Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Just Data
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
dogbiscuit
Will Johnson has been fighting a personal crusade against BLP restrictions... taking a stand against our re-invented love & kisses Jimbo. He does not believe in Do No Harm, and sticks to his guns when called on this:

QUOTE

In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:52:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
scs at eskimo.com writes:
>> There is unquestionably a huge tension between "don't hurt
>> people" and several of our other core policies.

[I should have said "several of our core policies".]

Will Johnson replies:
> We have no policy "don't hurt people".

Of course not. It's "just" a goal. (And of course here we're most concerned with innocent people.)

But: a goal is not meaningless merely because it's not hard policy -- nor do hard policies override other concerns merely because they're hard policy. It's... a tension.


But wait, this is not an encyclopedia, it is just a database... no need for any moral responsibility there then.

QUOTE

Our policies should reflect our supposed commitment to collecting the data.

If the data shows that person X is a cad, then that's not our fault, and we have no moral responsibility to that person. No more than any other journalistic outlet. "Do no harm" is an unusable mantra because it can be used to exclude anything negative or even-suspect from an article.

Perhaps someone can come up with a better "nutshell" of what the BLP policy is really about.

Will Johnson

He argues this line so much, he might even believe it. Scary!
Doc glasgow
The problem with people like Will is they don't understand the concept of encyclopedia and they think that in decrying any limitation on publishing verifiable neutral information they are defending Wikipedia's right to the freedom enjoyed by a journalist.

1) What they forget is that journalists are not only limited by legal/libel constraints. They actually have to consider what their readership might find offensive and respectable publications also have....guess what...... CODES OF ETHICS.

2) The calls to remove BLPs are seldom calls that say "hey this is neutral verifiable information, but let's delete it". Now there have been a few cases like that, Alison Stokke and Brian Peppers spring to mind. But compelling reason to remove thousands of low-notability bios is otherwise. It is because they have not been, and cannot be, maintained in a neutral verifiable state.

I doubt Brandt and Murphy would have much (legitimate) grounds to complain if their articles were written by a named individual and maintained stable.

The need to stop having low notability bios is not because WP should not have neutral verifiable information, it is because WP should not have material which is so often NOT neutral nor verifiable.

Journalists are free to publish most facts, but publishers are NOT free to publish allegations when they are aware that a significant proportion of them will be false, inaccurate, or patently libellous. That's gross negligence.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Doc GlassGoose @ Wed 30th April 2008, 6:56pm) *

I doubt [Names Redacted] would have much (legitimate) grounds to complain if their [HivePedia] articles were written by a named individual and maintained stable.


Note. Edited For Clarity.

Jon cool.gif
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 1st May 2008, 12:12am) *

QUOTE(Doc GlassGoose @ Wed 30th April 2008, 6:56pm) *

I doubt [Names Redacted] would have much (legitimate) grounds to complain if their [HivePedia] articles were written by a named individual and maintained stable.


Note. Edited For Clarity.

Jon cool.gif


Eh?

Will's mantra "Wikipedia should not be constrained, because journalists are not", falls down because wikipedia is an unstable wiki that anyone can edit, not a "journalistic publication" which is fixed, and attributed, and for which the journalist bears legal and reputational liability.

Of course, journalists may print things people don't like, but at that point if the publication is neutral and verifiable, one has little cause to complaint. To that extent, Will is right...it just does not apply to a wiki.

Are you suggesting otherwise?
Jon Awbrey
[Names Redacted] = Real Names Of Wikipedia Admins.

HivePedia = HiveMind.

Jon cool.gif
Moulton
Brian Bergstein is a journalist who writes for the Associated Press.

Last week he was the guest panelist on NTTW (Not the Wikipedia Weekly).

I asked him three questions, which the moderator (Durova) read aloud, and transcribed his responses back to the text chat window...

QUOTE(Moulton's Questions to Brian Bergstein)
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:49:52] Barry Kort: In doing investigative reporting, Brian, a journalist has to be competent at finding and examining the evidence, determining how reliable it is, and reasoning accurately to whatever conclusions and insights are revealed by the evidence. How would you rate Wikipedians at doing that, either in writing articles or in investigating conduct cases?
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:03] Durova: I've read that to Brian.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:09] … Good at the latter
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:09] Barry Kort: Thank you.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:16] Durova: all over the map on the former.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:26] … Some things have weak evidence and it's duly noticed.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:53] … Wikipedia is getting better at - as a reader - getting tipped as a reader that evidence might not be there to support every point an author has made.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:51:59] … Maybe the latter part varies too.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:53:24] Barry Kort: Thank you for mediating that, and his response. I appreciate it.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:54:57] Durova: gah
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:55:04] … I think our recorder was off during it!
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:55:08] … sorry...
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:55:26] … so much to keep on top of.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:55:30] … He had a good answer.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:55:40] … talking about how he learns about Wikipedia stuff.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:56:56] Barry Kort: Oh, bummer.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:57:17] Durova: Try another?
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:57:20] … We're recording now.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:59:18] … We're taking a question from Brian about why we participate in Wikipedia,.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:59:26] Barry Kort: OK. Similarly, in journalism, there arise conflicting views about what constitutes a professional level of storycraft before breaking a story. Can you compare how AP editors hash out what's publishable vs how WP editors resolve their editorial conflicts?
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:59:27] Durova: What brought us in, why we stay.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 15:59:30] … ok
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:00:10] … good question!
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:01:54] … He says it's similar but simpler.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:01:58] … fewer people weigh in.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:02:57] Barry Kort: I can ask one more, if there's time.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:03:32] Durova: sure
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:04:28] Barry Kort: Professional journalists have a code of ethics that they follow. How would you compare the ethical guidelines to which professional journalists adhere to the level of ethics manifested within the WP community?
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:06:43] Durova: hard to say
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:06:53] … every day things get written on Wikipedia that would get him fired
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:07:01] … but other editors take evidence extremely seriously.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:07:06] … very broad category.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:08:14] Barry Kort: Should editors who write WP BLPs be obliged to pledge to a normative standard of journalistic ethics?
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:09:14] … ... Such as the one Doc Glasgow proposed, for example. (If he is aware of that.)
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:09:50] Durova: very interesting question
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:10:07] … Brian says it's not just some arbitrary nebulous code
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:10:17] … whether a lawsuit could happen
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:10:33] … if he writes about a living person, it could be a career killer to do it wrong.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:11:15] … Wikipedia hasn't been sued yet, so the boundaries aren't fully defined.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:11:30] … Filll is adding that he goes by what's been published previously in mainstream media sources.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:11:40] … He's cautious about being too innovative, especially on biographies.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:11:46] … He's rather rely on their filters first.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:12:01] Barry Kort: This might not be a suitable Q, but consider it... Does Brian think WP is likely to be sued over defamatory BLPs?
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:14:11] Durova: Brian has to go in a moment. We've run over.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:14:27] … We were talking about where the limits of journalistic standards are, and where they sometimes fail.
[Thu Apr 24 2008 16:14:46] Barry Kort: Many thanks for relaying those Qs. I appreciate it. And give my thanks to Brian for his thoughtful answers.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.