User talk:Writ Keeper

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Third Opinion?

Hello, do you have a minute to look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Smith (artist) and tell me if I'm out in left field? Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look when I get the chance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at it, and it looks like a relatively straightforward delete, although there were a looot of links to wade through. So, no, you're not out in left field at all. As an aside, though, I do agree with Bmusician's decline of the speedy deletion; this article is a pretty solid example of one that doesn't meet the (strict) criteria for speedy deletion, even though it may be clear that it's not notable enough for an article. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning on the speedy delete was that there was no credible claim of significance. A copy/paste biography of the artist claiming significance is not in my opinion credible. But that's that! Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

personal note

Writ - did see your last note on Steven's page. Thought it best not to use his talk page for continuing. But you've been kind and patient in your remarks, so I thought I'd add a little to why the matter of rules and their misapplication has disturbed me so. The poem thing was only confirmation of the problems I've seen. The real substance was a lengthy, complex BLP discussion in which I have had to stand by and watch a man's personal and professional reputation maligned and viciously attacked with the intent to cause harm (the WP article has actually caused real harm to him). I did what I could, but I was one against the many. And the many (though it is private information and I will not source it) are an organized group of editors who began their assault on the subject and continue to wage it with the sole purpose of doing harm to the subject. They employ WP rules to the advantage of doing that, not out of any intent to be accurate. They impose a tyranny of consensus, and simply bully anyone else aside. If you think I'm hyping this, consider they are among the same groups that squashed the Smithsonian's Cross-roads exhibit a few years back. If you think about it, any well-organized fringe group can do this, using literal interpretations of rules, consensus majorities and a bit of manipulation. In this case the second-sources they boast of being gold (media articles in the NYT, W.Post, et al.) actually originated with one of the editors of the BLP - and he bragged about this in the original version I attempted to revise. Anyway, through the weeks of trying to end this malicious attack, person continued to be harmed (even had one of his books pulled from publication by a major company that wanted to avoid the controversy started by WP), and continues to this day to suffer these consequences. There was nothing I could do to prevent this, under Wiki's rules. Even the BLP rules about living persons say that it is the challenger who must prove the case. Though I did prove it, it was ignored. More to the point is the fact that the rule, if you think about it, insists that the harm done continue until the proof against doing it is certain and has consensus. Any real world appraisal would say one cease immediately the potential of doing harm until the case for doing it is proven. Not the other way around. But that is not the case at Wiki. I've been charged, in the process of trying to prevent the damage, with vandalism, edit warring, NLTs, and everything else you can think of. Even my attempt to get the matter mediated was shot down with caustic remarks, and the rf for mediation was quickly closed without action. It goes on. But it opened my eyes to how the very things that are meant to keep Wiki honest and organized, can be perverted and twisted to serve personal agenda's. The irony is, that one can't even take something like I experienced to RFC or the village pump. in the former, their is no subject category for even talking about WP policies and their weaknesses; in the latter one would be accused of "shopping" - I was, by one of the parties in the dispute. So, this isn't just a matter of 'sour grapes' or 'don't let this experience discourage you'. There are fundamental flaws in how WP works. And there are people who have no compunction about using those flaws to their own advantage. Anyone who tries to stand up to what is the correct and decent thing, no matter what the rules say, doesn't stand a chance; doesn't even have a slingshot to work with. I do much thank you for your calming notes, though. I do know there are some here who are conscientiously trying to contribute, and wish them all the best. Red Slider (note: I put the four tildes here, but it doesn't seem to translate into my user name) 71.193.56.126 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's just the sad truth that any system can, and will, be abused, and by its nature, Wikipedia is conducive to such abuses, no matter what we try to do about it. With the high visibility that Wikipedia possesses, such abuse can be a powerful weapon that can be easily and indiscriminately wielded. As I said, I'm sorry to see you, or any good-faith editor for that matter, go, but I don't doubt your story, and I totally understand your reasons for leaving. I still think that Wikipedia, with all its very real issues, is a net good, and so I'll continue trying to make it better in what few ways I can, but it can be hard sometimes to not come to your conclusions about it. Again, all the best to you; perhaps we'll talk again someday (maybe without even knowing it!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(btw, as for your name, you're probably just not logged in?)

While I don't plan to participate as an editor any more, with you permission I'd like to keep this conversation going a little. Of the hundred or so contacts I've made in two separate incidents, you and steven are the only two I've encountered who seem to understand the problems and also have concerns about abuses. I also think WP can be a very good thing, but at the moment the thing it is has become dangerously manipulated. I also agree that any system can and will be abused. Where I'd respectfully disagree is the suggestion that Wiki is conducive to such abuse "no matter what we try to do about it." If I felt that, I wouldn't be here discussing it with you. I think there are many things that can be done to prevent abuse and keep WP from collapsing into a heap of self-interested feudalism. To illustrate that, I will restrict my remarks to only one problem area (one I know well); the subject of BLPs that do harm to a living person (though I think these concerns equally apply to dead persons as well).

Of all the intents and expectation of applying rules regarding BLPs, the subject of doing harm is in a class by itself. I've noticed the injunction to "not do harm" mentioned in some fashion throughout WP, not only in BLP-specific discussions and venues. So, there is good suggestion that WP, as a collective undertaking, also has broad concerns about this matter. But if one looks at the BLP policies governing BLPs (which I will deliberately not source here, leaving that to those who knows these things much better than I), harm is mentioned, but not given the special treatment it requires - and therefore is wide open for the kinds of abuse I've encountered. Harm done through a BLP is in a class of its own and urgently needs a separate set of rules from those of ordinary matters.

To begin, even the fact of whether harm might done or not in a particular case is left to consensual process. People said things like "WP is not causing any harm in suggesting someone doesn't have a valid Phd when he says he does", or, "That's the subject's concern, he hasn't come forward to complain or defend himself," and things like that. Those assertions, when used to stymie a complaint that harm is being done, are easily abused. What needs to happen is that consensus must be removed from the initial judgement that harm is, or can be done, in a particular complaint. An unimpeachable special committee, qualified to determine from the outset if a particular instance constitutes a serious potential for doing harm, must handle this matter. My suggestion would be that this committee not even handle the matter in open discussion. The complainant simply goes to them and cites the BLP and the places where they feel serious personal, professional or other harm is being done. No arguments are presented. The committee then goes and looks at the BLP and decides if the complaint is justified. What they do, before anything else happens, is decide if the instance falls into the 'special harm class' and now must be treated under a very different set of rules than governs ordinary discussions. I'll give a few examples of where present rules are inadequate and subject to abuse:

1. BLP policy currently indicates that the one who revises material must prove the case. Generally this makes sense. But in the case of harm it is exactly backward. The injunction against doing harm (because of its more than academic consequences) should require that those supporting statements causing harm should need to prove that 1)that the statements doing harm are of sufficient importance and central to the biography to warrant their inclusion; and, 2) that they are supported (proven) almost to a certainty. When damage to the personal, professional, fiscal reputation is what is at stake, the shoe needs always to be on the foot of the one who is proposing that the damage is necessary and its support is verified (that almost all doubt has been removed and there is no other rational explanation that would mitigate the interpretation). By asking the one who suggests harm is being done to prove the harmful material is false, is to promote the continuation of harm while the matter is in discussion. Rather, the harmful material needs to be removed immediately, while the discussion is ongoing. This also requires the side that would defend the harmful materials to show that it is necessary and valid to do so, rather than simply trying to undermine the challenger's attempt to end the harm. If, at the end of the day, it is found that the material is both necessary and proven, it can always be put back in. But, you can't unring the bell if it continues ringing throughout the proceedings. What I'm suggesting is that undoing potential harm should not be held hostage to convincing those who support doing it (esp. where the attackers are doing it for more than academic reasons.) In the case I dealt with, even the necessity for harm was in serious doubt. The biography, if you notice, had very little biography in it. Its central item was, still is, a single "Controversy" section with two subparts that do harm to the person. The rest, the biography, is so spare that one can hardly notice that the subject had much of a life, let alone had a robust scientific career, published 12 books and numerable research papers, etc. Contrasting with other biographies of people with similar vitae, the BLP barely exists, save for the accusations being made. That should tell us something about the rules and where they fail. But, under the present set of BLP rules it doesn't matter;

2. After determining that there is an overwhelming necessity in retaining the harmful material, the question turns to what constitutes proof that it is valid. As mentioned, for this class, validity should not be decided as a matter of proving the case that the claims that cause harm are false, but on the case that there is any doubt about them at all. Because of the grave consequences we need to know that it is the case that someone, in this example, actually didn't get their Phd. as claimed. So the matter of sourcing the evidence comes into play in quite a different manner than the normal hierarchies of sourcing evaluation. News articles, even from established media such as NYT or W.Post lose substantial value when the matter is one of real validity rather than validty based on general authority and reputation. Newspapers, even the best of them, have political, social, advertising and other agenda that may account not only for the credibility of the report, but for which side of a matter they wish the reader to arrive at conclusions. The quotes they use may be accurate, but who they choose to get them from may have unknown prejudices involved, and on examination may not be at all as credible as our rules would suggest. Articles in the NYT and other papers not only may be colored to the paper's own inclinations, but are often unvetted despite our naive assumptions based on movies about deep throats and glimpses of editorial boardrooms. Even quoted authorities may have agenda which cause them to hide the real agenda or even lie about the facts. In the instance I know, a university Vice Chancellor is held up (as are the newspapers) as a gold-standard second source. In fact, the VC being quoted in a paper is really a tertiary source. But beyond that, there is good reason to believe he is covering for the university, which is is primary job, and not to be controverted by some factual matter. Indeed, A VC or Chancellor's responsibility to cover for their institution may have legal reasons for doing so that make factual accounts secondary. But, under the BPL and Sourcing rules, people are free to hold the VC and the newspaper as 'gold standard' second sources. "He speaks for the university and, therefore, can be taken as correct." says one editor. The fact is, his authority as a university official does not indicate any special responsibility, expertise, understanding or credibility about the matter at hand; a fact that may be entirely swept aside by our sourcing rules. On the other side, the written historical record contained in the library research archives, along with the archivist's statement (who does have bona fide expertise in the matter) is dismissed by the same rules. When harm is at stake, our rules of sourcing and evidence can and should be revised. We need standards which reflect the real state of affairs and grave consequence that may issue from failing to take note of them. It is a state of affairs that must remove all doubt on the one side, and require only rational and reasonable support on the other. Preventing harm should not be reduced to some popularity contest of consensus in a source-fight;

3 There are many other ways in which the matter of harming individuals through BLPs can and must be dealt with as a special class, apart from all other WP engagements. Conflict of interest, for example, should come into play when an editor has been involved, publicly, in opposition to the BLP subject or their work in other venues and forums. Where it can be shown that an editor belongs or participates in opposition groups, or has a personal axe to grind; that should, under special rules for harmful BLPs, be considered the equivalent of introducing doubt about the matter;

4 The ordinary WP processes by which such matters are presently handled is up for considerable revision as well. In the instance I experienced, every attempt to find a neutral zone in which to consider the case as harmful to a living person, and standards of doubt which would reasonably require immediately cessation of the harm, pending review, was inaccessible. Every shifted argument became and excuse to move the matter to another discussion page; yet when the side wishing to prevent the harm moved things, it was accused of "shopping". RFCs on the matter (general or specific) were closed and shut down, request for mediation was closed and denied, the village pump rules excluded the matter, and charges of 'vandalims', NLTs, edit-warring and such were raised to keep me busy and on the defense in replying to them. The entire process was stacked in favor of the status quo. This might work fine for purely academic questions. But it argues strongly in favor of observing that WP does all that it can to perpetuate harm being done, rather than in trying to prevent it. Again, a single place with an unimpeachable group of senior administrators who can deal with cases of harmful BLPs in their entire scope would go a long way to shutting down the abuses and bringing the stated WP intention of avoiding doing harm in line with the actual mechanisms to do that. If one looks at how WP presently handles this matter, the best that could be said is that their statements on the subject are disingenuous. Hard to come to any other conclusion;

All of this intense examination is to say, no matter what people have tried to do in the past, there are very good solutions and they haven't tried hard enough. Not that the few solutions I've suggested above are the best or near complete; but that they can be devised, and do much better at protecting BLP subjects from unwarranted attack than what we have. WP can be a good thing, at least a much better thing than it is, I've no doubt. But that it hasn't tried hard enough is equally obvious. It has people running loose and destroying its initial reputation and value. I think it time WP stopped defending the way it works and look at what is actually happening and put an end to it - a better end than its present system suggests is possible. I won't even guess how/if that is to be done. Given the procedural problems it has in just dealing with instances of abuse, I'd wager getting changes to prevent the abuse in the first place is a monumental undertaking. One I don't really have the time or the skill-set to do. I'll close with a Santayana quote that I once amended to read, "Those who haven't learned history are bound to repeat it; but, those who only know history are equally doomed to repeat it." Thanks for your indulgence, Writ Keeper. I hope I haven't unduly imposed on your time and attention. Much obliged.

(placeholder; will reply when I get a chance)) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No need, Writ, unless there are more things you'd like to talk about. My remarks were just FYI. Glad you are doing what you do for WP. Some sanity is better than none :) Redslider (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)