Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 107:
*"Editing BLP's irresponsibly actually makes the subject of the biography less free since the subject would become affected by forces (i.e. the irresponsible revisions) outside of his or her control." In related news, it's not certain whether or not the reviewer would suffer legal responsibility for approving sneaky libellous vandalism. I'm unsure whether or not the Foundation has answered that question, but if reviewers are, then they share some of the liability when something like this inevitably happens. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 19:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:*It's been admitted by one proponent of PC that the likelihood that defamatory-even-if-true information will be blocked from being posted by reviewers worried about liability is one reason sie is in favor of PC. Sorry, but if it's true, if it's important enough that someone would classify it as defamatory (or positive!), then it should be posted. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
::*'''Defamatory content has no place in any article at anytime''' - [[Defamation]] is a crime. - Please don't miss-portray me and my comments. The thread the user is reporting on is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Discussion#A_question_on_liability here] please read for yourselves - True? what is that - nothing I have mentioned. Anyone should take great care with any addition of content about a living person that might be considered defamatory - this is my position/this is current policy position/this is the foundations position - it has nothing to do with pending protection - Users should/are already legally responsibility for all their additions irrespective of pending protection. - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::"Defamatory" is a general word for negative content, as far as I am aware (note that the [[defamation]] article states that slander, a type of defamation, is "malicious, false, ''and'' defamatory content"; also note that the Wikitionary definition does not specify that it is untrue, although it notes - correctly - that it often is). "Defamation" is a more specific term; in the US, it specifically does not include true information (other countries vary); therefore, when I say "defamatory but true", I am not speaking about what in the US is legally defined as "defamation". I'm sorry if I mis-portrayed your comments; I had thought that's what you meant, and I believe I had indicated the information I was talking about was true below. One should make sure that such negative information is well-backed-up, of course - but I suggest that it is a violation of NPOV if one does not take similar care with positive information about someone, since otherwise an article is likely to look like an autobiography whether it is one or not. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 19:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*"Effective tools to combat persistent vandalism, BLP violations, and other unconstructive edits already exist, and they work well; other options have been identified but not actively considered." Since this point was brought up, what's wrong with the [[WP:Edit filter|edit filter]]? Where has [[User:Cluebot|Cluebot]] seriously erred? Why are the other antivandalism tools in the arsenal, '''except''' semiprotection, not being brought up? —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 307:
**A very strong argument in favour of making ''absolutely sure'' opinions are clearly stated ''as'' opinions of a particular source, rather then the current practice of "anything goes" on many articles. Particularly ones which attract POV editors at all, including political, religious, economic etc. articles. Where doubt exists, use direct quotations from the source on anything contentious. The case given was, of course, egregious. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
* - All editors are totally legally responsible for any additions of content they make to En Wikipedia. - as a reviewer and it is not your suggestion only your review you will be responsible but you will have a degree of mitigation to limit your responsibility. - At present legal charges against en wikipedia editors are at a minimal level - For the simple reviewing of basic desired edits such issues/worries will be IMO irrelevant.[[User:Youreallycan|<
<sarcasm> The kind of authoritative legal advice we are getting here will surely have put everyone's mind at rest. Onward! </sarcasm> [[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 07:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:If you want an authoritative answer for your particular situation, then hire your own lawyer. Alternatively, don't volunteer to review other people's edits. Nobody's forcing you to do so, after all. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
::I certainly have no intention of doing so. But I think we would (or should) all be somewhat concerned at the prospect that some of our fellow volunteers might be unwittingly exposing themselves to legal liability despite having only the best intentions for the project. We must at least ensure that anyone who is made a reviewer is consciously aware of the legal situation (or rather, of the fact that no one is sure what the legal situation is). But then there's still a problem since reviewers who are aware of this issue are going to be reluctant to approve edits that are in any way potentially defamatory, leading to a lot of "negative" information being excluded from the encyclopedia, giving it an undesirable bias in favour of its subjects... --[[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::So you have no intention of reviewing any edits but you are worried that ... users will be "reluctant to approve edits that are in any way potentially defamatory," - '''good''' - all users should be at that point anyway - Negative is in the eye of the beholder. - All truly notable details will be unaffected - You say, "or rather, of the fact that no one is sure what the legal situation is" - The clear and already stated in the foundations legal declarations is that all users are completely legally responsible for all additions of content they make to this project - that clearly will include accepting reviews - you would have a degree of mitigation from a review edit that would limit your legal responsibility for those reviewed additions. [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::Problem is that some truly notable details are potentially defamatory. We ''want'' to say bad things about people sometimes, because our readers will be given a distorted or incomplete picture if we omit them (there's no pressure to exclude "positive" details, after all). But a reviewer (who likely will not be initimately familiar with the subject or the sources, will likely not have time to look into the matter in detail, and will be or ought to be worried about his/her own personal legal position) is going to feel under excessive pressure to reject such information, just to be on the safe side. [[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 17:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you are correctly stating the benefits of Pending changes. - An addition in clear responsibility for what are currently mostly anonymous editors. [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::::Sorry, but that's an excellent argument '''against''' pending changes - causing people to be reluctant to approve the posting of true information just because it happens to be defamatory. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::We can agree to differ. My position is that defamatory or potentially defamatory content should clearly be discussed and consensus resolved on the talkpage, so, no reviewer should ever add such content - such an addition is basically beyond a reviewers remit or responsibility - they should simply refuse to accept it and open a discussion on the talkpage to seek [[WP:Consensus]] - [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::::::Certainly we can agree to differ, but I believe I'm backed up by WP policy. Currently, policy as I understand it - which will not be changed by PC - is that encyclopedaic information that's backed up with references gets published, and removing such true information is a type of vandalism. No consensus is needed to add true, relevant, encyclopedaic information, whether it's "defamatory" or not. And if reviewers should be reluctant to add "defamatory" information, then to keep things NPOV, they need to be equally reluctant to accept positive information. No assumption should be made that "defamatory" information is less likely to be true, relevant, or encyclopediaic; doing otherwise violates NPOV. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Umm... if the information is correct and well-backed-up, then defamatory material should certainly be published, '''with no reluctance''', as should favorable material of which the same is true - and if material is not correct and thus not well-backed-up, then it should not be published, whether it is defamatory '''or''' favorable. (I'm less worried about unimportant material that is neither defamatory nor favorable, although it is certainly preferable if it is correct and well-backed-up.) That includes "defamatory" - and "favorable" - material that someone else may decide is not "notable", as long as it's backed up sufficiently to establish that it is indeed notable by Wikipedia standards.
::::Admittedly, in this case, anyone who edited the article after a piece of what a court decided was illegally "defamatory" material was added could probably be sued - not just a reviewer - since they do have a chance to revert such material... [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Not according to my fathers expensive lawyer - As an unpaid and unprofessional volunteer, if you edit an article and there is defamation in the article and you don't remove it you are in no way responsible. You are legally responsible for all your '''additions of content''' - A case could also be made against a Wiki user that was repeatedly removing content from a BLP if that removal portrayed the subject in a defamatory/undue negative light. [[User:Youreallycan|<
::::::Is Daddy's expensive lawyer knowledgeable about defamation laws? If he's not, he shouldn't be offering an opinion. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 04:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 480:
===Close?===
Q for the closing Admins - Is this in the process of being closed ? - lots of strong comments here again from the vocal objectors to Pending protection - but being vocal is not supported by the majority - can we get this closed please, when is the target date/time - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:Yes, we are in the process of closing. There was, needless to say, a lot of ink spilled here, and the closing admins are going to need some time to analyze it to give you an adequate close. We don't have a target date set, but if users feel strongly that you need a specific date, we can try to brainstorm one in the next day or two. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::So in the next day or two you will give us a target date for estimated closure if we request strongly? - Can't you just close it - why would you need to "brainstorm one" you have been reading it all along - you should be looking to and able to close ASAP - [[User:Youreallycan|<
:::It's already closed, but there's no decision yet. Let us hope that the silence indicates that the 4 admins are taking their time to piece together a neutral, elaborate, ultimate final decision on this matter. Phew... glad I'm not in their shoes. Cheers, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Face|theFace]]</span> 21:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 497:
=== Constantly diminishing support ===
What I hope people evaluating this thing note is that the support level of this has trended downwards ever since the initial pop of PC supporters registered their opinions. On March 31, it was 140:53 (73% support ) and at close it was 309:178 (63%). That doesn't sound like much until you consider that in the votes since April 1, it ran 169:123, or 58% support. Choose April 30, and it's worse. 249:113 at that point (68% support) and support since then is 60:65, or about 48%. That suggests that if you left this open forever, the opinion would stabilize around 50% give or take a few points.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 17:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:However the vocal opponents of this tool interpret the outcome of this community discussion, '''There is clear majority support for Pending changes in this RFC though after two months''' - ifs and buts and ow just leave it open forever and it will be (add your guess here) are distracting from that.- [[User:Youreallycan|<
::The thing you have consistently failed to demonstrate understanding of through this entire process is that a majority doesn't equal a consensus. If we just go numerically, 63% doesn't approach our normal numeric limits for consensus. I'm too biased to make an accurate determination on a "strength of argument" basis (the real measure of consensus), but my inclination is that supporters haven't prevailed by that measure either.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:::You say, "The thing you have consistently failed to demonstrate understanding of through this entire process is that a majority doesn't equal a consensus", I am not attempting to demonstrate that I am just waiting for the assessment and closure - ''' after two months there is a clear majority support for Pending changes in this RFC''' I have had little input to this issue and to be honest care a lot less than I did previously . I would just run it and remove it if there were issues - the wheels won't drop off - or at least if we see them starting to drop off we can fix them - No wheels dropped of in the trials and it's no big issue imo - Its just another beneficial tool in the box for use as and when it helps.[[User:Youreallycan|<
::::As I mentioned previously, '''based on the rationale they presented''', many of the supporters of option 1 ''really'' should have supported Option 3. It seems that many of the Option 1 !voters didn't read the proposal and extant comments very carefully (or at all) – although, to be fair, that's probably true of the !votes in all sections. But, there were a number of misconceptions voiced by many of the supporters of Option 1 – conflating PC with Flagged Revisions; PC amounts to censorship; disenfranchises editors; and somehow contravenes the concept of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I assume we will be seeing an RfC by those editors to eliminate semi and full protection for the exact same reasons. Some based their support of Option 1 on the conviction that PC would be used far more liberally than other forms of protection. What evidence can possibly support that view? Way to AGF in our admins. It seems clear that the next proposal needs to include guidelines that address at least some of these issues to minimize the [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]]. [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 20:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Bullshit, Mojoworker. Many of the "FUD" points we raised are legitimate concerns (such as logistics and being more labor-intensive than even RC patrol or SP). Conversely, I wonder who you are to be making such accusations when you comment that the next RfC is going to be about removing protection, which '''nobody''' - save for a few misguided ''Position 2'' supporters, as I noted above, and that's conditional on PC passing - wants to abolish. For every time I see a Position 2 supporter cry "FUD" I see another Position 2 supporter equating Position 1 to aiding vandalism. The blade cuts both ways, chummer, and it's hypocrisy. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 520:
===Timetime===
I wasn't here at the beginning, I was invited but doubted that people would write articles for free ... Whatever they close this attempt to strengthen policy implementation , the fact that users are desirous of pointy avoidance/weak policy asserts, those glory days are over and this appears IMO to be the death throes of the project, unless we strengthen [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] - Weakly cited opinionated content is worse than nothing - uninvolved people/readers are now fully aware of the weakness and opinionated aspect of content here, and do not trust content here. Limited application of pending changes may well help to raise trust in small sectors of our content and protect a few limited notability subjects - if not we can remove it as easy we add it - its not wheels dropping off its just a tool in the box.. that might , in a limited way, raise trust between the reader and the project and strengthen the project moving forwards.[[User:Youreallycan|<
:I would argue the bulk of that issue rests with the "my way or the highway" mentality of most of the editors here. It's not an issue of sourcing; it's an issue of psychology and public perception, and always has been. Pending Changes would only exacerbate these issues by making the perceived elitism more prevalent. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
::Youreallycan, I agree with you that [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]] have to be strengthened, but [[WP:PC|pending changes]] won't really help. I expect that if PC is implemented, it will reduce the amount of [[WP:VAN|vandalism]], but will substantially increase what I call "article capture." Article capture is when one or more editors takes control of an article, and prevents any changes to it -- see [[WP:TAGTEAM]]. Usually, article capture occurs on low-traffic [[WP:BLP|BLP]] or [[WP:controversy|controversy]] articles where the main editors undue changes that they dislike so that the article retains a certain [[WP:POV|point of view]]. Rather than eliminate [[WP:BIAS|biased content]], PC, particularly PC2, will make it much harder to get rid of it. Currently, any editor can remove [[WP:CRAP|crap]], whereas with PC, I see articles being locked up so that only reviewers and admins can fix them. [[User:NJ Wine|NJ Wine]] ([[User talk:NJ Wine|talk]]) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 533:
:--[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 21:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
::[[User:Slakr|slakr]], I totally agree. A lot of problems would be eliminated by locking up articles, and only letting a select number of trusted people edit. But, then this wouldn't be Wikipedia with approximately 3,000,000 English-language articles, but instead ''Encyclopedia Brittanica'' with roughly 230,000 articles. Furthermore, while some Wikipedia articles have bias or mistakes, it's no worse than any other encyclopedia, and Wikipedia has a easy method of fixing those problems. [[User:NJ Wine|NJ Wine]] ([[User talk:NJ Wine|talk]]) 21:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
* - @[[User:Slakr]] - The goal of Wikipedia isn't to be "trusted." It never has been" - We can disagree there all day long - reader trust is a primary objective and Pending protection is a clear benefit to developing that primary trust.[[User:Youreallycan|<
:*If reader trust were a primary objective we wouldn't have so many editors in the first place, now would we? Seriously, a lot of our editors signed up primarily because we ''aren't'' trustworthy; we have issues with [[WP:V|inaccuracy]], [[WP:RS|poor fact-checking]], [[WP:N|relevance]], [[WP:CIVIL|elitism]], [[WP:NPOV|bias]], and [[WP:BLOCK|trigger-happiness]]. To define PC as a means of enforcing trust, in spite of the '''huge''' logistical problem it can create due to its time requirements and the fact that it solves none of those six issues (think [[the Joker]] running Arkham) is tantamount to selling us a bill of goods. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||