Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey/General discussion

< Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion

edit

Comment Just to break the monotony of the structure of this poll/survey/whatever that do not allow discussion or the arguments/counter arguments cycle. As you may be aware, there is a proposed trial of flagged revs on featured articles. The class of BLPs is too huge for a trial and it would certainly be impossible to handle without a first experience and a phase of analysis and resolution of problems. So indeed, sighted revs on all articles, and especially blps, is to be considered and planned, but before we need a trial and a substantive reflexion on flagged revisions. The primary problem with flagged revs on the English Wikipedia is that due to its size and the very high number of editors, backlogs will become excessively large and so edits, good ones, won't be flagged for extensive periods. Allowing someone to edit and then not displaying the revision in a timely manner on a huge number of articles is actually worse than not allowing to edit on a limited number of articles. Very likely, it will discourage IPs and new users from editing Wikipedia, and prevent addition of good material. Now, there is a solution: automatically flagging revisions after a certain period of time, for example 18 hours, with a possibility to adjust the delay depending on the backlog, deactivate it on certain pages, for example on blps that have proved problematic, make the delay longer for blps, create a special page listing only blps, allowing the abuse filter to prevent automatic sighting for certain edits that are very likely to be vandalism, etc. We could also create a higher level of flagged revisions (like semi protection and full protection), with a smaller usergroup able to flag with this level on articles where it is enabled, for articles with serious problems. A comment on newly created blps too: those can't be handled by sighted revs before being sighted for the first time, if ever. So we still need to filter at Special:Newpages. When a blp is identified as such, for example through categories, that can be detected by the software, and has been sighted, it can then be monitored by flagged revisions in a specific manner. Cenarium (Talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of a test, it could always be done first just on one letter--flag all the "T" BLPs, or the "As", for a week or a month, to see how it goes. rootology (C)(T) 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The most damaging sort of edits are the ones that survive RC patrol, so I don't think any kind of automatic flagging is a good idea. I'm unclear why everyone claims that backlogs will be huge (an untested assumption, honestly). Isn't flagging a user right that can be distributed like rollback? Cool Hand Luke 00:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedian backlogs are huge, I've heard. As of a few months ago, I believe they were at a 100,000 articles that still needed to be checked[citation needed] though. I like the system put forth here though. If the most recent version is showed, but with an icon noting that it hasn't been checked yet, that might be far more useful. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to say that 98.91% of all sighted articles are on currently reviewed. It appears that some articles have never been sighted, but for over 775,000 articles they are more-or-less up-to-date. Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sighting of each article takes special care, as it explains here. This page shows that all of the articles are getting sighted. Once sighted, they go on a worklist, and they appear to be kept up-to-date. The column on the far right shows articles previously sighted that are not up to date. Note that this isn't increasing, even as all the pages are getting sighted; it never goes above 8000 or so. Anyhow, the German experience shows diminishing backlogs, not increasing ones. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, 8000 old-reviewed articles, with unreviewed edits, most of them being days-old and some weeks-old, preventing revisions from going live, is far from negligible. The English Wikipedia has a much quicker editing rate, especially from IPs, and not a lot of 'regulars' in comparison, so it's likely the backlog will grow much higher. The usergroup can be distributed, but it's also a reason we need, not only a trial, but a progressive implementation: at the beginning, we'll only have rollbackers and admins to flag edits, largely insufficient for all blps. If you are referring to sort of edits that led to the Seigenthaler incident, then having an 'expiration' (automatic flagging) system or not won't change anything: new unreviewed articles will be listed at Special: Newpages when filtering out reviewed pages. While blps are more sensitive and require more oversight, most articles don't, so if we intend to use flagged revisions on all articles, an expiration system is a necessity. For blps, it may be delayed longer, or deactivated if necessary. Expired revisions would also be dealt with differently than usual sighted versions:with distinguishable signs, a specific special page to list them, etc. We could also make a special page specific to blps. And Huggle could have an option to sight a revision when the previous one is sighted, but it would still be insufficient for all blps. Cenarium (Talk) 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 400,000 BLPs, perhaps (probably less). German Wikipedia is already successfully sighting 775,000 articles with less users than we have. I don't think there's a bottleneck here; it's at least worth a trial run. Cool Hand Luke 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, you are missing the fact that articles on en are edited much more often. We can't only consider numbers anyway, we need to implement to see how it will turn out, and prudence demands a progressive implementation, otherwise we will be flooded, and a trial before that. I have already worked intensively on flagged revisions and I am not opposed to it, but try to find ways to adapt it to Wikipedia, in a pragmatic manner and respecting our wiki nature. Cenarium (Talk) 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can also just try for one letter to see how it goes. A went smooth? Lets add B? Still good? C and D, etc. rootology (C)(T) 03:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the implementation needs to be progressive to give the time to grant reviewer rights and adapt, the alphabetical order looks acceptable, with the occasional exception. Cenarium (Talk) 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation would be inherently progressive as articles wouldn't be flagged to begin with. That is, for articles where there is no flagged revision yet, the most recent one would be shown, and edits would take effect immediately. As BLPs would begin to be flagged, those BLPs that are would show the most recent flagged version first. That's how the German Wikipedia managed to scale the system.
In addition, depending on the mechanism being used to implement BLP protection, it could be applied incrementally. FlaggedRevs already supports per-page configuration of the default viewing level. Essentially the "show most recent flagged version first" setting can be seen as an alternative to semi-protection, and can be used as such on a per-page basis.
I'm writing some notes on the German experience at m:FlaggedRevs Report December 2008.--Eloquence* 04:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; I look forward to your thoughts. Yes, I like the German system of incrementally reviewing new articles into flagged revisions. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting, thanks. Some useful and significant data has been gathered, but it seems still too soon to see the impact on user contributions. I do not believe that 10000 articles is a reasonable number though.
Indeed the implementation would be progressive in that sense. At the very beginning of the implementation, admins should be allowed to enable flagged revs on blps, essentially to be used on high-visibility or problematic ones. Then in a second step, we could enable Flaggedrevs by default, either massively or incrementally. The advantage of an incremental implementation, for example following the alphabetical order, is that, since most blps are likely to be sighted randomly, it'll relatively keep things 'under control', avoid dispersion, and focus the attention of users for feedback purposes (in anticipation to an extension to all articles, in particular). Of course, a trial prior to the implementation would provide sample analysis.
The backlog is the primary problem, especially in the event of an extension to all articles. I believe that a system of expired revisions could precisely resolve it: if the backlog is huge, we reduce the delay to expiration (for non-blps), if it becomes less important, we can augment the delay. Expired revisions can still be flagged like any other, the only effect is that it becomes the stable version (the version showed to IPs). Cenarium (Talk) 05:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, revisions should not be sighted randomly. In the German Wikipedia, articles are not sighted at all until someone flags them for the first time (after an extra-thorough review). By this method, 775,000 articles have been flagged. That's how we should tackle BLP flagging. I strongly oppose any expiration for flagged revisions. On the German Wikipedia, 98%+ of flagged articles are up-to-date. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revisions will be sighted randomly. Articles are seen by a user randomly, either through recent changes, viewing of an article, etc, and then the user decides to flag a revision of not. This is completely random, with a tendency for most viewed and most edited pages. You'd have to create a process to organize the flagging of blps and it won't be up and working in the beginning, and the random factor will still be there. Of course an article is not sighted until someone does (or automatically from the beginning if the creator is a reviewer), this is always true, it's the way flaggedrevs work, not only on de. Your numbers are not meaningful at all, we can't compare the situation with de, due to our size, our ratio regulars/all editors that is much weaker, etc. Have you considered the opposition to flagged revisions above ? Wouldn't you prefer flagged revs with expiration for non-blps rather than nothing ? You'll never get a consensus for flaggedrevs on all articles without an expiration for non-blps and for other content pages (templates, images, etc). Cenarium (Talk) 13:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Expiration is worse than the status quo because it has the ability to lock in edits that no one has ever examined. See also Davewild's comment below. We would cope with backlogs by not biting off more than we can chew, and the BLP articles are a good place to start. Cool Hand Luke 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It won't lock edits: the time between an edit and the next one won't increase. Cenarium (Talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with any automatic flagging of revisions. I think automatic flagging brings the worst of both the current situation and flagged revisions. Not only does the person who makes the edit have to wait for a period of time for his edit to be flagged but we do not have the benefit of flagging - the stopping of vandalism/libel from entering the flagged article. Imagine the situation where news organisations pick up on articles where vandalism/libel has been flagged automatically as good edits. If we cannot cope with the amount of edits to flagged articles then we should scale down the number of articles to be flagged, equally if we are coping well then we can scale up the number of articles flagged. I believe we will be able to cope with flagged revisions on BLPs but I see no benefit to introducing flagged revisions that are automatically flagged on other articles. Davewild (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a form of automatic flagging in the strict sense at all, and I would disagree with that too. Expiring is meant in the sense that it'll redirect IPs to the "draft" page instead of the "stable" page. Edits are not locked, the page can be edited and edits are added as normal, the delay between edits is not increased, revisions can still be flagged, IPs can access the stable page by one click. Think about all the vandalism that could be reverted before being viewed if edits were delayed by only one hour ... almost all of it. We could keep the delay quite short for all articles, a few hours at most, and allowing to augment it (up to indefinite) on the members of a specific category, and on specific pages as needed. Edits will still have to be flagged, but it will avoid the negative consequences of backlogs. Cenarium (Talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure we should be giving special technical (e.g., restricting editing through the software) treatment to BLPs. While we can reduce edits to these pages (by implementing semi-protection) or monitor additions more carefully (and we really should be doing that better), I think removing unsourced statements that currently sit in BLPs for months or years is perhaps more important than anything else. So I'm spamming Wikipedia:Database reports/Biographies of living persons containing unsourced statements. That list contains 500 out of about 17,000 similar pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions: who will flag? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it would be hashed out after the decision to flag or not to flag is hashed out. Other projects have extra groups like we do with Rollbackers. I think this is the Wikinews one. I'd point out the German one but I can't read German. I'd guess it would be as easy as giving out Rollbacker here, for trusted users. rootology (C)(T) 23:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know this before forming an opinion on flagged revisions. If there are not enough flaggers it would make Wikipedia stagnate. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a binding poll. Look at the top; it's meant to get some ideas for how to proceed. Instead, suggest in your replies how flagging should be distributed; indicate that you would find it unacceptable without those conditions. On German Wikipedia, everyone with 300 edits and several months experience automatically sights revisions with their edits, and the ability to sight edits can be granted by permission like rollback. I think those rules are reasonable. Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Scott (Doc)

edit

A few comments. Sorry, I come to this late, so most of these will have been made already. I'm not a fan of polling, since people tend to jump in dependent on prejudices and preconceptions. It might be better to create a list of pros and cons, that people might weigh up - then indeed some people might change there mind either way.

I am of the opinion that semi-protecting BLPs will have only limited utility. If you review my longer essay at User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem, you will note that my opinion is that passing vandalism and IPs adding in defamations is not the real problem. Most of this crap gets quickly reverted, and of that which does not a high proportion is obvious crap that's embarrassing for wikipedia rather than damaging to the subject. The biggest problem we have is that of the motivated biased user with an axe to grind, inserting libels or bias that looks OK to an uninformed reviewer, and may even be apparently sourced. These people will log in and wait. I'd support semi-protection as it might help a bit with some of the lesser problems - but I'm not that enthusiastic about semi-protecting all BLPs.

Further, the BLP problem exists not so much on high profile articles, where there are sufficient informed eyes to recognised biased or hatchet-job edits and revert. Even a sophisticated libel, with apparently good sourcing, will be investigated on George Bush, Sarah Palin, Michael Jackson. The problem emerges with less obvious libels on low notability BLPs - because no one care enough or knows enough to spot them if they are not obvious vandalism. So, if we were going to semi-protect BLPs as a class, I'd suggest:

  • Any admin may permanently semi-protect any BLP where there have been BLP violations inserted that have remained uncorrected for over 48 hours, or where there been a justifiable complaint to OTRS. Such semi-protection must only be undone if there is a consensus on RfPP.

As for flagged revisions, I'm again unconvinced that this will solve the problem. Will the person flagging really check all the sources and discover the hatchet job that looks OK on first reading? However, I do think this is worth trying, simply because it might help, and it might be a better check on the patient POV pusher. Again, if we don't want to go the whole way, we could start with problematic BLPs.

  • Any admin may switch flagged revisions on for any article (not just BLPs!) where there have been harmful BLP violations that have not been immediately reverted, or where there been a justifiable complaint to OTRS. Such flagging should only be undone if there is a consensus to do so.

Anyway, that's my initial thoughts.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, would it be worth adding something to this essay as a first up? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think those could work. Orderinchaos 23:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like these ideas. لennavecia 03:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about carrots instead of sticks?

edit

A contest like ---> ta-daaaa this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a great idea which I hope gets lots of participation, but I don't think vandals like carrots :-( --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question of referencing when it comes to flagging

edit

I don't know a ton about the German wikipedia, but I've looked at a few of their featured articles. They're referenced quite a bit less than our Good Articles. If we flagged articles as acceptable, we'd either have to remove all information from 75% of them (basically delete them), or lower our standards per our guidelines and policies. Right now we just say there is no deadline, and add refs as fast as we can. If we check them when we flag them, that sounds like we'd have to get them up to GA levels right then, or remove all the info. I'm sure this isn't right, but how am I wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging has nothing to do with notability or referencing standards per se; it's about keeping "bad" edits from being instantly visible to the world. At least that's my take, unless I'm not understanding your point. This wouldn't change any of our basic content standards or policies. rootology (C)(T) 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several options have been given. What is the problem with implementing them all? Assign each option for articles beginning with a series of letters and then see which one works the best and allow to comparisons for critism. I would favour semi protection but that only reduces vandalism. Much of the abuse of bio's I've noticed is from registered users who do not want to hear anything negative about their "hero" and delete relevant content rather than allow debate to, either delete or reach a form that is a not a BLP violation. Wayne (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any revision must be sighted unless it contains vandalism, libel and copyright violations. Ruslik (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm simply a new user, but I support some level of protection for BLP. Only resisted registered users appears reasonable. I understand the principle of wiki being open to all, but it's not like it costs anything to register or is difficult to do. In lieu of controversial figures having their ... our ... you know what I mean, .. rather than have an article saying wrong/bad/inaccurate things, a level of protection wouldn't hurt. As far as the tags issues go, I'm not up to speed on that - I assume that's so you can easily find a good copy in history to pull out in case someone DOES deface and article. Makes sense to me. just all IMHO Ched (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC) oops Ched (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, hear's an example. An editor (IP or not) add that a person was born in 1950. They do this without a reference. If this is before the first flagging, does someone have to google them and check that they were born in 1950, then add that ref if they were? What if they do it after the flagging? What if the unreferenced information says they're a catholic? If they say they're a criminal, then it's removed. What kind of info stays? What kind of info goes automatically? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where this survey goes wrong: too much, too fast

edit

This survey is actually conflating two different issues: 1) ongoing vandalism of Biographies of Living Persons (BLP), and 2) implementation of Flagged Revisions (FR) on the English Wikipedia. The reason for this conflation is that some people see FR as a solution to the BLP issues. However, this has not been shown to be true as yet, nor has it even been determined how we would make FR work for any articles here. It has been pointed out that Flagged Revisions is working well on the German Wikipedia (although it is not clear to what degree), but it has not yet been shown to what degree it will work here, where we have 3 times as many articles. It has been proposed above that we implement FR on some random subset of BLPs, for example, all BLPs beginning with A, and see how it works. I would argue that this is still far too large for an initial trial. There are currently 1,103,258 BLPs, which would mean that even picking one letter would be far too large a trial sample. I would argue that we should be using our Featured Articles to test Flagged Revisions, as they are, almost by definition, the most-watched pages. If not, then pick the pages with the highest pageview rates (maybe the top 500-1000), and implement a 1-6 month trial there. This will give us a chance to work the kinks out and figure out an efficient model before we start blundering about on a larger scale.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A much more representative sample could be found by clicking "Random article" ten thousand times. You don't want to implement FRs for all high traffic articles, because then you have no control group to compare the high traffic FR articles to. The same goes for BLPs or FAs. If people insist on testing FRs (a horrible, horrible idea), then it should be done to a randomly selected subset of pages. When the test is over (at which time FRs would be turned OFF until consensus is reached one way or the other), we can compare vandalism statistics between FR articles and similar non-FR articles. That would tell us where, if anywhere, FRs would be useful: High traffic, low traffic, BLPs, FAs, etc.
Myself, I think FRs are a good solution to a problem we mostly don't have. I would tolerate FRs for FAs, because FAs are stable and complete articles. But everywhere else—that is, for almost every article on Wikipedia—they're inappropriate. (And semi-protection is worse.) Ozob (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that you want to focus on FA's. Some of the long-term problems of BS being inserted into BLPs occurs in the edges. I kinda think FRs might be a good idea but I wouldn't support any such effort without a test, and I do think that maybe "All the A's" might be too large a test, but I doubt "All the J's" would be." (Substitute Q, X or Z for flavor.) Whatever's easy. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

edit

This is complex issue and I admit I'm perplexed by some of the options. The semiprotect option for BLPs is easy to understand in terms of pro and con. I'd say it's analogous to a waiting period on buying a gun except you will automatically be approved if you register and wait the four days. Thus it still allows "anyone" to edit, just not everywhere on WP or immediately. The huge number of articles involved, however, makes this an unwieldy solution.

The system-level flagging option would on the surface seem a reasonable protection to what the public sees. I may be missing something but this option looks to involve a massive amount of additional work for each article so flagged: passing/approving revisions, discussions on content for quality level, etc. Additionally, I believe this actually decreases the possibility that a new random/anon editor's edit (even a good one) will pass into an "approved" version. In other words, it's a layer that in effect severely limits casual input to the 'pedia. If an editor can't see their edit applied publicly after it is saved, this eliminates the immediate positive reinforcement of the editing process. Thus WP becomes the encyclopedia anyone can edit but only those who actively participate (on talk pages or discussions) can be assured that their edits are considered important. This happens gradually on some level anyway as new edits add info or parts are re-written or deleted. This is process of WP.

I agree that some form of protection is needed for BLP articles. Liability issues and plain misinformation continue to be problems. Yet I'm wary of both of these solutions. Pigman☿ 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thoughts, a couple of responses, firstly on semi protection, don't forget that as well as waiting for 4 days the person must also make 10 edits elsewhere as well. Personally I can't see many new editors (or casual editors) being prepared to do that if a BLP (or BLPs) is the area they are interested in.
Secondly on flagged revisions I think the most popular version we are talking about here for BLPs involves a light check, basically so long as no vandalism or libel (including no unsourced negative statements) are being introduced by the edit then the edit should be flagged. This keeps the check light and easy, any other edits that people don't think should be there can be dealt with by them editing the article as they normally would. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even a so-called "light check" involves a lot of very specific attention on a consistent and ongoing basis. I assume a list of articles needing the "light check" would be generated, yes? So that people can keep up on them and backlogs? I've read the specs for the flag but, again, I admit some of the details of practical implementation aren't obvious to me. Perhaps this flag is just the sort of housekeeping chore that WP needs to accomplish protection of BLPs but I can't avoid the feeling that the workload on it will be overwhelming and large. This is just my impression and I may not be up to speed on the facts. Note I have not offered an opinion/!vote in any of the sections above because of this. I'm just cautious but I'm certainly willing to go along with consensus on the matter. Pigman☿ 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a list would be essential yes. I agree this will mean an increase in workload and can understand why people feel that either we will not be able to cope with it or it is not worth the effort. Personally I think the problem is worth the effort and that the effort would be manageable particularly just on BLPs but that it is just my opinion. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts: "Anyone can edit" is not an absolute; and BLP is over our heads

edit

"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a very powerful and good idea, but none of us believes it is absolute: the only lasting contributions are those that are already published and that are expressed neutrally, on the other hand our images should be original (or are constrained tightly by what is "fair"). Our policies and processes constrain the nature of contributions in many ways, or we would not have achieved high standards of reliability that we have. Our invitation is genuine and genuine contributors understand its unspoken limitations. "Anyone can edit" is not an absolute promise, original research and editorialising are not welcome.

Living people have human rights protected by law. Wikipedia does not exist to allow anyone to publish anything they want regarding other living people. Theoretically, this is covered by the ordinary constraints on editing. However the important thing is that many societies have laws that do not permit any publisher to escape liability for harm done to others through publication. We have a responsibility to uphold these laws and the basic human rights they protect. Jimbo's comment above is consistent with a sensitivity to such responsibility. We have choices about how we work together to guarantee the civility of what we publish regarding living people, but we do not have a choice about taking that responsibility seriously.

I for one am keen to hear whatever those who have been working on our behalf to guarantee we are unimpeachably responsible have to say about making their lives easier. When it comes to BLP, surely Wikipedians want to sign up to the worldwide consensus regarding civil publication concerning fellow human beings. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Alastair and I agree with you 100%. Your second paragraph is precisely what is at issue here--Cailil talk 19:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to pay any more attention to British or anyone else's expansive notions of libel anymore than we need to pay attention to the consensus in Islamic countries not to have picture of Mohammed. False information is a problem. We aren't going to take out well-sourced content based on countries laws which are not part of any "worldwide consensus" no matter how much they are claimed to be. Moreover, this is all completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. We are discussing practical remedies to prevent harm or misleading information about BLPs not about making people feel better. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Joshua. The laws of many countries go beyond what is rational, or even fair, in respect of many idiosyncratic sensitivities that should not be binding on Wikipedia. But they also share a conviction that they are not "above" responsibilities of human decency, but rather servants of it. And so do Wikipedians.
Of course, you don't believe your own explicit example regarding pictures of Mohammed, since these could hardly illustrate either the real man, nor provide accurate neutral presentation of the views of those who consider him to be a prophet. Wikipedia will never publish a picture of Mohammed.
But the response your post actually calls for is a response to the false distinction you make in the final sentence. This discussion has everything to do with making people feel better, as well as the relatively minor issues of how this is actually administrated.
We are not voting here, we are taking a step on the road to consensus—thinking alike so we can act in unison. It is the reasoning that is key. What common ground can we start with, and build on from there? I say our common ground is zero tolerance for uncivil text in BLP. No one is against that. So the remaining question is merely what we can all do to help administrate this. I say let's get behind those who actually do this work for us currently: let them decide what they need, and let us give them all the moral support they need in the process.
If that makes people feel good, I can't see how that's a problem. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly in agreement. My main point about Mohammed is not in the context of Mohammed being a living person(obviously not) but rather that having many countries prohibit something is not generally something Wikipedia should pay any attention to. In this case, they prohibit or strongly frown on pictures of the prophet. That's doesn't mean we should listen to them. In that same context, if there's some broad overarching notion of certain content being unacceptable in some countries we shouldn't use that as a reason to censor our text. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do see where you're coming from Joshua I think we all need to consider this situation - if a wikipedian from outside the USA who adds material (or flags it) is potentially libel for it then they do need to be aware of their own country's libel laws. This is the whole problem of an international BLP law suit - we don't know how bad it could get. We don't know under which legal framework said non-american wikipedian would be libel (in my understanding probably both). Perhaps the lawyers have a better idea than I do but IMHO in such a situation we (each of us who are potentially libel) need to do no harm and maintain articles within a "no harm" structure. However, right now WP:HARM has no teeth and no standing in policy - we need to address this. And IMO flagging and/or semi-protecting BLPs is one way to do this.
Ultimately we're here to find a way to safe-guard the project and wikipedians from such situations. We probably wont all see eye to eye on a way forward but we need to begin the discussion--Cailil talk 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, although I haven't checked, I think it is more likely that the Foundation would be held liable, rather than any particular editor. There are several reasons for that, but the important thing is, this gives us a reason to give support to protecting the Foundation from financial loss, rather than take freedom to potentially put it at financial risk. If you like, less editorial freedom regarding BLP is a "donation" to the Foundation that makes such editing possible in the first place. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP in this section misses the point of "anyone can edit." I don't think anyone ever intended it to mean "anyone can add whatever the hell they want and expect it to remain for all eternity." It just means that anyone can click the edit button on 99% of pages and make a change, without having to jump through hoops like creating an account, making 10 edits on "lower risk" pages and/or waiting 4 days. We even say below the edit form "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Mr.Z-man 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is an attempt to document community consensus, and as such is a product of the community, and not at all "over our heads". Mandates from the WMF regarding page content are indeed over our heads. I note that such seem conspicuous in their absence, when it comes to WP:BLP-related matters. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DragonHawk for the clarification. Yes, by BLP I meant "BLP related", not reference to a community document. Also, yes, I too find it odd that direction is absent regarding a matter in which the WMF is financially at risk, while being dependent on editorial co-operation. I understand the current discussion to be primarily a step on the way to addressing this matter.
Thanks also Z-man for your opinions. I'm glad we agree that everyone knows "anyone can edit" doesn't mean "anything goes". I'm interested in your interpretation that what it really means is "The encyclopedia that can be edited anytime"—no "hoops" like accounts, contrib history or delays. I too think that kind of immediacy is important, though I'd still contend none of us believe even that is absolute—consensus based edits take time and are far from immediate. I think the anyone is far more important than the anytime idea.
What I think we are actually saying is "everyone is welcome" and "no experience necessary". Protecting living people from uncivil text and the Foundation from financial loss seem to be non-negotiables that can be satisfied without compromising our genuine invitation to genuine contributors. Indeed, the principle does seem extendable in ways worthy of discussion and testing; though such extentions, like flagged revisions, do not seem anywhere near as clear (to my befuddled mind) as BLP related issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on flagged Revisions for blps and Flagged revisions with expiration for all non-blp articles / content pages

edit

This section is silly. This is basically just a "preliminary" discussion. Throwing in more options similar to existing options is just going to split people up even more, make consensus look even more fuzzy, and decrease the chance we get anything decided here. These are the kind of details that should be worked out if/when we decide we want flaggedrevs at all. AFAIK, "expiration" isn't even an option yet in flaggedrevs. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and you're right. But people like to add options. Just support everything (with a lukewarm/secondchoice/meh sort of comment) that is a step in the right direction, and oppose everything that isn't. That's what I'm doing. My personal destination is:
All BLPs semiprotected, with flagged revisions, and their existance subject to opt out for marginally notable subjects, use of dead tree standard for judging who is not marginally notable, default to delete for no consensus XfDs. All other articles (and anything else in article space or embedded by it or reached from it, to include (but not necessarily limited to) templates, portals, lists, image descriptions, etc... ANYTHING that someone not concerned with the underpinnings of content production might see) using flagged revisions with no automated default to flagged for any of it.
ANYTHING that moves us in that direction from where we are now, gets at least my lukewarm support, so any proposal that flags BLPs in whatever form, any proposal that semiprotects BLPs in whatever form... gets something positive from me. All journeys begin with a single step. ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and others would oppose to flagged revisions without expiration on all articles because of backlogs, so this allows to make more specific choices. Cenarium (Talk) 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, this section is silly by itself. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would flagged revisions make Wikipedia legally liable?

edit

IANAL.

If I understand US libel law correctly, a living person who was defamed by a Wikipedia article would have a tough time suing the Wikimedia Foudation for defamation because it is not an "information content provider" under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Instead, WP editors are information content providers, and WP only republishes their content. My question is, if flagged revisions are turned on, would the Wikimedia Foundation become liable for defamatory statements that appeared in a flagged article? If an article is flagged, then someone with some capacity is supposed to have vetted it. Does that approval process make WP into an "information content provider"? Does it make the person who flags an article liable? The closest analogy I can think of is a moderated forum or mailing list; is the moderator liable if he allows a defamatory statement to be posted?

I hope the answer is no to all of these, but I don't have the expertise to even know where to look. Ozob (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before in the context of flagged revisions for the German Wikipedia and the English Wikinews. The consensus seems to be that it does not make the Foundation more liable but it could conceivably make the flagger liable. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, all the foundation does is enable the extension. The actual flagging will still be done by editors. Editors will still remain volunteers, and just as liable for a flagging as they are for an edit. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than all of us playing armchair lawyer, shouldn't we let the WMF legal team handle legal matters? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the Foundation legal counsel has no official view on this one way or the other, given that some projects (e.g. German Wikipedia) have enabled flagged revisions while others have not. Beyond that, anyone who wants can ask User:Mike Godwin if he would care to express any views or concerns. My own impression (I am a lawyer, though not an internet-law or defamation expert) is that there is relatively little caselaw exploring the parameters of Section 230, but as a matter of principle I thought a court would avoid penalizing a service provider such as the Foundation for taking a good-faith action intended to reduce the likelihood of defamatory content being posted, as a matter of public policy and avoiding the creation of perverse incentives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ozob for directing my attention to section 230, regarding which I was unaware. Thanks also Brad for your broadly expert opinion and the referal to Mike. I do note an interesting comment in the final paragraph of the Section 230 Wiki article, which accords with the understanding I have had as an Australian. I'll quote it here.
Following the decision in Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2003) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-682, Australian courts, at least, will treat defamatory material on a server outside Australia as having been published in Australia if it is downloaded or read by someone in Australia. Under private international law, a plaintiff successful in obtaining a judgment against, for example, an American defendant in an Australian court may then enforce that judgment against a person domiciled in the United States through the US legal system.
If I have understood this correctly, the authority of jurisdictions is divided as follows: Australian courts would be willing to decide a matter involving an Australian plaintiff in respect of WMF as defendant; enforcement, however, would be administered via the US courts. The key thing is that international law appears to allow US courts to conceed to Australian courts the right to decide such matters in respect of appeals from their citizens (I expect it is reciprocal but that is not our issue). Hence, Section 230 is no defence in Australia (for example) and this is where such matters are decided.
Perhaps all we need is semi-protection of biographies of non-US living people (or maybe just Australians;). US law may allow considerably more scope for what may be published by its citizens in respect of one another than other countries may; however, it seems it is willing to conceed that it cannot rule on what US publications should be deemed acceptable if downloaded abroad. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm getting both scared and relieved. [1] has a layman's summary of a prominent instance of foreign libel judgments and their enforcement in the US. If I understand it right, in New York, such judgments are unenforceable unless the foreign country protects speech at least as much as the US does. I'd guess that if foreign libel judgments ever became an issue in another state, that state legislature (or perhaps Congress) would pass a similar law forbidding enforcement.
But if you're not in the US, things are of course different. And here's where Wikimedia Foundation may actually run into trouble: It's not fully contained in the US. There are 21 local chapters according to [2], and each of those must comply with their local libel laws. Furthermore, some of Wikimedia's servers are in Amsterdam and Seoul [3], so Wikimedia has some very important property in non-US locations.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone attempts to murder the Wikimedia Foundation by suing it for libel in a non-US jurisdiction. Are you aware of Alms for Jihad? All it takes is an angry rich man with something to hide and Wikimedia Foundation could be in big trouble. Flagged revisions or not. Ozob (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hear you. I'm all for Wiki presuming innocence and accordingly protecting BLP from unsourced slander. However, it seems there is evidence we're pretty good at this already. The main issues are simply efficiency of process and being realistic that we may simply have been lucky—accidents are inevitable in the long run.
But I also now see the nasty side that you bring up—a credible threat. It is just possible that a vindictive wealthy lady with skeletons published by a third party she can't sue, might go for the "weakest link" and hit Wikipedia for republishing that third party source, exploiting the legislation of country in which she has a shell company HQ, or the laws of the Netherlands or South Korea.
A lot of our discussion focusses on the good faith of our editors, anonymous or registered, and how far we can presume on that. I guess I haven't thought as much about bad faith living people. Perhaps, dammit, there could be an element of responsible self-protection to be considered here. But I hate the idea of giving in to even a real threat of such a kind, let alone constraining ourselves systematically to accommodate such threats in advance! Naively perhaps, I like to think that editors and donors alike would not want us to give way to such fears, and would support us to the hilt were such an eventuality to arise. I like to think that any one wealthy opponent attempting such a ploy would only be confronted by many more generous friends of Wikipedia defending it in such circumstances.
Hmmm, as regards that new idea, I can only say I trust Australian courts would not be fooled by such opposition. I don't know which cases to point to, but I bet they've dismissed actions by wealthy people and institutions multiple times. But it is a big world! You've thrown me a possibility I'd not considered and is way out of my depth. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a scary thought. And I don't see any good solution except to keep all WP staff, facilities, and editors in the US or countries with similarly strong speech protection. (Of course, the part about editors is impossible and ridiculous.) My reading of freedom of speech by country suggests that the Netherlands and South Korea are probably the best place for Wikimedia to keep its non-US servers. But in most countries, editors and the local Wikimedia chapter are in danger of a defamation lawsuit. That's unavoidable.
My best guess for the effect of flagged revisions is what other, more knowledgeable people have said: Probably FRs will make Wikimedia Foundation no more liable than it already is; and probably flagging an article will make the flagger liable for any errors. Pseudonymity may or may not protect an editor or flagger; obviously it doesn't if you edit with your real name (like you and some others do), but even if you don't, the local chapter may be forced to turn over whatever identifying information it has (like the output of Wikipedia:CheckUser, if they have access to it). That's something all flaggers need to be aware of. If I were in a non-US country, I'd be pretty intimidated. Ozob (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it scary to edit BLPs in my own name because I know myself. I probably am a little naive about how possible it might be for those people to make (and get away with) unreasonable criticism of text I might add to their pages.
My main concern is not protecting editors from the consequences of their own actions, but rather protecting the Foundation from the actions of editors. Either we allow anyone to edit anywhere and any time (which necessarily implies all sorts of risks that need to be managed somehow) or we have various forms of self-restraint.
One issue here is that freedom can be expensive. Some freedoms are more expensive than others. Freedoms can be given. How much freedom do we want the Foundation to buy for us? How much are we willing to give so that others may be free? Which freedoms are best value for money? How much are we willing to donate to back spending on asserting US views of freedom of speech in legal battles with those asserting freedom to enjoy a reputation they have earned?
Is self-restraint an exercise in expressing personal freedom? How does this apply where people collectively express it?
And then, perhaps you and I Ozob, are fascinated by the philosophy of it all, where others will just cut to the chase and find something practical. But I'm probably describing my own vice, not yours here. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not just describing your own view.  :-) I used to hate philosophy, I thought it was all garbage. I'm coming around to the view that it's not so bad if you're mature enough to not be a teenage solipsist. (I still don't like Plato, though.)
I agree that our main concern is not protecting editors. The main concern is to write an encyclopedia. Protecting editors is only a secondary concern. I don't think the two concerns clash very much, if at all. But I'm also of the view that FRs are a bad thing: IPs are the source of all new editors, so anything that makes it harder for an IP to edit strikes at the root of Wikipedia. I think, from your comments elsewhere on this page, that you think FRs are either a good or a possibly good thing, and that therefore the two aforementioned concerns do clash; and we both agree that writing an encyclopedia trumps protecting editors in such a situation.
The real problem with speech restraint is that it prevents us from writing a complete encyclopedia. In the US, truth is an absolute defense in a defamation lawsuit. An article that meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR should therefore never cause a problem. But this is not the case in other countries. In other countries, you can be prosecuted for disparaging the government, for indecency or immorality, or for blasphemy. Wikipedia could easily violate these with an article about a brutal government, an article about sex, or an article about religion. We've already managed to offend people enough to block us (see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia). Someday I expect we'll offend someone like Khalid bin Mahfouz (who forced the destruction of Alms for Jihad) just by publishing notable, neutral, well-sourced truth.
Returning to the point of this page: I don't think either of the proposed methods will work. Neither of them counters systematic, subtle bias against a living person. A vindictive editor who is willing to be patient and subtle could certainly slip defamation past any safeguards we might implement. Defamation can't be stopped by anything except rigorous and careful application of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Indeed, the real problem with defamation from an encyclopedic perspective is that it violates those policies. I can't imagine how anything other than careful application of policy will fix BLP issues. But at least I'm satisfied that the current proposals won't increase Wikimedia's liability. They may cause other problems, and FRs may increase the liability of individual editors, but they won't force Wikipedia to fold. Ozob (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your thread, in that it was your excellent question. So I'll respect the whisper of a "close" signal I think I hear.
To close off on references to my views: to be honest, I don't really know what would work best in practice. Regarding IPs being potential editors, I agree, but SP would just encourage registration wouldn't it? Actually, we can guess all we like, but only an experiment will allow us data to form more solid conclusions.
Regarding abstract principles: I like Plato, but hate solipsism (it is very teenage I agree). But seriously, I agree truth (or rather WP:V&NPOV) should be an absolute defense for edits to BLP at Wikipedia. I guess I just think it is reasonable to expedite minimization of edits that transgress existing policy at BLP, on broadly moral rather than legal grounds.
Thanks for reading and responding to my other comments on these pages, that is good of you. I have been stimulated and educated by your comments above, and though we may not agree on everything, imo, there is more in common than not. It is minds like yours that attract me to Wiki—sharp thinkers stimulate my own neurons. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you too. I've enjoyed and learned from this. Ozob (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we just going to make vandals smarter?

edit

It seems like this will make it so only vandals who have devoted a certain amount of time to the wiki will see results. Is that what we want? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, we want as little vandalism as possible, and those that have devoted time will be vandalizing anyway, so why not stop the majority of vandalism. Besides, there will be plenty of other pages for the schoolchildren to vandalize. --omnipotence407 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a LP whose B gets vandalized regularly

edit

My entry is one that gets vandalized on a regular basis, both by kiddies who think it's cool to make dumb comments and by a dedicated group that follows me around the net and makes nasty, libelous comments about me whenever they're presented with the opportunity. Vandalism to my entry gets fixed within a day, and it's pretty obvious when it happens. I'm not too concerned about it. I think semiprotection would stop nearly all vandalism of my entry in its tracks, and think anonymous edits are, in general, more trouble than they're worth (especially since registering is trivial); I think flagged revisions are, overall, a good thing, but probably orthogonal to this debate; and I'm left wondering what triggered the sudden interest in the topic. Then again, I got run off of active editing by an admin who ignored the rules on BLP as they're written and was backed up when I cried foul, so what do I know? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy idea

edit

I know this may be crazy, but if we limited news sources to being over a week old before being "reliable" for use on BLPs, it would cut down a lot on speculation and other problems, and give newspapers a chance for corrections or retractions. It would also slow down the fervor and speculation during "breaking" events. Sure, it might hurt in the news, but there might be possible exemptions for such a thing. Who knows. I'm just saying. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know some wonk will then apply this nonsensically to say that we can't say Barack Obama "won" the election until November 11th, 2008, and we can't say that Eartha Kitt has passed away until January 2nd, 2009. rootology (C)(T) 05:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting idea, but it will have trouble gaining consensus. It would be cool if we had some system for tracking retractions, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All we need is "deathnotice" as a special exception for edits in that case. WP is not intended for "breaking news" so very few special exceptions would be necessary. Collect (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an awful idea. (I thought this page was for the BLP feeler survey anyways but we seem to be rapidly turning it into a brainstorming about BLP issues ah well...). This doesn't help matters other than make people feel good but doesn't stop any of the serious genuine BLP problems such as vandalism or serious POV pushing. All this would do is make us not up to date. If there is any problematic content in reliable sources that's a problem with those sources not us. Moreover, if ones concern is not to do harm then once it is in such sources that will generally not exist as a problem (since harm will already have been done). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up to date? Seeing as how 99.999% of articles are about the past, there is nothing to be "up to date" about. Most science texts and publications take years to be published. Why should Wikipedia hold itself to such lower standards and let BLP problems slip in because of it? When Patrick Swayze was revealed to have cancer, there was edit warring and all sorts of problems with sourcing. The same went for every single issue about Sarah Palin. Most BLP problems and edit warring is based on new sources that are probably not reliable because they haven't had time to be vetted by other sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple problems with your statement. First, Wikipedia does very well with the vast majority of breaking news material of major notability. Indeed, there have been news articles just about that topic. The classic example which was discussed in the New York Times Magazine was the articles related to the Virginia Tech massacre. We do this very well. What you advocate is like a marathon runner who occasionally trips when he is walking deciding to only travel by wheelchair to avoid the trips. Second, your claim that "Most BLP problems and edit warring is based on new sources that are probably not reliable because they haven't had time to be vetted by other sources" is false. Issues with news sources are very rare as one can see if one keeps a look on the BLP noticeboard. The vast majority of BLP problems extend from either vandalism or POV pushing. Moreover, in at least one of the cases you gave, Palin, there were not any serious issues based on timeliness but rather based on not having enough of a long-term perspective to know how much weight to give things which is not at all as serious a BLP problem. Furthermore, if we are using do-no-harm as the judge of what we should put then then once they are in major sources there's not any harm by as treating them as reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"First, Wikipedia does very well with the vast majority of breaking news material of major notability." I strongly disagree from my own first hand experience. I also disagree with you feeling that new news sources isn't a major problem. Most vandaism or POV pushing is justified by new news sources. There are many major problems with new news, which is why there are such things as retractions. Verifiability requires us to use reliable sources. A source that has not yet had time to go through retractions or critique is not reliable. We have standards and such sources fail to meet them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Most vandaism or POV pushing is justified by new news sources" - that's simply false. We have massive amounts of simple vandalism with no connection to sources at all. And massive amounts of POV pushing on BLPs the vast majority probably are about living people who are not in the news at present. And the notion that sources which have not had time to retract are somehow not reliable is in any case relying on a unique defintion of reliable which has nothing to do with whats written in WP:RS. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is starting with "Jimbo supports it" an accurate way of judging consensus?

edit

It shoud have been good explanations of what happened with the German wikipedia, and pros and cons in general. Guess we'll never know what an even-handed treatment would have produced. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, how may votes (and they are votes) are based purely on Jimbo's recommendation? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to tell, but I share your frustration. The "invocation" shouldn't be there. Protonk (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved this section below. We ought to provide a neutral introduction when asking the community for comments. Cenarium (Talk) 15:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do hear what you're saying. I think you're on the money too. I read Jimbo to be "giving permission" for people to support what I think he's smart enough to know is likely to be controversial and emotional. Some could argue that this aids neutrality and fair discussion. I could be wrong, but look how many strong opposes there are, whereas statements of support are often made with acknowledgment that there's room for criticism. That looks to me like Jimbo picked the mood of the community accurately. How many people would have remained silent or followed the crowd had Jimbo not levelled the playing field?
You're absolutely right Peregrin, Protonk and Cenarium, Jimbo probably has influenced discussion by the way he has asked for our comments, just how he has influenced things, and whether it is appropriate are complex questions though, imo. I'm not sure I know the answers, but someone should argue an alternative POV here.
Drat that sounds like sucking up, but it can't be helped. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo and the m:OTRS volunteers have to answer emails and fix BLPs every day from barely notable people who's first hit on Google is unsourced libel and vandalized descriptions from WP. If anyone knows the issues like the LPs with Bs here, it's Jimbo and the OTRS volunteers. There just aren't enough editors fixing the problems before people have to email the foundation to have it fixed. Either notability needs to be set much higher like in other encyclopedias, or BLPs need to be protected because the current editors can't keep the libel out until it's cached and mirrored elsewhere. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-03t15:04z

So you're saying that, just because a group of volunteers has their job, a larger pool of people has to conform to them? This leads to another question: what is of more value to Wikipedia, adding new information to Wikipedia or protecting the existing information? Admiral Norton (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even needed?

edit

I wrote on this elsewhere on this page, but the more I read of this discussion, the more this is gnawing at me: Who says a special response for BLPs is even needed? I know Wikipedia articles can't contain material that's legally problematic (libel, slander, etc.). But why are we taking it as given that "something must be done" about BLP articles? We have many existing mechanisms in place to deal with article content issues. Are they failing to protect BLP articles somehow? Has the WMF legal counsel stated that BLP vandalism is becoming a serious threat to the continued operation of the project? Citation needed, please.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this even needed?" Yes.
I'm going to copy here some points that I made on the talkpage, which was a mistake on my part in terms of where to put them, because people don't seem to be reading the talkpage. (I'm adding a little bit more emphasis in a couple of places to what I already wrote.) Basically, the concerns driving this page are based upon some generally accepted facts and concerns, viz.:
Okay, I'm going to respond point-by-point in-line below. That's going to make the discussion a bit messy, but the size and structure of your contribution leave no alternative that I can see. The key point I wish to make is: I am asking for some evidence as to how existing mechanisms are failing for BLP pages. As far as I can tell, you never seem to address that. Thus, I discard most of what you wrote as irrelevant to that question. I don't do that to suggest your words are totally irrelevant, just irrelevant to the question at hand. (FWIW, I agree with lots of what you wrote; I just don't think it applies.) You do make some other points, and I've tried to respond to them, but I'm afraid they're lost in this sea of words. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is designed as "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit." There are people who think that this model cannot, by definition, produce a high-quality encyclopedia, but by participating in the project, we are trying to prove them wrong.
  • There are some circumstances when we need to step away from the "anyone can edit" model. I don't think anyone opposes the availability of page protection or semiprotection as a matter of principle. It's a matter of deciding when these tools are needed, on which articles, and for how long.
  • As the English Wikipedia has developed to become the most popular interactive website in the world, our impact on the subjects of our articles has increased proportionately. At this point, an article about a living person on the English Wikipedia will typically become the number-one search engine result for a search on that person's name. The impact of inappropriate article content on a BLP subject can therefore be extremely serious. This includes various types of inappropriate content, ranging from libel and defamation, to rumormongering, to unwarranted disclosure of private facts, to drive-by vandalism.
  • The community has largely rejected the idea that BLP violations consist only of false or unsourced content, and has accepted that undue weight to negative aspects of a subject's life or unwarranted disclosure of private facts can also constitute a derogation from what we want Wikipedia to be. (I can think of several horrifying examples, but would prefer not to publicize them further.) Where to draw the line, of course, remains disputed in many instances.
  • All of us edit Wikipedia for one or both of two reasons: (1) we are contributing and compile redistributable free knowledge to the world, and (2) we are having fun in doing so. We do not want our hobby to damage other people's lives.
  • The loss of privacy associated with the Internet is not unique to Wikipedia, but a much more widespread problem, and is indeed the major negative social externality of the information revolution. Even what at first blush would seem a 100% positive development in direction of greater access to information—say, the publication on the Internet of the full text of old newspapers—can seriously damage privacy (e.g., no one will ever again outlive a youthful indiscretion that happened to make the New York Times). All of us now live in the goldfish bowl: It is not always a happy place to be.
  • Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not the only place where false rumors or privacy violations can be created on the Internet, our unique prominence gives us an especial responsibility for using best practices to mitigate these problems.
  • Although a high proportion of IP edits are vandalism or otherwise problematic, we continue to allow unregistered IP editing both for philosophical reasons, and also because experience (e.g. mine) teaches that many established contributors got their start as editors by making a few edits on a whim, who likely would not have done so if they had had to register first.
    • Nothing explict on the question. The implication seems to be that "allowing anon-IP edits is not worth the trouble" (if I'm wrong in my interpretation, correct me). To that idea: I haven't seen anything which addresses ratio of problematic-edits vs total-edits for anon-IP-edits, nor have I seen anything which puts that in context compared against registered-user-edits. If all 97% of vandalism comes from anon-IP users, but only 25% of anon-IP edits are vandalism, we're barking up the wrong tree. If, OTOH, 90% of anon-IP edits are vandalism which isn't self-reverted, then maybe we should close the door on anon editing entirely. This isn't BLP-specific. I fight vandalism on lots of tech subject pages. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been several reports of serious incidents in which article subjects have been victimized and suffered serious, adverse real-world consequences (including arrest or the loss of their jobs) as a result of content in their BLPs. We can argue that this is a result of the authorities or decision-makers (immigration officers, potential employers, etc.) using Wikipedia for purposes for which it was not designed; but that is little consolation to the people affected.
    • Wikipedia cannot possibly support taking on the burden of everybody who might get hurt because of something that was read on Wikipedia. People get hurt all the time, for all sorts of reasons, often unintentional. BLP isn't about avoiding the possibility of hurting people; BLP is about accuracy, sourcing, and avoiding libel and slander. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some BLP subjects state that waking up every day and worrying what nastiness might have crept into their Wikipedia article overnight has had a detrimental effect on their quality of life.
  • The OTRS system, the Office, and the noticeboards receive complaints on a daily basis from BLP subjects seeking the removal or revision of their articles. Some of these complaints have more merit than others, but a significant number require some action. This is not a situation that was anticipated when the wiki editing model and system software were designed. No one would have predicted when Wikipedia started that along with its unprecedented success would come the need for several hundred volunteers to participate in the equivalent of a complaint department.
  • Some BLPs are higher-risk than others. Lumping all BLPs together as a group may (or may not) be overinclusive categorization.
  • Some BLP subjects do not mind being included in Wikipedia, some do not mind so long as their coverage is accurate, a few object vehemently to inclusion, and there is also the related phenomenon of subjects determined to be non-notable and deleted who object to that conclusion and want their articles back in.
  • Any system reliant on volunteers to patrol articles is only as reliable as the flow of volunteers.
  • We collectively spend an enormous amount of volunteer time refining and policing our notability guidelines in areas where the negative impact of retaining a "borderline notable" article is slight, relative to the time we collectively spend dealing with articles where problems may damage people's lives and reputations.
  • There is little reliable statistical evidence on what percentage of edits to BLPs or other articles constitute vandalism or BLP violations. It is demonstrable and generally agreed, though, that this percentage is far higher for IP edits than for those of registered accounts.
    • Totally unsourced. Citation needed. "little reliable evidence" means we don't know. If it was demonstrative, we'd have data. Anecdotes or gut feelings won't change the fact that we don't know. "generally agreed" is the very sort of weasel-wording we don't allow in BLP articles. Judging from the tumoil on this page, very little is generally agreed. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steps that would reduce vandalism in general (e.g., reducing the usual sequence of "test" warnings before a block is imposed from four warnings to three, which I think would be a desirable step) would reduce problems on BLP pages along with everywhere else.
    • I agree that vandalism is a problem and that fighting it is critical. None of that addresses why BLP pages make the existing counter-vandalism mechanisms fail while non-BLP-pages do not make the existing counter-vandalism mechanisms fail. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes limited to "BLP pages" will address many of the most serious problems with BLP content, but not all of them, as references to living persons may appear in one form or another in almost any article at all.
    • That's practically a tautology. It basically says that if we have a solution, applying it to only BLP pages will only address those pages. That's not an argument in favor of (or opposed to) any particular solution. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ability to use the "NOINDEX" parameter or its equivalent in mainspace in connection with problematic content has not been seriously evaluated to date.
  • Although BLP problems may affect an article on any living person (cf. the Sarah Palin wheel-war arbitration case), they will often be most serious on articles concerning less-well-known persons.
    • That's a statement without a supporting argument. I guess your supposition is that high-profile pages are more likely to be under scrutiny, and thus low-profile pages might sustain more lasting vandalism. I'd buy that as a reasonable theory, at least. I'm not sure where it gets us, though. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The importance of nipping BLP violations in the bud increases in light of the number of Wikipedia mirrors which will grab whatever version of a page exists at the moment they scrape the site (and will miss the fact that an inappropriate edit might be reverted 5 minutes later) as well as by the creation of sites like Deletionpedia which are designed expressly to pick up and feature content (including BLP content) that we might eventually delete.
    • So now we have to be responsible for not only Wikipedia, but the rest of the Internet? I feel you're laying an unfair burden on us. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't have to, but we should choose to be responsible for the unintended consequences of our actions where we can reasonably forsee them, yes. This is an ethical choice we have to make for ourselves though. Should we say "I didn't realise you'd get hurt, let me help you out"? Or should we say "Tough shit, not my problem"? WilyD 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WilyD: There's a difference between saying "Tough shit, not my problem" and refusing to take on a burden we cannot support. However we want to define "Anyone can edit", there is always going to be bad stuff that happens here. Wikipedia is Free Content, with the explicit goal that it be reproduced. We can't plug that hole without fundamentally changing the nature of the site. Allow me to use a straw-man argument to illustrate a point: There is only one absolutely reliable way to prevent stuff posted to Wikipedia from hurting others -- shut down the site. But we're not going to do that because we value the site more than we value the feelings of others. So we're already making that judgment. Given the Foundation Issues of Openness and Free Content, I don't think we can also take on the burden of protecting the world from itself. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of these considerations, I think it is reasonable to conclude that some action ought to be taken to reduce the problems identified above, and the relevant question is what action that is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(also copied from the talk page) - "There is little reliable statistical evidence on what percentage of edits to BLPs or other articles constitute vandalism or BLP violations. It is demonstrable and generally agreed, though, that this percentage is far higher for IP edits than for those of registered accounts." - For plain vandalism I'd have to agree, but for non-vandalism BLP violations, I'm not so sure. From my experience, registered accounts are just as, or more, likely to add the subtle false information and character assassination that angers people a lot more than the "John Doe is a douchebag"-type juvenile vandalism. AFAIK, there has never been any study done on these types of BLP violations. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "action", I believe you mean "change in Wikipedia practices". Needless to say, I think you've completely failed to justify the conclusion that practices need to change. You've identified problems, sure. I think most of the problem apply to any page, not just BLP pages, or they are BLP-specific, but are already covered by WP:BLP. Again I ask: How are existing mechanisms failing BLP pages in particular?
(In case it isn't clear, "existing mechanisms" include things like watchlists, RC patrol, new page patrol, regular editors, random vistors, third-party oversight, etc. The "in particular" part is also key. RCP patrol misses stuff, NPP is overwhelmed, etc. But that applies to the entire project, not just BLP.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with BLPs is not vandalism. It's lack of sources. When Category:Unreferenced BLPs is close to empty, then we can worry about vandalism.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-BLP votes/discussions are off-topic here

edit

This survey's topic as established and promoted was to focus on BLP articles and what protection or flagging measures should be improved. For example, the watchlist banner promotes this survey as "A survey on options for protecting biographies of living persons is open for comments." (my emphasis).

Unfortunately, some off-topic voting and discussion sections involving non-BLP articles were introduced, particularly the following:

Do we not have enough issues and discussion to sort out here with just the BLP article scope without opening entire cans of worms here? The non-BLP discussions are also unfair to those editors who were expecting this to be focused on BLP articles.

It may be appropriate to archive off the non-BLP sections as identified above, or at least freeze the non-BLP discussion in here. Treatment of non-BLPs could still be discussed elsewhere, such as at the Village Pump while we have enough to sort out with the BLP article issues. Dl2000 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue here is that how measures taken for BLP purposes interact with the rest of the project. I for one see a trend where much of the discussion on this page is about vandalism in general (a site-wide problem, not specific to BLP), and BLP is just being used as the excuse to discuss vandalism measures that are not in any way BLP-specific. Nor do I think it's reasonable to try and restrict it otherwise; vandalism is a site-problem problem, BLP pages are part of the site. Perhaps that means this discussion should really be framed in terms of counter-vandalism in general. But they're connected. Declaring them "off-topic" by fiat will just result in people trying to shoehorn their opinions into arbitrary headings, and/or ignoring/editwaring over the decree. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no way shape or form is it "unfair" to discuss the potential problems this poses for non-BLP articles. To force the discussion to take place anywhere else would require any relevant nuggets should be jammed back into here after the fact, which just simply never happens cleanly. A little extra clutter here is a price well worth paying to not force readers to jump all over multiple RfCs and quickly archived Village Pump threads to understand the present discussion. MrZaiustalk 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for side affects

edit

While these choices are of merit and I can see advantages in their implementation the affects on the wider community are of a concern. Where I can see this coming unstuck is with the emphasis that will be placed an being an admin this would be the final straw that pushes being an admin from no big deal to something of significance. The alternative is to make flagging a tool like roll back but that again doesnt ensure integrity of the flagged version. I also have concerns that flagged versions can be dominated by POV pushers and axe grinders voiding any attempt of addressing BLP concerns. The bigger BLP issues come from undue weight to various aspects of a persons life rather than from the blow in vandals.

What may help is to look at the way in which search engines index our articles and consider having a flag for articles so that only BLP articles that have been through a review process like GA or FA are able to be indexed until then the person needs to actually come to WP and search for the article. Gnangarra 09:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premise for the proposals

edit

Neither of the studies demonstrates that we have a problem with article vandalism which warrants to be tackled by this sledgehammer. In the vandalism study, vandal edits accounts for less than 5%. Looking at the second study, it is pretty evident that the vast majority of vandal edits is for articles on high-profile individuals (which I daresay can be extended to high-profile subjects), and most vandal edits are reversed within a matter of minutes (14 mins median). Selective semi-protection would be the way to go. While I voted 'support in theory', I am actually very much opposed to universal flagging, or even a testing thereof for the reasons cited - much bureaucracy for not an awful lot of benefit. I therefore question the premise of the proposal, which certainly has more to do with what Jimbo has said than actual evidence of vandalism of BLPs.

What we this experiment needs is to identify specific classes or categories of 'vulnerable' articles, and then implement the permanent semi-protection of a proportion of those, with the other proportion as a control. Only then, after a period of say 3 months, could we analyse and conclude as to its efficacy. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive And Negative Approach

edit

I'm sorry if what I'm proposing is redundant. There's so much material here that I have only read a small portion of it. I hope that my suggestions will be of use. As a teacher, I would suggest that we use a multi-prong "the Carrot And the Stick" approach to dealing with vandalism.

THE STICK

I. The use of Semi-Protection and/or Flagged Revision

I strongly support both. They are not going to solve all of the problems, but they will help with "drive-by" vandals.
  • Equality I believe that protection of any sort should not be extended to only one type of page, but to all types because, regardless of the importance of the article, someone will vandalize it.
  • Integrity In addition, I believe blanket protection of some type is essential to maintain the integrity of all of the pedia, as well as to reduce the overall load of work on those maintaining articles.
  • Trust Protection forces everyone to have an account, which improves the trustworthiness of the articles, authors and the pedia as a whole in the eyes of those who use the pedia as a resource.
  • Control If everyone has an article, then it is easier to exert control over the wrong-doers. Perhaps they just don't understand the processes, they are not good communicators, or there is something else affecting them - but they are not vandals. They can be guided. The vandals can be watched over.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the vandals won't change their names/accounts, or have multiple accounts with fake information. No measure is foolproof.
  • Commitment Accounts can improve the reliability of contributors and encourage those who become members to act less like this is a chat room and more like a commitment, hobby or even a job.
  • Quality commitment to the public FR helps to ensure that users have access to the last, best edition of any article, so they can be fairly sure that what they're looking at isn't the work of a thug, and can be trusted.
  • Finally, while I understand that some people are very busy, I don't believe that is enough justification for them not making an account. It's not like it takes a lot of time to make an account or log in. There are undoubtedly other reasons to support semi-protection/FR.
Here are some possible vandal archetypes:
  1. Vandals who do it on a "drive-by" or "one-time" basis, with no intent of routinely ravaging the pedia will randomly target articles of any type.
  2. Vandals who do so for the sake of anarchism will target any article, although they may tend to target some articles/types more than others.
  3. Vandals who do so for the purpose of slander/libel will target specific articles of any type.
  4. Vandals who do so because they disagree with the stated information and possibly cannot achieve consensus with the other users will target specific articles of any type.
  5. Vandals who are bored will target any type of article for the sake of amusement or "to stir up the hornet's nest" of users who maintain it. This is the extreme end of flaming, trolling and other types of instigation.
  6. Vandals motivated by politics, money, business or other specific, market-driven forces, will target only specific articles of any type
  7. Vandals of the previous type doing so covertly (espionage) will attack other articles/types in an attempt to appear random (so as to avoid suspicion of industrial espionage).

II. The use of IP-tracking and targeting

The tracking and targeting of IPs has been around for years and, IP-cloaking technology notwithstanding, can be employed to deal with static IPs, IP ranges, and areas where attacks often originate from. This can be done for all users so that better control (and easier reverts) can be had over those who frequently cause trouble. IPs/ranges/areas/countries can be blocked from edit access for a period of time, although the larger the area that is covered, the more affected innocents there are likely to be.
Of course, this could be implemented at a number of levels, including without any announcement.

III. Account Restrictions For recalcitrant users who cannot be reformed or guided, their account can be restricted. Here are some possible restriction types:

  1. Read-only access (same as a non-member) - the user can read to his/her heart's content, but s/he can't do anything else (except on his/her own user/talk pages).
  2. Editor-approval - the user can contribute, such as via the user page or sandbox, but anything created must be approved by an editor, and then the editor will add it to the page - not the user.
  3. Auto-Rollback - the user can do whatever s/he likes, but the system will automatically roll it back within X time.
  4. Suspended - the user's account will be suspended for X time, and the user will receive a warning in email. They can still read.
  5. Locked - the user's account will be locked (disabled)- long-term or indefinitely, a warning email will be sent, with a contract of compliance signed before the lock will be removed, with only read access.
  6. Disabled - the same as Locked, but the user will not have the ability to use Wiki at all.
  7. Terminated - the user's account will be removed completely, a ban placed on the static IP (if there is one), and further attempts at membership will be rejected.

Of course, only the honest ones will be affected, as the true criminals will just move to another account/IP.

AND

I. Verification Some sort of user information verification system might be created to reduce the number of fake accounts. How such a system might work, the logistics and stuff, are unimaginable for me. Maybe they'll have to submit saliva or other DNA samples (joke).

II. Consensus The requirement of announcing a change and waiting for consensus might be helpful, so that anything that is an unannounced change could be readily identified and rolled back. A surveying and voting system could be used to reach consensus, if needed, so the website would know announced from unannounced changes.

III. Trials & Analysis Testing of these things would need to be done, and all data on present and previous tests/trials would have to be collated and analyzed to assist in assessing the best course of action.

THE CARROT

I. As others have suggested, and is done, awards can be given to diligent members. A scoring system might also be implemented to help the selection process. Some possible rewards include:

  1. Trophies that are put on a public list and on the user's page
  2. A public list showing all trophy winners, with photo (with the user's consent) and brief bio
  3. A temporary "highlighted user" article on the main page
  4. A certificate or other reward that is sent to the user
  5. Inclusion of a BLP for "highly decorated" users
  6. Increased privileges/rank
  7. Employment possibilities

ReveurGAM (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Account Restrictions should be a must there needs to be semi-protection on all BLP although I think there are to significant of negatives of flagged on all BLPs most may not be that well know still famous but relatively not as known someone once said in a comment fame can be relative it was on this blog although I can't find it I voluntarily watch his article for vandalism I want to prove him wrong and have no "wikipedia nonsense" in his article(I have added some new info too) and the bands too Musicobsessed6 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions for edits marked by Bots as vandalism

edit

At First lets start with flagged revisions for edits marked by automatic bots as vandalism on the BLPs Dy yol (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need this? The bots are already taking care of this problem. Why not check up on the users when the bots mark their edits? Oh wait, aren't we already doing this? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey/General_discussion&oldid=1050185771"