Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 23/05/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Google's search results are entirely their business. Actually not entirely, we do have quite a bit of control. In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it). But google pay attention to how many articles link to it, and there's an enormous 'political neologism' template at the end of the article, which makes them all mutually link. I can't estimate how much link juice that pushes into the article, but it may well be substantial, there's probably relatively few Wikipedia articles that link to the term otherwise, terms don't usually get that many links, but I don't know how many external links in there are, or how much link juice they supply. There is probably a reasonably strong argument for nofollowing internal 'link farms' like that, I don't see that one term should inherit another's link juice, but I couldn't see any obvious way to nofollow internal links when I checked briefly. -- geni -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith. This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on wiki-en. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 7:53 On 23/05/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Google's search results are entirely their business. Actually not entirely, we do have quite a bit of control. In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it). But google pay attention to how many articles link to it, and there's an enormous 'political neologism' template at the end of the article, which makes them all mutually link. I can't estimate how much link juice that pushes into the article, but it may well be substantial, there's probably relatively few Wikipedia articles that link to the term otherwise, terms don't usually get that many links, but I don't know how many external links in there are, or how much link juice they supply. There is probably a reasonably strong argument for nofollowing internal 'link farms' like that, I don't see that one term should inherit another's link juice, but I couldn't see any obvious way to nofollow internal links when I checked briefly. Okay, now we are getting somewhere. There are actually three templates at the bottom of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dan_Savage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Political_neologisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sexual_slang The sexual slang one in particular is massive, listing more than 100 terms. These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's main author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum announced he might run for President, and then added to all the other articles listed in the templates, thus creating a couple of hundred incoming links, and enhancing the article's Google ranking. Now, *that's using Wikipedia for political campaigning.* By the way, Cirt's GA articles include this highly flattering portrait of a gay porn company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Fisher Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith. This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on wiki-en. There is a on-wiki discussion and there will be more, but this: By the way, Cirt's GA articles include this highly flattering portrait of a gay porn company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Fisher is probably not a good direction to go in. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Okay, now we are getting somewhere. These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's main author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum announced he might run for President, and then added to all the other articles listed in the templates, thus creating a couple of hundred incoming links, and enhancing the article's Google ranking. Now, *that's using Wikipedia for political campaigning.* To be fair, we don't actually know it's having any effect at all, and it could be *lowering* the ranking for the article by sending its juice off to other articles around, averaging and diluting it down. My point was only that we probably shouldn't be doing anything, even accidentally, that would be likely to change its link juice over what it naturally gets. If it's fairly naturally at the top of the google listings, and we haven't done anything odd, then that's perfectly fine. Andreas -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take into account that even talking about the article on this list might affect ranking. What is needed is to improve the article; it is about a political act, not about lube. If it's about the political act, it should be covered under [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. Linguistically -- the term has been included in one dictionary, and in one book on neologisms. Some erotic books have used it (and we have gleefully included full quotes from each in the article's references: She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot. Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that seemed to the panting Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before. At each descent of the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum, Valerie thrust upward with all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her rotund naked buttocks swung clear of the bed Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his blood-lubed fist straight up my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the santorum clean.) Is that enough for linguistic notability? Perhaps enough for a Wiktionary entry, but a whole article, on bona-fide *linguistic*, encyclopedic grounds? As for the template use: Including the term in *both* the sexual slang template and the political neologisms template, both custom-created for the occasion, seems a stretch to me. It is not a political neologism, rightfully listed along with terms like Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • And theory of conservatism • Big government • Chairman • Checkbook diplomacy • Children's interests • Collaborationism • Conviction politics • Cordon sanitaire • Cricket test • Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism • Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism • Eurorealism • Euroscepticism • Eurosphere • Failed state • etc. in a 100-term template, causing it to appear in all of those articles. Listing it in the sexual slang template, based on less than a dozen appearances in print as an actual word -- as opposed to reporting about Dan Savage's campaign -- is a closer call, but still debatable. I don't like Santorum either, and sorry to be a spoil-sport, but it's unworthy of Wikipedia. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering. You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than Googlebombing) purpose to list santorum in a nav template of 100 political neologisms, and you come back with quips like that, and accuse people of wikilawyering (while exhorting me to Assume Good Faith, in capital letters: You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.). Incidentally, I just noticed the following conversation on the political neologisms template's talk page: ---o0o--- ==Shouldn't this be a category?== I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Why would anyone looking at (say) Euroscepticism want to navigate to an article about Soccer mom? Surely, this is why categories were invented. Bastin 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :It is most useful as a template. And yes, linguists and political scholars would indeed wish to navigate through these articles. -- Cirt (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC) ::They're completely unrelated terms. Why would you have a template on 'words invented since 1973'? Bastin 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :::Because they are of interest to those studying the subject matter from the perspective of many different varied fields. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms ---o0o--- Most useful. A category doesn't add any in-bound links. And that was the end of that conversation. Andreas On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take into account that even talking about the article on this list might affect ranking. What is needed is to improve the article; it is about a political act, not about lube. If it's about the political act, it should be covered under [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. Linguistically -- the term has been included in one dictionary, and in one book on neologisms. Some erotic books have used it (and we have gleefully included full quotes from each in the article's references: She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot. Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that seemed to the panting Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before. At each descent of the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum, Valerie thrust upward with all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her rotund naked buttocks swung clear of the bed Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his blood-lubed fist straight up my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the santorum clean.) Is that enough for linguistic notability? Perhaps enough for a Wiktionary entry, but a whole article, on bona-fide *linguistic*, encyclopedic grounds? As for the template use: Including the term in *both* the sexual slang template and the political neologisms template, both custom-created for the occasion, seems a stretch to me. It is not a political neologism, rightfully listed along with terms like Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • And theory of conservatism • Big government • Chairman • Checkbook diplomacy • Children's interests • Collaborationism • Conviction politics • Cordon sanitaire • Cricket test • Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism • Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism • Eurorealism • Euroscepticism • Eurosphere • Failed state • etc. in a 100-term template, causing it to appear in all of those articles. Listing it in the sexual slang template, based on less than a dozen appearances in print as an actual word -- as opposed to reporting about Dan Savage's campaign -- is a closer call, but still debatable. I don't like Santorum either, and sorry to be a spoil-sport, but it's unworthy of Wikipedia. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack templates and are practically orphans. Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an article then goes and creates associated templates. I don't do much with templates but I have a similar editing pattern - I was in the British Museum for the Hoxne Hoard challenge and wound up contributing a number of edits to articles about the sorts of spoons that were in the hoard. I am concerned at the risk of the mailing list degenerating into some sort of back channel and disrupting the wiki. People using it for off wiki complaints about an AFD and criticism of individual wikipedians who may not be subscribing to this list is in my view unhealthy. Have any of the people expressing disquiet about that editor notified them of this thread? WereSpielChequers On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering. You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than Googlebombing) purpose to list santorum in a nav template of 100 political neologisms, and you come back with quips like that, and accuse people of wikilawyering (while exhorting me to Assume Good Faith, in capital letters: You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.). Incidentally, I just noticed the following conversation on the political neologisms template's talk page: ---o0o--- ==Shouldn't this be a category?== I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Why would anyone looking at (say) Euroscepticism want to navigate to an article about Soccer mom? Surely, this is why categories were invented. Bastin 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :It is most useful as a template. And yes, linguists and political scholars would indeed wish to navigate through these articles. -- Cirt (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC) ::They're completely unrelated terms. Why would you have a template on 'words invented since 1973'? Bastin 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :::Because they are of interest to those studying the subject matter from the perspective of many different varied fields. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms ---o0o--- Most useful. A category doesn't add any in-bound links. And that was the end of that conversation. Andreas On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take into account that even talking about the article on this list might affect ranking. What is needed is to improve the article; it is about a political act, not about lube. If it's about the political act, it should be covered under [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. Linguistically -- the term has been included in one dictionary, and in one book on neologisms. Some erotic books have used it (and we have gleefully included full quotes from each in the article's references: She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot. Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that seemed to the panting Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before. At each descent of the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum, Valerie thrust upward with all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her rotund naked buttocks swung clear of the bed Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his blood-lubed fist straight up my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the santorum clean.) Is that enough for linguistic notability? Perhaps enough for a Wiktionary entry, but a whole article, on bona-fide *linguistic*, encyclopedic grounds? As for the template use: Including the term in *both* the sexual slang template and the political neologisms template, both custom-created for the occasion, seems a stretch to me. It is not a political neologism, rightfully listed along with terms like Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • And theory of conservatism • Big government • Chairman • Checkbook diplomacy • Children's interests • Collaborationism • Conviction politics • Cordon sanitaire • Cricket test • Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism • Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism • Eurorealism • Euroscepticism • Eurosphere • Failed state • etc. in a 100-term template, causing it to appear in all of those articles. Listing it in the sexual slang template, based on less than a dozen appearances in print as an actual word -- as opposed to reporting about Dan Savage's campaign -- is
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote political or social campaigns. There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay. Andreas --- On Wed, 25/5/11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 20:21 I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack templates and are practically orphans. Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an article then goes and creates associated templates. I don't do much with templates but I have a similar editing pattern - I was in the British Museum for the Hoxne Hoard challenge and wound up contributing a number of edits to articles about the sorts of spoons that were in the hoard. I am concerned at the risk of the mailing list degenerating into some sort of back channel and disrupting the wiki. People using it for off wiki complaints about an AFD and criticism of individual wikipedians who may not be subscribing to this list is in my view unhealthy. Have any of the people expressing disquiet about that editor notified them of this thread? WereSpielChequers On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering. You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than Googlebombing) purpose to list santorum in a nav template of 100 political neologisms, and you come back with quips like that, and accuse people of wikilawyering (while exhorting me to Assume Good Faith, in capital letters: You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.). Incidentally, I just noticed the following conversation on the political neologisms template's talk page: ---o0o--- ==Shouldn't this be a category?== I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Why would anyone looking at (say) Euroscepticism want to navigate to an article about Soccer mom? Surely, this is why categories were invented. Bastin 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :It is most useful as a template. And yes, linguists and political scholars would indeed wish to navigate through these articles. -- Cirt (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC) ::They're completely unrelated terms. Why would you have a template on 'words invented since 1973'? Bastin 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC) :::Because they are of interest to those studying the subject matter from the perspective of many different varied fields. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms ---o0o--- Most useful. A category doesn't add any in-bound links. And that was the end of that conversation. Andreas On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take into account that even talking about the article on this list might affect ranking. What is needed is to improve the article; it is about a political act, not about lube. If it's about the political act, it should be covered under [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. Linguistically -- the term has been included in one dictionary, and in one book on neologisms. Some erotic books have used it (and we have gleefully included full quotes from each in the article's references: She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of santorum from her ass, and throws it under the cot. Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that seemed to the panting Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before. At each descent of the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum, Valerie thrust upward with all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her rotund naked buttocks swung clear of the bed Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his blood-lubed fist straight up my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the santorum clean.) Is that enough for
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote political or social campaigns. There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay. Andreas I completely disagree with the direction of this thread that this was some sort of hit piece by Cirt on Santorum. When this started I re-read the article and found it neutral and presenting Santorum's reaction to the situation in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. Dan Savage is certainly playing activist here - the claim that Cirt was is not supported, and not in good faith. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote political or social campaigns. There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay. Andreas It is addressed at: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion One of our key policies. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] See Wikipedia:Advocacy. Again, this is NOT rocket surgery. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote political or social campaigns. There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay. Andreas I completely disagree with the direction of this thread that this was some sort of hit piece by Cirt on Santorum. When this started I re-read the article and found it neutral and presenting Santorum's reaction to the situation in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. Dan Savage is certainly playing activist here - the claim that Cirt was is not supported, and not in good faith. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to Wikipedia policies. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack templates and are practically orphans. Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an article then goes and creates associated templates. I don't do much with templates but I have a similar editing pattern - I was in the British Museum for the Hoxne Hoard challenge and wound up contributing a number of edits to articles about the sorts of spoons that were in the hoard. I am concerned at the risk of the mailing list degenerating into some sort of back channel and disrupting the wiki. People using it for off wiki complaints about an AFD and criticism of individual wikipedians who may not be subscribing to this list is in my view unhealthy. Have any of the people expressing disquiet about that editor notified them of this thread? WereSpielChequers Cirt has been notified and has read the thread. However, you are correct that we have more or less completed what can appropriately been done on a mailing list. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion started here. Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not have consensus that there is in fact a problem requiring being solved here. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware of it. As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote political or social campaigns. There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay. Andreas I completely disagree with the direction of this thread that this was some sort of hit piece by Cirt on Santorum. When this started I re-read the article and found it neutral and presenting Santorum's reaction to the situation in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. Dan Savage is certainly playing activist here - the claim that Cirt was is not supported, and not in good faith. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to Wikipedia policies. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than neutral observers and reporters, in the political process. I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote political or social campaigns. There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay. Andreas It is addressed at: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion One of our key policies. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] See Wikipedia:Advocacy. Again, this is NOT rocket surgery. Fred Maybe I should have said there is little to effectively address this. In my experience activists of either bent violate WP:Advocacy (and WP:BLP) for years with impunity (cf. global warming). Each side having POV supporters, there is never any consensus at ANI etc. that a violation has actually occurred. It usually goes on for years, until the matter goes to arbcom and swathes of editors from both sides end up topic-banned. Our consensus-forming process, which is effectively modeled on a chat-show phone-in, rather than thoughtful and team-based analysis, does not help here. This is why the outcome of arbitration is frequently so different from what the community does on its own. Ideally, it shouldn't be that way, but the only people I've ever seen implement WP:Advocacy are arbcom. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: From: Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 21:56 I'm skeptical that we should have an article. The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's a loophole in the definition of neutrality that doing things which help one side of a dispute doesn't break neutrality, simply because our intentions are neutral--even though our effects are not. This brings to mind GNAA. GNAA is a troll group who intentionally gave themselves an offensive name so that even mentioning them helped them troll. Wikipedia had a hard time getting rid of the article about them, because we can't say by using their name, we're helping their goals in deciding whether to have an article. It was finally deleted by stretching the notability rules instead. And in a related question, I'd ask: Should we have an article Richard Gere gerbil rumor? (As long as our article describes the rumor as debunked, of course--otherwise we would be directly violating BLP.) Some of the justifications for that and for this sound similar. It's a good comparison. There are plenty of reliable sources to satisfy notability: http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=%22richard+gere%22+gerbil#q=%22richard+gere%22+gerbilhl=entbm=nwssource=lnttbs=ar:1sa=Xei=3m7dTcizNYS08QPCjdUBved=0CBIQpwUoBQbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=fa06e4f4a78ee6ed We could summarise all of these, neutrally, in an article, quoting four dozen journalists on the controversy. However, we shouldn't. (No doubt someone will start an article now, and knowing Wikipedia, it will probably make DYK and GA. Ah well.) Interested readers are directed to: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebrities/a/richard_gere.htm As well as our very own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerbilling Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 22:38 On 25 May 2011 11:34, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: By the way, [author]'s GA articles include See, at this point you completely blew your credibility in this discussion by slipping into ad hominem. That's where you wiped out all gains from your previous posts in the thread. Don't do this if you want to be taken seriously. Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style, complete with a blue call-out box: I've always had a lot of professional and personal admiration for [Corbin Fisher] because they really defined a new space in gay adult entertainment Read it. The common element is promoting a POV. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote: The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's a loophole in the definition of neutrality that doing things which help one side of a dispute doesn't break neutrality, simply because our intentions are neutral--even though our effects are not. Using that logic, we should probably shut down every page on WP about politics, religion, alternative medicine and anything even vaguely controversial. There's a difference between helping someone who happens to find some publicity useful, and helping something that is mainly a publicity campaign. There's also a difference between spreading facts that are incidentally used in a publicity campaign but are independent of it, and spreading the campaign itself. If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there was no anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its entire existence depends directly on that campaign.___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 25/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Again - you do not have consensus (here or there) that it violates the policy. We know YOU (and Andreas) are offended, but you're generalizing that your interpretation is and must be correct. That's not how consensus works. I'm not actually *offended*, George. I just think it's political activism, and I know Cirt has done that sort of thing several times before. If it were a first-time occurrence, I might write it off. Andreas Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 25 May 2011 22:53, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style, complete with a blue call-out box: Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box - you said gay porn company, as if those three words were enough to make your point. You lose. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, 25 May 2011, David Gerard wrote: Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box - you said gay porn company, as if those three words were enough to make your point. You lose. In this context, gay porn company is legitimate, because it implies a COI. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term, descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts). Our coverage of the term is NPOV and balanced, in my opinion. You seem to wish that the term did not exist. That's a fair wish, but not relevant to Wikipedia. What's relevant to Wikipedia is that it does exist, has numerous reliable sources, has had real-world impact, and therefore is at least arguably notable and an appropriate subject for a WP article. We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr. Santorum. Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the real world is rather explicitly Not the Point. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 25 May 2011 23:25, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr. Santorum. Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the real world is rather explicitly Not the Point. Indeed. And attacking the author is particularly odious behaviour. The fact does not go away from attacking the documentor. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term, descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts). Our coverage of the term is NPOV and balanced, in my opinion. You seem to wish that the term did not exist. That's a fair wish, but not relevant to Wikipedia. What's relevant to Wikipedia is that it does exist, has numerous reliable sources, has had real-world impact, and therefore is at least arguably notable and an appropriate subject for a WP article. We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr. Santorum. Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the real world is rather explicitly Not the Point. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com George, Can you please address a couple of points that I believe have been brought up in this thread. You may want to read the previous emails that more clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are as follows: 1) This term deserves a Wiktionary entry at best, not a Wikipedia entry. 2) Wikipedia is being used as a platform to damage Santorum. Thanks, Brian ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style, complete with a blue call-out box: Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box - you said gay porn company, as if those three words were enough to make your point. You lose. If you like. :) What I actually said was, include ***this highly flattering portrait*** of a gay porn company. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/109017.html It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sexual_slang#Santorum Forum-shopping is an attempt to synthesise consensus. Please stop it. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sexual_slang#Santorum Forum-shopping is an attempt to synthesise consensus. Please stop it. Youu forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dan_Savage Are you going to try to raise it there next? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 23:40 On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sexual_slang#Santorum Forum-shopping is an attempt to synthesise consensus. Please stop it. Youu forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dan_Savage Are you going to try to raise it there next? The discussion *started* here, two days ago. Then people said it should be addressed on-wiki. Frankly, I am not very keen to get much involved with it on-wiki. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
Kudos to Andreas for notifying Cirt so quickly after my suggestion, but may I suggest that we review the rules for this mailing list? Currently neither https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l#Rules nor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette which it links to via a redirect explicitly require that editors are notified about discussions about them. ANI by contrast explicitly requires people to notify the editor who you are making a complaint about. May I suggest that we do the same? WereSpielChequers On 25 May 2011 21:17, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack templates and are practically orphans. Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an article then goes and creates associated templates. I don't do much with templates but I have a similar editing pattern - I was in the British Museum for the Hoxne Hoard challenge and wound up contributing a number of edits to articles about the sorts of spoons that were in the hoard. I am concerned at the risk of the mailing list degenerating into some sort of back channel and disrupting the wiki. People using it for off wiki complaints about an AFD and criticism of individual wikipedians who may not be subscribing to this list is in my view unhealthy. Have any of the people expressing disquiet about that editor notified them of this thread? WereSpielChequers Cirt has been notified and has read the thread. However, you are correct that we have more or less completed what can appropriately been done on a mailing list. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: George, Can you please address a couple of points that I believe have been brought up in this thread. You may want to read the previous emails that more clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are as follows: 1) This term deserves a Wiktionary entry at best, not a Wikipedia entry. 2) Wikipedia is being used as a platform to damage Santorum. Thanks, Brian I don't agree with either statement. The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects on Santorum) is notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The word itself would be a Wiktionary entry, but the incident overall is Wikipedia. We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not causing it. Our reporting is not making it better, but neither is it making it worse. The damage was done by Savage and others and was widespread long before the article here. We do not censor topics that are damaging to individuals just because they are damaging. They have to be notable and covered in a NPOV way for us to cover them, but this passes both tests. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com George, Can you please address a couple of points that I believe have been brought up in this thread. You may want to read the previous emails that more clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are as follows: 1) This term deserves a Wiktionary entry at best, not a Wikipedia entry. 2) Wikipedia is being used as a platform to damage Santorum. Thanks, Brian I don't agree with either statement. The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects on Santorum) is notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The word itself would be a Wiktionary entry, but the incident overall is Wikipedia. We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not causing it. Our reporting is not making it better, but neither is it making it worse. The damage was done by Savage and others and was widespread long before the article here. We do not censor topics that are damaging to individuals just because they are damaging. They have to be notable and covered in a NPOV way for us to cover them, but this passes both tests. You may be forgetting that we have an article on [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. That's notable. The term, linguistically, is not. It's in one slang dictionary, and one book on neologisms. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com I don't agree with either statement. The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects on Santorum) is notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The word itself would be a Wiktionary entry, but the incident overall is Wikipedia. We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not causing it. Our reporting is not making it better, but neither is it making it worse. The damage was done by Savage and others and was widespread long before the article here. We do not censor topics that are damaging to individuals just because they are damaging. They have to be notable and covered in a NPOV way for us to cover them, but this passes both tests. You may be forgetting that we have an article on [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. That's notable. The term, linguistically, is not. It's in one slang dictionary, and one book on neologisms. As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled, [[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]]. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com I don't agree with either statement. The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects on Santorum) is notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The word itself would be a Wiktionary entry, but the incident overall is Wikipedia. We're reporting on the damage to Santorum, not causing it. Our reporting is not making it better, but neither is it making it worse. The damage was done by Savage and others and was widespread long before the article here. We do not censor topics that are damaging to individuals just because they are damaging. They have to be notable and covered in a NPOV way for us to cover them, but this passes both tests. You may be forgetting that we have an article on [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]]. That's notable. The term, linguistically, is not. It's in one slang dictionary, and one book on neologisms. As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled, [[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]]. The Santorum controversy... article has 2 sentences on Savage and the neologism, no coverage of the consequences on Santorum's career, Santorum's comments regarding it, or critical or academic coverage of the incident. That by itself approximates sweeping it under the rug, which will not fly. If you want to propose a content merge of those two articles that's not grossly offensive to my sensibilities, as long as it actually merges the content and is not an excuse to delete one of the two articles. Retitling might not be a bad idea if it lessens the google focus. That's not grossly offensive to my sensibilities. Not sure that it would actually work. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: The common element is promoting a POV. There's absolutely no ban against that. NPOV is a property of the Wikipedia and articles, not editors. In other words, users adding a POV to an article or articles in the Wikipedia in general (provided it's a reliable source's POV, not your own, and provided you don't deliberately make unbalanced articles) is an entirely normal part of the Wikipedia and is indistinguishable from promoting that POV. The problems come when you remove other notable POVs or you overemphasise your POV relative to sources. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here; I don't see signs of breach of NPOV. Andreas -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com The Santorum controversy... article has 2 sentences on Savage and the neologism, no coverage of the consequences on Santorum's career, Santorum's comments regarding it, or critical or academic coverage of the incident. That by itself approximates sweeping it under the rug, which will not fly. If you want to propose a content merge of those two articles that's not grossly offensive to my sensibilities, as long as it actually merges the content and is not an excuse to delete one of the two articles. Retitling might not be a bad idea if it lessens the google focus. That's not grossly offensive to my sensibilities. Not sure that it would actually work. Well, [[Dan Savage Google bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]] could be a sub-article of [[Santorum controversy on homosexuality]]. That's essentially what the article is, at any rate. An exceptionally detailed article on Savage's campaign. It's not an article on a word. I could live with that. I don't think it would bring Wikipedia into potential disrepute, or open the project up to charges of partiality in quite the same way. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there was no anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its entire existence depends directly on that campaign. Yes, but there *is* such a campaign. If there weren't a tea party movement, we wouldn't have an article on the tea party movement. But there is. So we do. If there weren't a neologism named after Mr. Santorum, there wouldn't be an article on it. But there is. So we do. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ Please don't print this e-mail out unless you want a hard copy of it. If you do, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I waste your ink/toner with 300+ lines of completely pointless and legally unenforceable cargo cult blather about corporate confidentiality. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there was no anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its entire existence depends directly on that campaign. Yes, but there *is* such a campaign. If there weren't a tea party movement, we wouldn't have an article on the tea party movement. But there is. So we do. If there weren't a neologism named after Mr. Santorum, there wouldn't be an article on it. But there is. So we do. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ No question the subject is notable. The question is how to handle it appropriately. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: No question the subject is notable. The question is how to handle it appropriately. Think outside the box and merge it to the article on Dan Savage? One criticism I have of the article on the neologism is that the background section is too long. In fact, the whole article is too long. It is a blow-by-blow account and I suspect not many readers make it to the end of the article. Reading the lead section is sufficient. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. Well said. That's the problem. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. Well said. That's the problem. Fred All things considered, it's a societal problem for people to be claiming Santorum is human excrement, that women shouldn't have a right to own property or vote, that homosexuals should be beaten up or killed for being who they are, that blacks (or Latinos, or Asians, or Jews, or whoever) are less human than (whites or whomever), or that some adults advocate adult/child sexual relations. We have hopefully NPOV articles on the Santorum neologism, women's rights, gay bashing, the KKK, the Nazis' antisemitism, and NAMBLA. And we should. That's what being an encyclopedia is about. Yes, it's embarrassing to Santorum that he became the target of a particularly hateful political advocacy campaign. But he was a politician, and said some things that Savage thought were particularly hateful of homosexuals. This became widely enough known to be news, academically interesting, and societally and politically significant for Santorum's career. We're an encyclopedia. We cover stuff that's news, academically interesting, and societally and politically significant. Even if it's unfortunate for the public figures that created the kerfuffle. BLP policy says we handle all of these things, where they bear on individual persons' lives or reputations, with kid gloves. But it does not say that we whitewash significant events. I feel sorry for Santorum, and it was a somewhat irresponsible tactic of Savage, but I don't feel that our article is at all improper. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced. The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. Well said. That's the problem. Fred All things considered, it's a societal problem for people to be claiming Santorum is human excrement, that women shouldn't have a right to own property or vote, that homosexuals should be beaten up or killed for being who they are, that blacks (or Latinos, or Asians, or Jews, or whoever) are less human than (whites or whomever), or that some adults advocate adult/child sexual relations. None of the examples you cite are living people. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: None of the examples you cite are living people. This reminds me again about a somewhat common misinterpretation of BLP. BLP is not really motivated solely by the fact that a person is alive, To the extent that WP:BLP goes beyond WP:NPOV, it is motivated by the desire to help people who would otherwise be unable to mount a response to Wikipedia - people who are barely notable, or just known for one event - people who cannot call a press conference at the touch of a button. These people need us to exercise special discretion because they are at a relative disadvantage to us. It is patently unreasonable to claim that a former U.S. sentator, who is now running for U.S. president, needs us to help him disseminate or control his message beyond WP:NPOV. Santorum can have multiple major news sources report any press conference he wants to hold, just by asking an aide to make some phone calls. So Santorum is fully able to present his own message to the press and get it published in mainstream news sources that we can cite. We simply need to maintain NPOV in our articles by accurately reflecting news coverage. Santorum does not need us to exercise special discretion, because anything he wants to put in the media he can put in the media. This stands in stark contrast to the people whom things like WP:BLP1E are really intended to protect. These people cannot simply call a press conference to respond to our articles. - Carl ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
On 26/05/2011, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced; it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit. Well said. That's the problem. Quite the contrary, I don't think it's unbalanced. I'm sure that the term took off, because many people thought it was an entirely appropriate metaphor. AFAIK he was more or less calling for putting (potentially) large numbers of homosexuals in prison essentially just for being homosexual, and he was trying to put himself in a position where he would have more ability to actually achieve that. Compared to that, a rude word and a reduced chance of being a top politician for a single individual is not very nice, but not nearly as not nice as trying to remove people's liberty for long periods for what appears to be a victimless 'crime'. So I actually don't feel sorry for him at all, in fact he really seems to have deserved it. Fred -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
