Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
On 13/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The job of WP:V is to make sure that assertions in Wikipedia are verifiable; > it's not to ensure that verifiable stuff cannot be deleted. > Editorial judgment -- we have to be allowed to judge the reliability of > sources, and the quality of their research. That is a major source of bias though, particularly in relatively stubby articles. People regularly roll up to an article and declare that some part of it is somehow not neutral and they delete it out of hand, references and all. They often do this when the article is a fraction of the size it ought to be, and if the article was allowed to grow, that material would not have been removed, because it would have been proportional. There doesn't seem to be any protection against this in the policies at all. I think that needs to be fixed, or at least, addressed. > A. -- -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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Carl (CBM) wrote: > > "Verification not truth" must not be a suicide pact > and certainly not an > > excuse for sloppy publishing of gossip on BLPS. > > The idea that someone cannot challenge a source fact simply > because > they doubt its truth is very useful, though. It reduces > many arguments > where editors "know" they are right, when they are really > wrong. Yes, it's useful, and I suspect that is why there is such resistance to changing even the "not whether editors think it is true" at WT:V right now, let alone "verifiability, not truth". But as useful as it may be in shutting novice editors up: this is not the job of WP:V policy; it's the job of WP:NPOV and W:OR. If all mainstream science says that water boils at 100°, and one editor says he knows it's 98° because he measured it in his kettle, WP:OR and WP:NPOV is the proper way to address that. Not WP:V. The job of WP:V is to make sure that assertions in Wikipedia are verifiable; it's not to ensure that verifiable stuff cannot be deleted. Scott's argument is that many press reports publish shite, and that as a result we have lots of shite in our BLPs. My argument is that much of that shite is defended by editors saying, "A reliable source wrote about it, and you wanting to delete it violates WP:V, because you see, policy says it does not matter whether editors believe it is true or not." > If we can't use sources to judge truth, and we can't use > expert knowledge > without sources, what third option remains? Editorial judgment -- we have to be allowed to judge the reliability of sources, and the quality of their research. Otherwise we're just indiscriminate parrots, regurgitating a random mix of knowledge and crap. A. ___ 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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Scott MacDonald wrote: > But my point is celebrity stories in newspapers, if they use unnamed or > unattributable sources, are not reliable and should never amount to > verification. Unfortunately, the current language of WP:V not only declares that professional newspapers are unilaterally reliable, they are even decreed to be secondary sources, which removes some slight limitations on how the material in newspaper stories could be used. It seems that some editors of WP:V actually believe this is the appropriate way to handle newspaper stories; in any case it is unlikely to change. > We might as well source things from random internet blogs and claim: "but > this is verification (it may be true or not, but we don't care about > truth)". This is essentially what we already do. Moreover, many editors like the fact that we cover stories quickly using primary sources (e.g. the death of Michael Jackson) rather than waiting (for years?) for a definitive account to be published in secondary sources. > "Verification not truth" must not be a suicide pact and certainly not an > excuse for sloppy publishing of gossip on BLPS. The idea that someone cannot challenge a source fact simply because they doubt its truth is very useful, though. It reduces many arguments where editors "know" they are right, when they are really wrong. If we can't use sources to judge truth, and we can't use expert knowledge without sources, what third option remains? - 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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
Yup. But my point is celebrity stories in newspapers, if they use unnamed or unattributable sources, are not reliable and should never amount to verification. We might as well source things from random internet blogs and claim: "but this is verification (it may be true or not, but we don't care about truth)". "Verification not truth" must not be a suicide pact and certainly not an excuse for sloppy publishing of gossip on BLPS. Scott -Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ian Woollard Sent: 13 May 2011 01:30 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale) On 13/05/2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: > The point is that the story of "Otto the true earring-eating Dog of Kate > Middleton" was also verifiable from multiple reliable sources, despite being > a crock of shit. (Indeed you can find articles published as late as last > week referring to > "Kate's dog Otto" - despite the hoax being identified a year ago). We're never going to avoid untrue things being in the Wikipedia. Sometimes, the sources make mistakes. (And yes, it's much more likely to be a mistake with The Daily Mail). But I don't in any way agree that that impacts on verifiability over truth. We have no way to know the real truth about anything for certain, but verifiability of sources is at least possible. That's one part of the Wikipedia that has to remain as bedrock. We have to build the Wikipedia on rock. > Scott -- -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 ___ 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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
On 13/05/2011, Scott MacDonald wrote: > The point is that the story of "Otto the true earring-eating Dog of Kate > Middleton" was also verifiable from multiple reliable sources, despite being > a crock of shit. (Indeed you can find articles published as late as last > week referring to > "Kate's dog Otto" - despite the hoax being identified a year ago). We're never going to avoid untrue things being in the Wikipedia. Sometimes, the sources make mistakes. (And yes, it's much more likely to be a mistake with The Daily Mail). But I don't in any way agree that that impacts on verifiability over truth. We have no way to know the real truth about anything for certain, but verifiability of sources is at least possible. That's one part of the Wikipedia that has to remain as bedrock. We have to build the Wikipedia on rock. > Scott -- -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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
-Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ian Woollard Sent: 12 May 2011 23:56 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale) >You see I would argue precisely the opposite; I think we *should* have >an Otto Middleton article where we explain that there was once a >belief that this dog existed, but it has since been disproven, and >link to the various sources. >That way if somebody believed in the dog, and searches for it later, >the Wikipedia article would pop up and set the record straight; even >if the various newspapers had deleted it from their sites out of >embarassment or whatever. >And I think this is part and parcel of verifiability, not truth thing. >It's a *good* idea to include things that are actually *wrong* like >Otto Middleton as it gives us a place to point this out.-Ian Woollard Ian, you've slightly missed the point of the essay. Of course an article could be written on "Otto Middleton (the hoax)". Because the story of the hoax is true and verifiable from multiple "reliable" sources. Indeed, I argued to keep it as such. The point is that the story of "Otto the true earring-eating Dog of Kate Middleton" was also verifiable from multiple reliable sources, despite being a crock of shit. (Indeed you can find articles published as late as last week referring to "Kate's dog Otto" - despite the hoax being identified a year ago). The points are: *stories verified from multiple newspaper sources are not always true *More importantly, the existence of "quality newspapers" reporting a story means little. Quality newspaper are often simply repeating tabloid claims under "it is reported" weasel. *The fact that an article has apparently many sources, does not preclude it being untrue in substance. *Many sources != independently reported in many sources We tend to associate "reliable source" with the quality of the publication. So "the NYT has it, it must be reliable". We need also to look at the genre of the story within the publication itself: *an interview with the subject, even in a tabloid, is likely to be reliable and even journalistic commentary associated with such is liable to be reliable, if story have the subject's cooperation. *statements by an expert commentator, with a reputation, in a newspaper are most likely to be reliable *gossip columns and celebrity stories on page 27 are not. Even if they are in "quality papers" - they are likely to be written by people filling column inches with little time for fact checking. Quality papers are so often going to be using material they've found elsewhere - tabloids, internet, or even Wikipedia. Watch out for "it is being said" "according to some reports" "I have been told" - or really anything written by a general journalist who is not citing a source. Scott ___ 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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
On 12/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Mark, > > I agree that "verifiability, not truth" has done a good job in keeping out > original research of the kind you describe. I just think that the situation > with regard to OR is no longer what it was five years ago -- there has long > been a critical mass of editors who know that Wikipedia is not the right > place to add interesting bits of personal, but unpublished, knowledge. > > When I started editing Wikipedia, I had to think long and hard about that > sentence, "verifiability not truth", and I appreciated the insight. I just > think its time has come and gone, and that it does more harm than good now. You see I would argue precisely the opposite; I think we *should* have an Otto Middleton article where we explain that there was once a belief that this dog existed, but it has since been disproven, and link to the various sources. That way if somebody believed in the dog, and searches for it later, the Wikipedia article would pop up and set the record straight; even if the various newspapers had deleted it from their sites out of embarassment or whatever. And I think this is part and parcel of verifiability, not truth thing. It's a *good* idea to include things that are actually *wrong* like Otto Middleton as it gives us a place to point this out. > A. -- -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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
Mark, I agree that "verifiability, not truth" has done a good job in keeping out original research of the kind you describe. I just think that the situation with regard to OR is no longer what it was five years ago -- there has long been a critical mass of editors who know that Wikipedia is not the right place to add interesting bits of personal, but unpublished, knowledge. When I started editing Wikipedia, I had to think long and hard about that sentence, "verifiability not truth", and I appreciated the insight. I just think its time has come and gone, and that it does more harm than good now. A. --- On Thu, 12/5/11, Mark wrote: > From: Mark > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale) > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Thursday, 12 May, 2011, 22:15 > On 5/11/11 2:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe > wrote: > > A while ago there was a discussion at WP:V talk > whether we should > > recast the policy's opening sentence: > > > > "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is > verifiability, not truth— > > whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia > has already been > > published by a reliable source, not whether editors > think it is true." > > > > (As usual, the discussion came to nought.) That > sentence -- whose > > provocative formulation has served Wikipedia well in > keeping out original > > research -- is a big part of the problem. > > I think that sentence serves a good purpose in the > *opposite* direction, > though. An opposite common source of Wikipedia-angst is > people who have > good first-hand knowledge that something is both true and > notable, but > sadly, lack any good sources to back that up. So it's worth > emphasizing > up front that our criterion is verifiability as a > descriptive matter, > not truth and notability in some sense of absolute truth. > So, some > legitimately interesting and important stuff may be > excluded, at least > for now, because it hasn't been properly covered in any > source we can > cite. We just aren't the right place to do original > research on a > person, music group, or historical event that the existing > literature > has somehow missed, *even if* it's a grave oversight on the > part of the > existing literature. I wrote a bit more about this > elsewhere: > http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html > > But it does get more problematic in the opposite direction, > as you say. > I see the motivation there too: there is a sense in which, > if something > is being discussed a lot, it becomes something we have to > cover just by > virtue of that fact. Meta-notability is also notability, so > it would be > absurd imo to claim that [[Natalee Holloway]] shouldn't be > covered. > Regardless of your opinion on the merits of her media > coverage, she > received such a large amount of it that her disappearance > is an > important event in early-21st-century popular culture. > Heck, if we > wanted *absolute* and philosophical rather than descriptive > notability > standards, I would delete almost every article on a > 21st-century noble > family as irrelevant nostalgic garbage (should anybody care > who's the > pretender to the French throne?). > > As one of the replies to your post notes (sorry, I seem to > have > misplaced who it was by), one of the problems is more > pragmatic. Perhaps > we *should* cover some such figures, but only in a limited > sense. But > once we have an article, there's a slippery slope where > everything > tangentially related now can flood in. Perhaps that's what > we should > tackle, though. Is it possible to improve our methods of > keeping > marginal junk out of an article, while stopping short of > entirely > deleting and salting the article? > > -Mark > > > ___ > 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] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
On 5/11/11 2:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > A while ago there was a discussion at WP:V talk whether we should > recast the policy's opening sentence: > > "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth— > whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been > published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." > > (As usual, the discussion came to nought.) That sentence -- whose > provocative formulation has served Wikipedia well in keeping out original > research -- is a big part of the problem. I think that sentence serves a good purpose in the *opposite* direction, though. An opposite common source of Wikipedia-angst is people who have good first-hand knowledge that something is both true and notable, but sadly, lack any good sources to back that up. So it's worth emphasizing up front that our criterion is verifiability as a descriptive matter, not truth and notability in some sense of absolute truth. So, some legitimately interesting and important stuff may be excluded, at least for now, because it hasn't been properly covered in any source we can cite. We just aren't the right place to do original research on a person, music group, or historical event that the existing literature has somehow missed, *even if* it's a grave oversight on the part of the existing literature. I wrote a bit more about this elsewhere: http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html But it does get more problematic in the opposite direction, as you say. I see the motivation there too: there is a sense in which, if something is being discussed a lot, it becomes something we have to cover just by virtue of that fact. Meta-notability is also notability, so it would be absurd imo to claim that [[Natalee Holloway]] shouldn't be covered. Regardless of your opinion on the merits of her media coverage, she received such a large amount of it that her disappearance is an important event in early-21st-century popular culture. Heck, if we wanted *absolute* and philosophical rather than descriptive notability standards, I would delete almost every article on a 21st-century noble family as irrelevant nostalgic garbage (should anybody care who's the pretender to the French throne?). As one of the replies to your post notes (sorry, I seem to have misplaced who it was by), one of the problems is more pragmatic. Perhaps we *should* cover some such figures, but only in a limited sense. But once we have an article, there's a slippery slope where everything tangentially related now can flood in. Perhaps that's what we should tackle, though. Is it possible to improve our methods of keeping marginal junk out of an article, while stopping short of entirely deleting and salting the article? -Mark ___ 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] Can I interview you about the deletion process on EN-WP?
Hello (and please pardon the crossposting), I am a Ph.D. researcher at the Digital Enterprise Research Institute in Galway, Ireland. My Ph.D. topic is online discussions, specifically the reasoning and arguments people use. I am currently studying Articles for Deletion in English Wikipedia, to understand how article deletion decisions are made. I am working on a prototype argument assistant to help newcomers understand what kinds of arguments make sense, much in the way that the Article Wizard provides guidance for creating an article. From reading discussions, I am learning what kinds of arguments people use in AfD, especially to see what comments advance the discussion. Next I need to get some perspectives from editors! I'm looking for Wikipedians to interview about the deletion process. I envision a 30 minute skype or phone conversation. I'm interested in learning about what works well in AfD discussions, any frustrations you have with it, and why you generally do or don't !vote in AfD. I hope to talk with Wikipedians with a wide variety of experience editing (from newcomers to EN-WP, to regular EN-WP editors, to admins, especially admins who close discussions), with people who spend little time commenting in deletion discussions, as well as those who do. Would you be willing to talk with me? Let me know the best times for you; you can reach me at jschnei...@pobox.com or with the info below. -Jodi Schneider WP:Jodi.a.schneider skype:jodi.a.schneider http://jodischneider.com/jodi.html ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
