Posted by Ira Matetsky, guest-blogging:
Wikipedia: Some Responses to Comments:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_10-2009_05_16.shtml#1242530186
My thanks to everyone who has read my guestblog posts this week on the
subject of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia where I am an editor, an
administrator, and an arbitrator (User:Newyorkbrad). Tonight I should
address some of the comments on my earlier posts, which I will do in
no particular order. (I've already implicitly addressed some comments
on my earlier posts in later ones, so I won't duplicate that; and
please understand that in limited time and space I can't possibly
cover everything.)
In response to my posts about problems regarding Wikipedia articles
involving biographies of living persons ("BLPs"), the suggestion was
made that when an issue arises concerning whether a biographical
article should be kept on Wikipedia or deleted, there be a presumption
in favor of deletion unless there is a collective decision to keep it,
rather than the other way around. (In Wikiparlance: when a BLP is
AfD'd, "no consensus" would default to delete. In an ordinary deletion
discussion, by policy, "no consensus" defaults to keep.)
This suggestion has been advanced and discussed on-wiki, and has won
wide endorsements, but not quite enough to be adopted. A main sticking
point is that a BLP can be nominated for deletion for reasons having
nothing to do with defamation, privacy violation, or undue weight --
say, a dispute whether an athlete or a performer is quite notable
enough to warrant coverage. In many of these instances, ironically, if
the article subject were asked, he or she might prefer that the
article remain. (we sometimes get complaints from people whose
articles are deleted; there may well be more people who are unhappy
that they are excluded from Wikipedia than people who are unhappy that
they are included.)
I advanced a compromise proposal suggesting that deletion discussions
on BLPs default to delete where the notability of the subject is not
clear-cut (that would presumably be the case anytime the tentative AfD
result is "no consensus") and (1) the article taken as a whole is
substantially negative with respect to the reputation of the subject,
(2) the article subject is a minor, or (3) the article subject is
known to have himself or herself requested the article's deletion. It
may be time to revive discussion on-wiki of this suggestion.
Also relevant are two decisions by the Arbitration Committee (although
I was not active in either case) establishing that any administrator
may delete content deemed obviously unsuitable, and in those cases,
the content stays out unless and until there is a consensus to keep
it. While these holdings are on the books, though, unilateral
deletions of high-profile articles often lead to a great deal of
disputation and "drama," which can result in greater publicity for the
material the admin believes should be deleted than the disputed
article itself ever had. (A notable improvement within the past couple
of years is the use of "noindex" coding so that our back-office
discussions such a deletion debates themselves don't show up on
Google. The use of "noindex" to keep certain types of
not-ready-for-prime-time Wikipedia content off of search engines
should be expanded.)
Also apropos of BLP issues, I would like to thank two commenters on my
first BLP post for making clear the tensions that exist in this area.
I wrote about a boy named "John" who had been kidnapped and mistreated
a couple of years ago, who I thought should not be the subject of a
Wikipedia article, as an example of material both on Wikipedia and on
the Internet more widely that raised privacy issues. The first
commenter suggested that in using this example I must still be in the
process of merely clearing my throat, because it is obvious that no
such article should exist. The second commenter suggested that I was a
censor for seeking to depublicize such content, including mention of
the boy's name, which I'd been careful not to include. (I acknowledge,
however, that I had not been aware of the Today interview of the boy's
parents.) And so it goes. In any event, if anyone does not find that
example compelling I offered several others.
There were several comments bemoaning the deletion of certain content
on topics like anime. Although I haven't checked the specifics of the
deleted articles that the commenters cited (which as an administrator
I could do), in general I agree with these criticisms. Outside the
context of BLPs, I am probably as strong an "inclusionist" (the
opposite is "deletionist") as can be found in the administrator corps.
We delete too many articles on topics found to be "not quite notable
enough." In particular, our completely laudible policy of justifying
inclusion of articles by requiring citation of multiple stable
reliable sources and a showing of some degree of prominence can be
taken too far, and has decimated our coverage in areas like webcomics.
On the other hand, we don't want to be a promotional outlet for every
garage band formed last week or website with 10 readers, and allowing
articles with no sources makes it too easy to plant hoaxes -- so lines
will always have to be drawn somewhere.
"Spoiler warnings" were removed throughout the fiction articles
because a small but determined group of users armed with bots
(automated programs that conduct repetitious tasks) believed strongly
that they are "not encyclopedic." In the (paraphrased) words of one of
them, if you look up a novel or a film in an encyclopedia, you can
presume that it is going to discuss the plot, so no one should be
surprised that there is mention of the ending. Of course, there are
counterarguments. I personally don't have a strong view on this one,
but to the commenter, you are free to start up a discussion on-wiki if
the lack of spoiler warnings troubles you.
Someone suggested that Wikipedia needs stronger coverage of law and
legal topics. The editors in Wikiproject Law would certainly welcome
more participation from lawyers, law students, legal historians, legal
academics, and others interested in the subject-matter in creating,
expanding, honing, and sourcing articles on legal topics. A particular
issue with these articles is making sure that where applicable, they
are written from a global perspective, as the English Wikipedia is
edited from and read in every country in the world. A usual if
superficial response to on-wiki complaints that an article needs
improvement is a template called "{{sofixit}}". More on this tomorrow.
My thanks to the commenter who recommended the Damon Knight story.
I'll definitely be looking it up.
I'll wrap up this series of posts tomorrow with some links to
Wikipedia for those who might want to start editing, some links to
sites critical of Wikipedia for those who want to see more
meta-debate, and a couple more questions for the audience. My thanks
again to all the readers and commenters.
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
