Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: DYK and BLP -there is no quality control.
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Doc glasgow
As a run on form this article where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI

I'm amazed. (Although I shouldn't be)

The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to acually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of wikipedia!!!

This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." -. Gatoclass
A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:16am) *

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." -. Gatoclass


He ought to change his name to Ain't Gato Class. hrmph.gif
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:16am) *

As a run on form this article, where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI.

I'm amazed. (Although I shouldn't be)

The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to actually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of Wikipedia!!!

This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." — Gatoclass


I see the potential for a teachable moment coming out of this system test — I think that concept is preferable to "breach burp" — but the learning curve at The Wikipedia Review (let's be honest) is almost as uninclined as the flatline of Wikipedia itself, so I don't know if it's worth the ergs and secs or not.

But if you were to try — really, really try — to analyze the inevitable failure of all future interventions of this ilk, what would the root cause of that failure be?

Jon Awbrey
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 2:28pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:16am) *

As a run on form this article, where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI.

I'm amazed. (Although I shouldn't be)

The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to actually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of Wikipedia!!!

This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." — Gatoclass


I see the potential for a teachable moment coming out of this system test — I think that concept is preferable to "breach burp" — but the learning curve at The Wikipedia Review (let's be honest) is almost as uninclined as the flatline of Wikipedia itself, so I don't know if it's worth the ergs and secs or not.

But if you were to try — really, really try — to analyze the inevitable failure of all future interventions of this ilk, what would the root causes of that failure be?

Jon Awbrey



People playing a game with indifference to the consequences to others.

I'd call them "BLP deniers" - but I'd be accused of breaching one of Gadwink's precious laws.

unhappy.gif I can't find a suitable ostrich on Commons.

I really want to create a new award for BLP "head in the sand" brigade
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:38am) *

unhappy.gif I can't find a suitable ostrich on Commons.

I really want to create a new award for BLP "head in the sand" brigade.


Did they delete WP:OSTRICH?

Jon blink.gif
John Limey
I particularly liked this: " By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way." It seems that MuffledThud has some hard feelings about the whole thing. He even declined the barnstar that David offered him.
Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:11pm) *



Nominations are now open.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 10:11am) *

They used a rubber-necking pose because they didn't want to be seen as defaming the ostrich.

Worse yet — acronymphomaniacs‡ could hardly help but read Head In The Sand as HITS, and that sands too much like a good thing.

Jon tongue.gif

‡ Not that that's a bad thing (NTTABT) …
A Horse With No Name
Hey, don't knock DYK -- without it, Daniel Case would have nothing to do with his time. ermm.gif
TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 2:16pm) *
This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." -. Gatoclass

you just can't argue with people who know it all.
Lar
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 10:27am) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:11pm) *



Nominations are now open.


How do you get the BLP deniers award, 1st class ???

Or is there only second class? ... because if you're a BLP victim, you're a second class citizen in Wikipedia's eyes?
Kwork
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 2:38pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 2:28pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:16am) *

As a run on form this article, where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI.

I'm amazed. (Although I shouldn't be)

The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to actually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of Wikipedia!!!

This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." — Gatoclass


I see the potential for a teachable moment coming out of this system test — I think that concept is preferable to "breach burp" — but the learning curve at The Wikipedia Review (let's be honest) is almost as uninclined as the flatline of Wikipedia itself, so I don't know if it's worth the ergs and secs or not.

But if you were to try — really, really try — to analyze the inevitable failure of all future interventions of this ilk, what would the root causes of that failure be?

Jon Awbrey



People playing a game with indifference to the consequences to others.

I'd call them "BLP deniers" - but I'd be accused of breaching one of Gadwink's precious laws.

unhappy.gif I can't find a suitable ostrich on Commons.

I really want to create a new award for BLP "head in the sand" brigade


Perhaps this image would do: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/klxW7jGc-mH9mAlogc5UFA
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:16am) *

As a run on form this article where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI

I'm amazed. (Although I shouldn't be)

The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to acually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of wikipedia!!!

This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." -. Gatoclass


This is why several reviewers in the past abandoned deliberate manipulation of articles to demonstrate serious flaws in the project. JL did very good work here and I agree with his analysis. But even worse than the "WP community" blowing off the lessons of this demonstration it will dismissed by the press and wider community as little more than Stephen Colbert increasing the world population of polar bears with an edit.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:38am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 2:28pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 9:16am) *

As a run on form this article, where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI.

I'm amazed. (Although I shouldn't be)

The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to actually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of Wikipedia!!!

This is typical:

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." — Gatoclass


I see the potential for a teachable moment coming out of this system test — I think that concept is preferable to "breach burp" — but the learning curve at The Wikipedia Review (let's be honest) is almost as uninclined as the flatline of Wikipedia itself, so I don't know if it's worth the ergs and secs or not.

But if you were to try — really, really try — to analyze the inevitable failure of all future interventions of this ilk, what would the root cause of that failure be?

Jon Awbrey


People playing a game with indifference to the consequences to others.

I'd call them "BLP deniers" — but I'd be accused of breaching one of Gadwink's precious laws.

unhappy.gif I can't find a suitable ostrich on Commons.

I really want to create a new award for BLP "head in the sand" brigade


After Action Analysis —

FAIL № 1. Trying to de-convert cultists and fundamentalists is a waste of time. No accumulation of disconfirming evidence will ever touch the devoutly wishful beliefs of the consummate believer. The only hope of success — admittedly slim — will depend on bringing external attention and pressure to bear.

FAIL â„– 2. Focusing on content is a waste of time. Let's face it, hoaxes are funny. People chuckle, cluck their tongues, and move on to the next one. Unless it's U. But no one cares about U. Except maybe sometimes U.

I have come to realize that it's very difficult for some people to grasp the utter futility of FAIL № 2. That's probably because the alternative is so hard to contemplate — you have to look at process, you have to get other people to look at process, and analyzing process is hard.

My guess is that people will keep on keeping on — they just haven't suffered enough yet.

Jon Awbrey
NotARepublican55
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 8:16am) *

"I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore." -. Gatoclass

They aren't the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". Last time I checked, IPs can't edit the George W. Bush article. rolleyes.gif
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 8:16am) *
The response seems to be that it is the hoaxers fault, and it would be too onerous to expect DYK people to acually do any fact checking before putting an article on the mainpage of wikipedia!!!
That would reduce the number of DYK points people can earn, and make it that much harder to level up.
John Limey
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:11pm) *



Nominations are now open.


I generally hate to comment on specific Wikipedians, but I have a nominee, User:Milowent (diff).
EricBarbour
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:16am) *

As a run on form this article where a breaching experiment showed how easy it was to get libels on to the mainpage as DYK, I opened a thread on ANI

Oh, come on, Scott, did you really think this wouldn't attract the craziest ones?
QUOTE
Oppose Wrong venue, for starters. This is not an "admin intervention", but a BLP and DYK issue. Whatever action is taken, should be discussed in those talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Thank you, Sarah! yecch.gif And suck it, Cyclopia......
NotARepublican55
"There have been other fake DYKs. For example, Fred McQueen (nee Spiker) was proclaimed on DYK to be Steve McQueen's illegitimate child with exactly zero real evidence, the only sourcing press releases from entities affiliated with Fred. Over 5000 people saw the article's fictional claims." THF (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
MZMcBride
QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 6:06pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:11pm) *

Nominations are now open.

I generally hate to comment on specific Wikipedians, but I have a nominee, User:Milowent (diff).

Can you elaborate? In some ways I think Milowent is exactly right about the state of affairs, present and future, in that diff, particularly with regard to the perpetration of hoaxes.
wikieyeay
QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

I particularly liked this: " By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way." It seems that MuffledThud has some hard feelings about the whole thing. He even declined the barnstar that David offered him.


He couldn't take it any more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347623406
John Limey
QUOTE(wikieyeay @ Thu 4th March 2010, 12:46pm) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

I particularly liked this: " By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way." It seems that MuffledThud has some hard feelings about the whole thing. He even declined the barnstar that David offered him.


He couldn't take it any more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347623406


Strange. I wonder if it's connected. I don't notice anything on his talk page or recent contribs that would explain it, and it's not like anyone was accusing him of any sort of wrongdoing vis a vis Mike Handel.
CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

I particularly liked this: " By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way." It seems that MuffledThud has some hard feelings about the whole thing.

The proper and thud-worthy response would be that Mr. Handel is dating Lee Dennison.
The Adversary
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 4th March 2010, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

I particularly liked this: " By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way." It seems that MuffledThud has some hard feelings about the whole thing.

The proper and thud-worthy response would be that Mr. Handel is dating Lee Dennison.

biggrin.gif ...yeah, and both mr.Handel and Lee Dennison now plan to settle on that peaceful island in the Med, called Porchesia.
thekohser
I heard that MuffledThud is going to take this newly-found leisure time to launch a singing career.

Milton Roe
QUOTE(wikieyeay @ Thu 4th March 2010, 5:46am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 3rd March 2010, 3:27pm) *

I particularly liked this: " By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way." It seems that MuffledThud has some hard feelings about the whole thing. He even declined the barnstar that David offered him.


He couldn't take it any more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347623406

Now THAT is pwned and boned. Awesome.

They'll burn good faith admins still the cows come home, rather than admit a systemic problem, though. It's like the old Soviet military's respose to a fire: throw soldiers on it till it goes out. In this case, termite soldiers-- the ones with the big malformed jaws for defending the colony. WTF cares if they die? Must protect Queen Jimbo and The Colony Pillars. Which are not to be questioned. Non-negotiable.
Moulton
When the "Mike Handel" BLP hoax was raised to Jimbo's attention, he called it both "fascinating and sad." Perhaps that's why he came down so hard on PrivateMusings over the whole issue of such breaching experiments.
grievous
I'm sorry, but Muffled Thud is something that happens when I go to the bathroom.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.