And an application at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Contact_us/Problems#Suggested_change
Jee On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Jeevan Jose <jkadav...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the > implications of this resolution? - John Vandenberg" > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Resolution:Media_about_living_people > > Jee > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Craig Franklin >> <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote: >> > Hi Jane, >> > >> > I am concerned about the issue surrounding the comment "the real BLP >> >> problems happen when heavyweight (in edit count terms) Wikipedia users >> >> swing their weight around" >> >> >> > >> > I think the problem is that if you ask ten different people about the >> > reason why we have BLP problems, you'll get ten different answers. All >> ten >> > would probably have some truth in them, but any one in isolation would >> be >> > inadequate. >> >> The list of problems becomes even longer for images. >> >> The 2009 resolution on biographies of living people was about >> identifiable people, given they were the subject of a biography. This >> new 'media about living people' resolution doesn't make any such >> distinction for media, which I guess will result in lots of confusion >> about whether the scope includes images of unidentifiable people. It >> should, but ... >> >> This resolution appears to be asking for verifiability regarding >> images of living people. We are going to need some clarity around >> what the board considers to be verifiability (how do we prove the >> photo was taken at a public event and it is real? etc), and whether >> that includes unidentifiable people. >> >> "Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show >> living people have policies in place calling for special attention to >> the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;.." >> >> On English Wikipedia we have some guidance regarding photos of living >> people, but I can't find anything relating to verifiability or >> neutrality. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images >> >> Wikimedia Commons has a policy which rejects 'neutrality', and it >> doesnt have a verifiability policy. >> >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people >> >> Is there a discussion happening on Commons somewhere about the >> implications of this resolution? >> >> > My own point of view is that our policies and procedures are actually >> > pretty good on paper, but they're just very unevenly and inconsistently >> > applied in the real world. The "Tier 1" biographies, such as those of >> > Messrs Obama, Cameron, and Abbott are pretty safe from BLP hijinx, but >> > there is a massive underbelly of poorly defended BLPs on minor >> celebrities, >> > local politicians, and the like, which are not watched consistently and >> > where hagiography or defamation can take root. This is why, while >> things >> > like the BoT's declaration are not unwelcome, I feel that they don't >> have >> > any practical effect in fixing the problem. All it takes is for one >> > negatively written bio to slip through the net to do real harm to >> someone >> > in the real world. >> >> I agree with you Craig up to here .. >> >> > My preferred way of dealing with this on en.wp would be to massively >> > tighten the notability criteria where they related to biographies of >> living >> > or possibly living people, but this would no doubt be met with cries of >> > "deletionism!". >> >> And agree your preferred approach could help. On English Wikipedia, I >> think we have an article/editor ratio problem, which is only getting >> worse as articles increase and editors leave, and is meaning >> watchlists are less useful to scan for problematic edits. >> >> The test for this is what is the average length of time between an >> edit of an old page (e.g. created in 2005) to the point in time that >> the edit a) appears on a watchlist, or b) is viewed as a diff, or c) >> is loaded as a page view, or d) leads to another edit. Then compare >> those averages with the averages from a year before, to determine >> whether edits are slipping past watchlists and recentchanges. I'm >> guessing that the length of time from edit to (a) or (b) is >> increasing, while (c) may be decreasing as Wikipedia readership >> increases. >> >> A smaller Wikipedia scope means there are less articles, with more >> editors watching and editing the pages the BLP problems appear on. >> >> I think it is necessary to add here that FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes) >> also helps, as any BLP problems are held in a queue. The 'volume of >> edits' can be a problem with FlaggedRevs in practise, but a) the >> 'size. >> >> > Indeed, I don't think it's possible to adequately address >> > the issue on large projects like en.wp or commons without a massive >> > cultural shift and sweeping changes to policy that would cause immense >> > disruption in the community; something the BoT is understandably >> reluctant >> > to do. >> >> Another way the board can get serious about this problem is to mandate >> that each project write a BLP management strategy that needs to be >> approved by the WMF board, which would involve some type of periodic >> review of all content. The strategy would differ for each project >> based on their policies, scope and the size of the project. e.g. >> Wikisources would need to review only unpublished sources added each >> year; Wikipedias using FlaggedRevs could do spot checks annually; >> Wikipedias which have chosen to not use FlaggedRevs would be required >> to come up with feasible alternative solutions to verify the existing >> BLPs are clean of significant BLP problems. Projects which failed to >> complete their periodic reviews of the content would be put into >> maintenance mode(s) until they have completed the review. e.g. The >> devs might be asked to disable 'creation of new pages in mainspace' on >> the wiki as a first step measure to focus the community on the task. >> >> More generally, we should have tiers in the notability system, by >> which we agree that not everyone is as notable as Barack Obama, and >> therefore their 'living' bio should not contain every detail that is >> ever published. The lowest tier is bios about people with >> questionable notability or low notability and avoid publicity, such as >> (most) referees, sports people who only played a few matches, most >> academics, which should only include facts that are relevant to their >> notability and their brief appearances into 'public life'. On English >> Wikipedia, those articles should all be put under FlaggedRevs, and >> edits that increase the scope of the biography are >> rejected/held/not-approved until there is consensus on the talk page >> that the subject is notable enough that other aspects of their life >> are of general interest to understanding their achievements or actions >> which have become notable. >> >> Perhaps not just yet, but Wikidata should bring new solutions to this >> problem. We may have more consensus to remove classes of living >> people biographies from Wikipedia as the basic details of their life >> can be placed into Wikidata. >> >> For example, only a few of these referees deserve a proper 'biography' >> - for the others, their bio exists on Wikipedia only because it is >> useful to have a unique identifier for the person, and we like to >> record a list of a person's public appearances. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_soccer_referees >> >> In a few of those articles, there are unsourced claims that the >> referee made a significant mistake. Besides official honours awarded, >> there is not similar commentary describing all of the times that >> sports commentators spoke highly of the referees decisions. i.e. >> these articles are either BLP problems now, or will be in the future. >> A referees decisions are usually only relevant within the context of a >> match, and don't belong on their bio. >> >> In almost every case, the details in those articles can be moved to >> claims in Wikidata once a few Wikidata properties are created, and a >> non-editable page could be automatically generated on Wikipedias to >> describe the subject and list the events the person appeared in. >> >> -- >> John Vandenberg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>