edit"
  7. Synergy (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT facetious Wikipedia Cultist response (see above)
  8. Dweller (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT facetious Wikipedia Cultist response (see above)
  9. Cyclonenim (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT facetious Wikipedia Cultist response (see above)
  10. Bushytails (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT Writes : "All users should be able to edit all pages" - then why is Jimbo's protected while Walter Mondale's wasn't?
  11. Stampit (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT Effectively : Equal protection will prevent "potentially important information about a person".
  12. Gtstricky (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT WP cultist stuff about it being "anti-Wiki"
  13. Computerjoe (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT WP cultist stuff about the "ethos of a Wiki"
  14. DiverseMentality (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT facetious Wikipedia Cultist response (see above)
  15. Matt Yeager  (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT "We need to overcome our fear of lawsuits and continue with what's best for the community." - says it all really. No ethics or decency whatsoever in this statement.
  16. Angus McLellan (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT WP cultist stuff about Equal Protection being "anti-Wiki"
  17. Hipocrite  (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT facetious nonsense about "BLP paranoia"
  18. John Nagle (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT says WP is now "overdoing biography of living persons worries"
  19. Jezhotwells (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT something about "the fundamental principles of Wikipedia", which discredits the notion of "principles" somewhat.
  20. MrZaius (T-C-L-K-R-D) ALERT Says the current defamation system "works just fine"
Coren
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 7:57am) *


Flagged Revisions were expected over two years ago, and were due to be implemented in Spring 2008. However, no serious effort has be made to progress this, and hence the "Community" has failed BLP targets. Your claims about Flagged Revisions can be dismissed as misdirection - you are clinging to something doesn't seem to exist. Not good enough, I'm afraid.


That Wikipedia inertia is... a $$@%$ annoyance; I'll grant you that. That little poll, however, shows high support for flagged revisions for BLP articles, at least. Combine that with the unequivocal Jimbo support and the fact that several arbs will be pushing for same (new and old), and I wouldn't bet long odds against it being deployed during 2009.

-- Coren

JoseClutch
QUOTE(Coren @ Sun 28th December 2008, 10:43am) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 7:57am) *


Flagged Revisions were expected over two years ago, and were due to be implemented in Spring 2008. However, no serious effort has be made to progress this, and hence the "Community" has failed BLP targets. Your claims about Flagged Revisions can be dismissed as misdirection - you are clinging to something doesn't seem to exist. Not good enough, I'm afraid.


That Wikipedia inertia is... a $$@%$ annoyance; I'll grant you that. That little poll, however, shows high support for flagged revisions for BLP articles, at least. Combine that with the unequivocal Jimbo support and the fact that several arbs will be pushing for same (new and old), and I wouldn't bet long odds against it being deployed during 2009.

-- Coren

Indeed, lambasting people because they favour a different technical implementation of protection for BLPs strongly devalues any shame that comes from the naming of names (presumably the point?).

The "Leave BLPs exactly as they are crowd" are the closest things there are to villians in this lineup. The "Flagged revisions are a better option than semi-protection" crowd are not (in fact, they are correct too, though one might argue temporary semi-protection until flagging is actually turned on is the best option, of course.)
Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 27th December 2008, 10:25pm) *

There are currently 359 BLPs indefinitely protected from edits by IPs.
The most pernicious abuse of BLP policy, IMHO, comes from established users. The reader can usually spot crude and egregious vandalism (of the sort typically associated with IPs,) but not subtly biased articles that denigrate their targets through the selective use or exclusion of sources.
Kato
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 28th December 2008, 3:51pm) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 27th December 2008, 10:25pm) *

There are currently 359 BLPs indefinitely protected from edits by IPs.
The most pernicious abuse of BLP policy, IMHO, comes from established users. The reader can usually spot crude and egregious vandalism (of the sort typically associated with IPs,) but not subtly biased articles that denigrate their targets through the selective use or exclusion of sources.

You are talking about something completely different, Hersch. And only relevant to a small section of articles. Please don't start muddying this issue again.

We're talking about Seigenthaler style attacks that hit BLPs every hour, every day, every month, all year. Most of it gets recognized and removed - but a significant amount lasts and is viewed by many before it is removed. This is borne out by studies. Numerous cases come to light, but it is only someone like Seigenthaler who had the gravitas and position in the media to really take this on. Other victims have had to fend off WP largely alone., while random Wikipedia editors live in cloud cuckoo land not caring because it doesn't impact on them personally.



QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Sun 28th December 2008, 3:48pm) *

Indeed, lambasting people because they favour a different technical implementation of protection for BLPs strongly devalues any shame that comes from the naming of names (presumably the point?).

What part of the red alert tags and explained differentials in my opening post did you miss?

I thought you were supposed to be capable of reading texts and disseminating meaning? Geez. Not only did I already cover this in my opening post - I revisited it my last post. dry.gif
lolwut
That list of BLPs protected indefinitely contains some that were protected by NawlinWiki following Grawp's pagemove vandalism. For example, all the people with their names ending in Hagger are on that list for that reason. Many of them (the ones moved by Grawp) are people who are not so notable as the most notable figures on the list. For example:

00:06, 30 August 2008 Makeshelps (Talk | contribs) moved Alicia Sacramone to She's fucking hot. I'd like to ram my enormously huge coċkIntoHerTightVagina.

It gets even better...

23:11, 1 August 2008 Monthsince (Talk | contribs) moved Keshav Malik to Keshav Malik is either NawlinWiki’s grandfather or great-uncle. ‎ (Keshav Malik and NawlinWiki are ѕmаcked by Grаwp’ѕ mаsѕive сοck while caught making a Jimbo sandwich, if you know what I mean (wink wink, nudge nudge).)

wink.gif
tarantino
There are endless examples of problematic edits to WP BLPs that are easily found in search engine results.

The first one I stumbled across today is the bio of pr0n actor Tony Eveready (T-H-L-K-D) where he is described as a "perennial negroid", and nobody has yet had the opportunity to delete a partial transcript from one of his videos that's been in the article for a longer period.

The second example is the bio for Drew Brophy (T-H-L-K-D) that has been in a wiki-vandalized state for over a month.

I could go on and on and on, but that would be a full-time job in which I'm not interested.
JoseClutch
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 7:57am) *

QUOTE(Coren @ Sun 28th December 2008, 4:17am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 27th December 2008, 9:44pm) *

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your basic premise – I'm the first name in the "support protection" column – but it needs to be pointed out that many of those opposing this are opposing protection in the context of this discussion (about flagged revisions) in the sense that they support flagged revisions instead of semi-protection, rather than actively favoring a no-protection-at-all free-for-all.


Indeed, I fully support flagged revisions for all BLPs (and, indeed, in general but that is considerably less likely to come to pass).

Perhaps it would be more constructive to temper that list by removing, or at the very least annotating, those who are against semi-protection because they feel it is overkill but support flagged revision to protect the subject of biographies?

-- Coren

No.

Too late.

Flagged Revisions were expected over two years ago, and were due to be implemented in Spring 2008. However, no serious effort has be made to progress this, and hence the "Community" has failed BLP targets. Your claims about Flagged Revisions can be dismissed as misdirection - you are clinging to something doesn't seem to exist. Not good enough, I'm afraid.



Flagged revisions have been around for less than a year (I am not sure when they were first available in MediaWiki - anyone know?) and are now rolled out on some projects (German Wikipedia now uses flagged revisions, for instance.)

Semi (and full) protection have been around a lot longer than that - as long as I have been involved in Wikipedia. If it is too late for flagged revisions to save us (which could be turned on tommorow), it is also too late for semi (or full) protection to save us (which could also be turned on tommorow).

The difference, of course, is that flagged revisions will do a better job of protection the subjects of articles and are more palatable to the Wikipedia Community. The argument in favor of semi-protection does not actually exist, as far as I can see.
Peter Damian
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 28th December 2008, 5:50pm) *

There are endless examples of problematic edits to WP BLPs that are easily found in search engine results.

The first one I stumbled across today is the bio of pr0n actor Tony Eveready (T-H-L-K-D) where he is described as a "perennial negroid", and nobody has yet had the opportunity to delete a partial transcript from one of his videos that's been in the article for a longer period.

The second example is the bio for Drew Brophy (T-H-L-K-D) that has been in a wiki-vandalized state for over a month.

I could go on and on and on, but that would be a full-time job in which I'm not interested.


The first one is incredibly bad, I don't know whether it should go in the incredibly crap articles box or the Wikipedia vandalism box. Anyway I put both here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism

For the use of future historians of the internet. [Wipes brow]

Dave Wild reverts at last:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=254298817
tarantino
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th December 2008, 6:10pm) *

The first one is incredibly bad...


It's nice that both articles have been temporarily repaired. The point is though, that horribly managed biographies of living people on Wikipedia are not unusual. It took me 5 minutes to find those two. Yet with all of WP's admins, thousands of active editors and dozens of bots, they are unable to prevent pieces of crap from being presented to the public, for days, weeks or months at a time, as encyclopedic biographies. The people in Kato's list are part of the problem, and they should be named and shamed.
Kato
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Sun 28th December 2008, 6:06pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 7:57am) *

QUOTE(Coren @ Sun 28th December 2008, 4:17am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 27th December 2008, 9:44pm) *

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your basic premise – I'm the first name in the "support protection" column – but it needs to be pointed out that many of those opposing this are opposing protection in the context of this discussion (about flagged revisions) in the sense that they support flagged revisions instead of semi-protection, rather than actively favoring a no-protection-at-all free-for-all.


Indeed, I fully support flagged revisions for all BLPs (and, indeed, in general but that is considerably less likely to come to pass).

Perhaps it would be more constructive to temper that list by removing, or at the very least annotating, those who are against semi-protection because they feel it is overkill but support flagged revision to protect the subject of biographies?

-- Coren

No.

Too late.

Flagged Revisions were expected over two years ago, and were due to be implemented in Spring 2008. However, no serious effort has be made to progress this, and hence the "Community" has failed BLP targets. Your claims about Flagged Revisions can be dismissed as misdirection - you are clinging to something doesn't seem to exist. Not good enough, I'm afraid.



Flagged revisions have been around for less than a year (I am not sure when they were first available in MediaWiki - anyone know?) and are now rolled out on some projects (German Wikipedia now uses flagged revisions, for instance.)

Semi (and full) protection have been around a lot longer than that - as long as I have been involved in Wikipedia. If it is too late for flagged revisions to save us (which could be turned on tommorow), it is also too late for semi (or full) protection to save us (which could also be turned on tommorow).

The difference, of course, is that flagged revisions will do a better job of protection the subjects of articles and are more palatable to the Wikipedia Community. The argument in favor of semi-protection does not actually exist, as far as I can see.

I'm starting to worry about you, Jose. You don't seem to understand the time frames, nor The Point.

Flagged Revisions or "Stable Versions" were seriously mooted 3 years ago. Two years ago they were imminent. Over a year ago they appeared on the German Wiki. In March this year, we were told they were being rolled out on the English WP.

Yet they have shown no signs of appearing on the English Wikipedia - and this site has been asking the same question every other week or so for over 9 months. Where are these flagged revisions? No reply - Nothing. So forgive me if I don't believe flagged revisions will "be turned on tomorrow".

And as a consequence - to prevent the ongoing farce of BLP drive-by defamation - and to end the blatant hypocrisy of Unequal Protection, where Jimbo Wales and cohorts are protected while others are not - Semi-Protection applied equally to Jimbo and Walter Mondale and others is the only viable option at this stage.
Moulton
The notion of Flagged Revisions has been superseded by the notion of Flogged Revisions.
EricBarbour
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th December 2008, 10:10am) *

The first one is incredibly bad, I don't know whether it should go in the incredibly crap articles box or the Wikipedia vandalism box. Anyway I put both here
http://www.wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism
For the use of future historians of the internet. [Wipes brow]

Don't forget this one. Also this, and this.
Funny, but stupid and not very sneaky.

One thing about those Grawp-vandalized BLPs: they often have had their revision histories scrubbed by admins unknown. For example.
Making it sometimes impossible to detect vandalism, or to figure out why that article was protected in the first place.

What a mess. Fools. Either adopt a consistent policy, or give up and let it all go to hell. (As it is headed now.)

QUOTE(Coren @ Sat 27th December 2008, 8:17pm) *
Indeed, I fully support flagged revisions for all BLPs (and, indeed, in general but that is considerably less likely to come to pass).
Perhaps it would be more constructive to temper that list by removing, or at the very least annotating, those who are against semi-protection because they feel it is overkill but support flagged revision to protect the subject of biographies?

Good. How nice of you. Why aren't you on wiki, trying to talk those BLP nerds into adopting a policy that they've been talking about for TWO YEARS?? Why aren't you calling people like JoshuaZ on their bullshit?
JoseClutch
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 5:22pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Sun 28th December 2008, 6:06pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 7:57am) *

QUOTE(Coren @ Sun 28th December 2008, 4:17am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 27th December 2008, 9:44pm) *

I'm certainly not disagreeing with your basic premise – I'm the first name in the "support protection" column – but it needs to be pointed out that many of those opposing this are opposing protection in the context of this discussion (about flagged revisions) in the sense that they support flagged revisions instead of semi-protection, rather than actively favoring a no-protection-at-all free-for-all.


Indeed, I fully support flagged revisions for all BLPs (and, indeed, in general but that is considerably less likely to come to pass).

Perhaps it would be more constructive to temper that list by removing, or at the very least annotating, those who are against semi-protection because they feel it is overkill but support flagged revision to protect the subject of biographies?

-- Coren

No.

Too late.

Flagged Revisions were expected over two years ago, and were due to be implemented in Spring 2008. However, no serious effort has be made to progress this, and hence the "Community" has failed BLP targets. Your claims about Flagged Revisions can be dismissed as misdirection - you are clinging to something doesn't seem to exist. Not good enough, I'm afraid.



Flagged revisions have been around for less than a year (I am not sure when they were first available in MediaWiki - anyone know?) and are now rolled out on some projects (German Wikipedia now uses flagged revisions, for instance.)

Semi (and full) protection have been around a lot longer than that - as long as I have been involved in Wikipedia. If it is too late for flagged revisions to save us (which could be turned on tommorow), it is also too late for semi (or full) protection to save us (which could also be turned on tommorow).

The difference, of course, is that flagged revisions will do a better job of protection the subjects of articles and are more palatable to the Wikipedia Community. The argument in favor of semi-protection does not actually exist, as far as I can see.

I'm starting to worry about you, Jose. You don't seem to understand the time frames, nor The Point.

Flagged Revisions or "Stable Versions" were seriously mooted 3 years ago. Two years ago they were imminent. Over a year ago they appeared on the German Wiki. In March this year, we were told they were being rolled out on the English WP.

Yet they have shown no signs of appearing on the English Wikipedia - and this site has been asking the same question every other week or so for over 9 months. Where are these flagged revisions? No reply - Nothing. So forgive me if I don't believe flagged revisions will "be turned on tomorrow".

And as a consequence - to prevent the ongoing farce of BLP drive-by defamation - and to end the blatant hypocrisy of Unequal Protection, where Jimbo Wales and cohorts are protected while others are not - Semi-Protection applied equally to Jimbo and Walter Mondale and others is the only viable option at this stage.


I am not saying that flagged revisions will be turned on tommorow. I am saying that turning on flagged revisions tommorow is, today, no harder than turning on across the board semi-protection tommorow. From a technical standpoint, both are equal viable. From a political standpoint, flagged revisions are more viable. So what favors semi-protection? What makes the technically as difficult yet political more difficult semi-protection more viable?
Random832
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Mon 29th December 2008, 4:36am) *

I am not saying that flagged revisions will be turned on tommorow. I am saying that turning on flagged revisions tommorow is, today, no harder than turning on across the board semi-protection tommorow. From a technical standpoint, both are equal viable. From a political standpoint, flagged revisions are more viable. So what favors semi-protection? What makes the technically as difficult yet political more difficult semi-protection more viable?


Here we have to look at the actual substantive differences between the two options. With semi-protection, what few edits it prevents are totally prevented rather than simply being kept out of default public view / search engines. But one can get beyond semi-protection by just waiting a few days and making a few spelling corrections, so one could argue that it provides no defense at all - it prevents simple vandalism from becoming unmanageable (which is the _real_ reason it's used in the high-traffic biographies that are currently semi-protected), but is, unlike flagged revisions, totally ineffective against a determined user with a vendetta against a BLP subject.

Note also that flagged revisions - as implemented now (or, at least, as implemented months ago when I tested it) - has the strong disadvantage that someone with the ability to approve edits can accidentally "approve" an edit by editing an unrelated section of the draft version.

There's no easy answer. And with flagged revisions there are more details to work out like just who gets to approve edits - I myself favor a solution where BLPs are a special flagged-revisions class where only people with verified real names can approve edits.
Moulton
They need more than verified real names. They need to be certified as having passed a college level course in mass media ethics.
Random832
Having them be able to be held responsible for their actions would be enough - and (contrary to some peoples belief) requiring real names wouldn't violate the "anyone can edit" principle - everyone has a real name
Anonymous editor
I would favor semi-protection AND flagged revisions for BLPs.

Also default to delete on AfD, as has been going on recently.

There are far too many BLPs on Wikipedia in general. They should be cut down to those that are truly notable. The ones which are actually notable tend to have their pages edited and watchlisted a lot, so vandalism isn't as much of a problem. From my experience, the problems come in with borderline notable entries which are ignored by the vast majority of Wikipedians, so vandals can hit it without anyone noticing (unless someone happens to be perusing recent changes manually or with Huggle at the time in question).

Semi-protection alone would get rid of a ton of drive-by vandalism.
Coren
QUOTE(Random832 @ Mon 29th December 2008, 12:00am) *

Note also that flagged revisions - as implemented now (or, at least, as implemented months ago when I tested it) - has the strong disadvantage that someone with the ability to approve edits can accidentally "approve" an edit by editing an unrelated section of the draft version.


I should think that the ability to flag would be handled mostly like the ability to rollback: anyone who misuses the tool would end up loosing it rather swiftly. That still gives a big advantage: the number of such approved bad edits will be necessarily much lower than the status quo (by simple virtue that right now all such edits are visible).

The delicate balance to strike, of course, is to give the tool to enough people that no titanic backlog is created yet discriminately enough that manipulating oneself into having the tool to misuse it maliciously is made difficult, and rare enough in practice that handling the cases when it will happen is managable.

-- Coren

Castle Rock
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th December 2008, 9:03pm) *

They need more than verified real names. They need to be certified as having passed a college level course in mass media ethics.


So only the 5% of the world's population with access to a college education is worthy of participating? lol
groody
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Mon 29th December 2008, 8:22am) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th December 2008, 9:03pm) *

They need more than verified real names. They need to be certified as having passed a college level course in mass media ethics.

So only the 5% of the world's population with access to a college education is worthy of participating? lol

Yep. They are (theoretically) the ones smart enough to be able to work out that, even though they are worthy, they shouldn't be doing it anyway.

f.
everyking
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Mon 29th December 2008, 8:22am) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 28th December 2008, 9:03pm) *

They need more than verified real names. They need to be certified as having passed a college level course in mass media ethics.


So only the 5% of the world's population with access to a college education is worthy of participating? lol


Not just access, passing a course in mass media ethics. I'm not sure what that narrows the percentage down to.
Random832
QUOTE(Coren @ Mon 29th December 2008, 7:19am) *

I should think that the ability to flag would be handled mostly like the ability to rollback: anyone who misuses the tool would end up loosing it rather swiftly.


If "misuse" is defined as approving a revision that includes bad information, then that would only be reasonable if it is possible for someone who has the ability to approve versions of articles to make edits without approving the version they are editing (for complex changes that require multiple edits, etc).
tarantino
Today's featured unprotected biography is that of US district court judge Shira Scheindlin.
Anonymous editor
how on earth did that stay for five days?

Davewild cracks me up.


It sickens me that so many are against semi-protection, when it clearly is necessary.
HappyWanderer
I support semi-protection of all biographies of living people.

Another feature should be included in the histories of BLPs: IP addresses showing. If a user includes false and possibly defamatory material, they should not be allowed to hide behind a screen name, completely anonymous. It is easier for them to be tracked down for a defamation lawsuit, and for their ISP to be found and contacted. Though this can be evaded by the usage of internet cafés and public computers, it will be able to track down the general area and it will help locate those who do not use such measures.

Also, Wikipedia should not be allowed to have Section 230 immunity. Because of their close association with for-profit corporation Wikia, which was co-founded by one of the same people that co-founded Wikipedia, alongside a former Wikimedia trustee and administrator, it is safe to assume that they are one and the same. Thus, Wikimedia is not a non-profit 'charity' and should not be given any special treatment. It was originally a .com domain, and then the "Wikimedia Foundation" was created, followed by Wikia less than a year later. Strike out comment which demonstrates ignorance of Section 230 on my part.
Random832
QUOTE(HappyWanderer @ Mon 29th December 2008, 5:53pm) *

Also, Wikipedia should not be allowed to have Section 230 immunity. Because (etc etc wikia for-profit)


Section 230 immunity has nothing to do with being a non-profit. (There may or may not be a legitimate argument for it not to have section 230 immunity, but its tax status is not going to be where that argument comes from)
The Wales Hunter
What are the odds the default option is to "latest" rather than "flagged revision" when the change is implemented?

BLPs need to be fully protected. A class of editor needs to be created - something like "BLP editors". To enter the group, editors must supply proof of who they are and their address to the Foundation. Those who are legally accountable only.

In order to ensure this isn't shortcut by using other, non-BLP articles as coatracks, it should be ensured that any BLP sections of non-BLPs should be a nothing more than a wikilink to the BLP.
zvook
I must say, I'm not sure about this at all. Wikipedia is, as Urban Dictionary had it, "Britannica on the bathroom wall". Everybody computer-literate knows this and uses it as a quick reference with a liberal pinch of salt. Everybody else can be told this in three seconds flat.

The more Wikipedia is dressed-up as reliable, the more dangerous errors and vandalism become. If you want to take FAs, scrutinize them still further, and present them in good faith as articles that editors feel pretty good about, that's one thing, but extending some spurious "safeguards" to a huge swath of articles seems dodgy. The best protection for everybody seems to be, hey, it's that website any passing schmoe can change.
JoseClutch
QUOTE(zvook @ Mon 29th December 2008, 11:19pm) *

I must say, I'm not sure about this at all. Wikipedia is, as Urban Dictionary had it, "Britannica on the bathroom wall". Everybody computer-literate knows this and uses it as a quick reference with a liberal pinch of salt. Everybody else can be told this in three seconds flat.

The more Wikipedia is dressed-up as reliable, the more dangerous errors and vandalism become. If you want to take FAs, scrutinize them still further, and present them in good faith as articles that editors feel pretty good about, that's one thing, but extending some spurious "safeguards" to a huge swath of articles seems dodgy. The best protection for everybody seems to be, hey, it's that website any passing schmoe can change.


We cannot even properly warn people not to set tens of thousands of dollars to Nigerian lawyers looking to move oil money to Mother Britain (BBC), and you want to convince them Wikipedia is unreliable?
tarantino
Of course, semi-protecting biographies is no guarantee that insults won't be presented as encyclopedic articles for months at a time.

Twat_dangle (T-H-L-K-D)

Archived history.

http://www.webcitation.org/5dSGz4qqQ
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 4:08pm) *

We're talking about Seigenthaler style attacks that hit BLPs every hour, every day, every month, all year. Most of it gets recognized and removed - but a significant amount lasts and is viewed by many before it is removed. This is borne out by studies. Numerous cases come to light, but it is only someone like Seigenthaler who had the gravitas and position in the media to really take this on. Other victims have had to fend off WP largely alone., while random Wikipedia editors live in cloud cuckoo land not caring because it doesn't impact on them personally.

His "position in the media", though it was much higher decades ago, consisted mostly of being the father of the NBC Nightly News reporter with the same name. If Brian Chase hadn't created an article about him we probably wouldn't have one today.

No, I'm not excusing this or even claiming that it was a net positive, just saying most of us would otherwise never have heard of him.

Now, you have to create an account to write a new article. But we forget that if Mr. Chase had been required to do this (and unless it was something obvious like "User:BrianChase", and even then only if he had a less common name), Daniel Brandt would not have tracked him down and Seigenthaler wouldn't have gotten an apology, even with a subpoena or a search warrant against the WMF as any checkuser data (if it existed at the time) would have long since expired.

So let's assume temporarily that semi-protection is the answer. Even if you run an admin-bot to dummy-lock all existing contents of Category:Living people and wheel-war with every nay-sayer, it would not make it any harder for me or you or Brian Chase or anyone else to write a new article accusing a random person of being involved in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Users can create a new article the moment they have an account. They don't even have to wait four days and ten edits like they would for editing an existing semi-protected page.

This is probably still Wikipedia's greatest avenue of liability (apart from "I swear I took this photo myself" and "fair use because I want it to be" image uploads). Pages which already exist are usually being watched by at least a handful of good-faith editors, but new pages are not.

Let's say 10 users are watching the same handful of BLP articles (among thousands of others). If they (generously) each have the time and energy to review 30% of their watchlist, each edit will:
*be reviewed an average of 3 times.
*have about 1 in 169,000 chance of being reviewed by all 10 users.
*have about 1 in 35.4 chance of not being reviewed by any of them.

However if a flagging system is used, and if they trust each other's judgment then they can achieve a 100% check rate on up to 3x as many articles without increasing labor (measured in edits checked per person).
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 2:06am) *

[*]CharlotteWebb (T-C-L-K-R-D) - WReviewer - makes very weak arguments that lack evidence. In contrast, the impact of drive-by vandalism by non registered users against BLP victims is backed by significant evidence.

We could just disable unregistered editing completely in that case. It would just require convincing the WMF to allow this.
Lar
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 30th December 2008, 1:33pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 2:06am) *

[*]CharlotteWebb (T-C-L-K-R-D) - WReviewer - makes very weak arguments that lack evidence. In contrast, the impact of drive-by vandalism by non registered users against BLP victims is backed by significant evidence.

We could just disable unregistered editing completely in that case. It would just require convincing the WMF to allow this.

Works for me. While we are at it, real names only, please, no pseudonmyous editing.

Never never happen, but that would be Ideal. With a capital I.

QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 29th December 2008, 2:55pm) *

What are the odds the default option is to "latest" rather than "flagged revision" when the change is implemented?

BLPs need to be fully protected. A class of editor needs to be created - something like "BLP editors". To enter the group, editors must supply proof of who they are and their address to the Foundation. Those who are legally accountable only.

In order to ensure this isn't shortcut by using other, non-BLP articles as coatracks, it should be ensured that any BLP sections of non-BLPs should be a nothing more than a wikilink to the BLP.

Works for me.
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 30th December 2008, 7:47pm) *

Works for me. While we are at it, real names only, please, no pseudonmyous editing.

If we did it that way, Hivemind would have more articles than Wikipedia. tongue.gif
luke
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 30th December 2008, 7:47pm) *


<snip>

Works for me. While we are at it, real names only, please, no pseudonmyous editing.

Never never happen, but that would be Ideal. With a capital I.

......
I don't remember if you registered at Citizendium, but check out the CZ:Policy on Topic Informants
QUOTE
The subjects of biographies, persons who have had unique and important experience of historical events, CEOs, politicians, judges, inventors, and others who are (or were) close to the subjects written about shall enjoy a special status in the Citizendium community as topic informants. While being a topic informant will not by itself confer the editorial privileges of decisionmaking and article approval, topic informants will enjoy several special rights. .......

Kato
Matt Yeager BLP extremist vs namesake Chuck Yeager BLP victim


Matt Yeager


One of the strongest opponents of Equal Protection for all BLP victims was an editor calling himself Matt Yeager (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Yeager gave an "unfathomably strong oppose'' to semi-protection of all BLP articles, dismissed any ethical concerns as a "fear of lawsuits", and seemed only concerned with "The Community" making no mention of the article victims themselves.

Yeager describes himself as...

QUOTE(Matt Yeager)
Matt Yeager is the name commonly assigned to a certain 20-year old Christian from the Tri-Cities, Washington. He is a National Merit Scholar and a sophomore at the University of Central Florida. He graduated from Kamiakin High School in Kennewick (Class of '07) and plans to one day become a Spanish teacher or professor or something of the sort.


Chuck Yeager


Matt's namesake Chuck Yeager (T-H-L-K-D) is a highly decorated former US airforce pilot with a biography on Wikipedia.

Due to a series of defamatory IP edits in 2007, Chuck Yeager's BLP was protected -- then semi-protected in January 2008, and has remained semi-protected ever since. The protection was due to a "OTRS ticket" - and presumably at the request of representatives of the article subject.

But according to Wikipedia editor Matt Yeager, this shouldn't have happened. Matt opposes equal semi-protection for Jimbo, Chuck and You, dismissing such complaints. Remember:

QUOTE(Matt Yeager)
We need to overcome our fear of lawsuits and continue with what's best for the community.


So screw Chuck Yeager.
tarantino
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th December 2008, 2:06am) *



This is the most obscene hypocrisy that blights Wikipedia. And so far, over 100 Wikipedia editors below support this ongoing disgrace - in the face of good faith efforts by many to sort it out.


The pompous doofus Mr.Z-man tells Cool Hand Luke that if he "disagree[s] with that principle [of anyone can edit], I hear Citizendium is recruiting".

These people don't even seem to consider that there are over 1700 articles that "not anyone can edit". There are millions of IPs that are prevented from editing any article while not logged in, and a large fraction of those can't create an account without emailing someone. Raul654 alone blocked over a million IPs last year for periods up to 5 years in continuation of his hunt for the great white whale Scibaby. If they can accept huge range blocks to prevent some easily revertible contrary opinions being put into global warming articles, why can't they accept semi-protection of biographies to lessen the amount of damage to real people?
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 31st December 2008, 5:06pm) *

Matt Yeager BLP extremist vs namesake Chuck Yeager BLP victim



Time will tell which of them has the right stuff. dry.gif

Should we protect the book too, since it's mostly about Chuck, or just assume nobody would go there to defame him?
Kato
Welcome to BLP Busy body MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D)


One of the busiest anti-Equal Protection extremists seems to be this guy MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

He got very upset at the idea that all BLP targets would get the same protection as Jimbo Wales - even going on to Cool Hand Luke's talk page to demand answers. "MZMcBride" is firmly against semi-protection, and against protecting BLP victims from IP attacks. Yet he surely knows the status of Jimbo Wales's protected bio? After all, a couple of days ago, he himself edited Jimbo's biography to amend a link. Jimbo's biography is, of course, the most protected article on the site, remaining permanently protected and closely watched by Wikipedios like MZMcBride. This is in stark contrast to treatment Wikipedia dishes out to the likes of Walter Mondale, Joseph Francis Farah, Fuzzy Zoeller, and Ultimate Fighting champion Chuck Liddell (T-H-L-K-D) who are exposed to the full unprotected bile of Jimbo's own creation..

In late 2008, MZMcBride removed a semi-protection notice to Chuck Liddell's biography. By December, edits like the one below were sticking for hours at a time:

QUOTE(WP biography of Chuck Liddell)
After several loses including 2 knock outs by niggers, liddell offically changed his nickname to the assman.

Jimbo Wales doesn't have to worry about things like that happening to his bio - MZMbride looks after him - and Jimbo's bio has barely been brushed by a harmful hand in years. Everyone else can just take a hike - protecting them will, in MZMcBride's words "kill a big part of the charm of our site".

*Mods - can you add the NOINDEX tags to the Chuck Liddell material please?

Done!
tarantino
For a month prior to December 15 2008, Wikipedia asserted that this USMC officer was a "moronic faggot".
Kato
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 2nd January 2009, 2:55am) *

For a month prior to December 15 2008, Wikipedia asserted that this USMC officer was a "moronic faggot".

Needless to say, that article was at the top of google - ahead of numerous sites that detail the officer's acts of heroism in Vietnam.

But according to BLP extremist Mizu onna sango15 (T-C-L-K-R-D) - a WP administrator and fan of Broadway musicals who says their real name is "Lucille" (cough):

QUOTE(Mizu onna sango15)
We are an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. While we do indef protect a select few, we have too many BLP articles to protect like this. It would be unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=260930081

So presumably, War heroes have to put up with being described as "moronic faggots" because... well they are not in the "select few" (re: Jimbo Wales, former bed partner Rachel Marsden etc). And there are just too many to bother dealing with anymore....
tarantino
While looking through the Wikipedia bios of B and C list celebrities, I noticed that many are little more than poorly sourced gossip columns.

Is it really necessary for an encyclopedia to claim that this guy sometimes masturbates in front of a webcam while dressed as a pirate, or this woman once got hammered and talked loudly on an airplane?
EricBarbour
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 1st January 2009, 8:30pm) *

Is it really necessary for an encyclopedia to claim that this guy sometimes masturbates in front of a webcam while dressed as a pirate

Well, it seems that Mr. Grantham was, in fact, in trouble over a "webcam sex session":
http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?i...=7&in_a_source=
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2004/t_dirty_den-p1.php
http://www.people.co.uk/tm_objectid=142020...-name_page.html
...although I have to admit, this is a stupid thing to put in a BLP.

QUOTE
or this woman once got hammered and talked loudly on an airplane?

Also some truth:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/p...ass-435875.html
and again, doubtful something this insipid and trivial belongs in her BLP.

Poof! Sources! Google google google....

and now for the question: if Mizu Onna Sango loves unprotected BLPs soooo much, is she/he/whatever willing to add the references to these articles? Didn't think so. Not listening.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 2nd January 2009, 4:30am) *

While looking through the Wikipedia bios of B and C list celebrities, I noticed that many are little more than poorly sourced gossip columns.

Is it really necessary for an encyclopedia to claim that this guy sometimes masturbates in front of a webcam while dressed as a pirate, or this woman once got hammered and talked loudly on an airplane?

What may be needed is a regular effort to contact these victims and inform them that and how Wikipedia has been libeling them, perhaps with an invitation to join the Wikipedia Review.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.