Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-28/BLP, DRV, ARB, IRC
Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked
Ongoing disputes over the policies to be applied to biographies of living persons picked up steam this past week with some controversial attempts at intervention. The issue of deletion for particularly sensitive cases has turned the deletion process as well as deletion review into focal areas for the debate, and the controversy was further stoked when a longstanding contributor was briefly blocked over his involvement in the matter.
Deletion review, with its emphasis on procedure rather than the substance of articles, has a curious position within Wikipedia's deletion policy. It also does not necessarily follow the emphasis on consensus decisionmaking of other Wikipedia processes, although Jimbo Wales recently removed a reference to majority votes when reviewing deletions, with a comment that "Voting is evil, this is nonsense."
The deletion review page provides a forum, among other things, for objections when articles have been deleted (either summarily or using Articles for deletion) for perceived serious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. Recently, Badlydrawnjeff (whose user page currently calls him "the Vile Dark Lord of Inclusionism") has been one of the more active participants in objecting to such deletions. Mounting frustration seemed to have come to a head when, at 1:37 (UTC) on 23 May, Zsinj blocked him for 60 hours with the stated reason, "Disruption and threats; incivil actions in order to achieve personal goals disregarding community concensus; exhausting the community's patience."
Zsinj's explanation to Tony Sidaway began, "Per approximately two hours of IRC discussion, it had been determined that the disruption caused by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia." In light of previous controversy over IRC discussion leading to questionable blocks of longstanding contributors, this was a rather provocative claim. Zsinj was referring to a conversation on the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel used mainly by administrators; his access to that channel was subsequently revoked in light of these events.
The actual conversation was mixed, and whether it could support Zsinj's characterization is debatable. There was some discussion of the problems with biographical articles about people known exclusively in connection with a single, often unflattering incident. Cases mentioned included the accuser in the Duke lacrosse scandal and a Chinese teenager whose photo became an Internet phenomenon several years ago. In the latter case, part of the focus was the conduct of Badlydrawnjeff in seeking to have the article restored and spearheading a request for comment on the situation.
Zsinj joined in after the discussion had already run for several hours and promptly suggested a block for disruption. After he continued to push the idea, a few others discussed possible justifications with him (among other things, pointing out that since Badlydrawnjeff is not an administrator, Zsinj's reliance on "wheel warring" was misplaced). Eagle 101 repeatedly warned against the proposed block, but this seemed to have little effect on Zsinj, who said, "If it ends my Wikipedia career due to being dramabombed to hell and back, so be it." Several other people in the channel were not paying much attention or did not take Zsinj seriously. Once the block was imposed, however, the tone of the conversation shifted to focus on its undesirability, and the block was soon overturned when Zsinj showed no inclination to reverse himself. Zsinj later apologized and accepted personal responsibility for "a relatively hasty and uninformed" decision.
The controversy over the block gave added impetus to the possibility of an arbitration case dealing with the situation. Badlydrawnjeff had earlier requested arbitration with respect to the Chinese teenager's article, which was rejected. Within a day, Doc glasgow requested arbitration over Badlydrawnjeff's continuing conduct in the matter. With the additional developments, a number of arbitrators now favor addressing the case, although it is not yet clear whether it will be accepted.
Discuss this story
Hi, Michael! I have some questions about this article, questions I assume any good editor would have discussed with you before publication. If the answers to these questions are somewhere, on a talk or discussion page of some kind, post a link, because I'm fascinated by the journalistic process at work here:
some controversial attempts at intervention -- What makes them controversial? Who made the controversial attempts? It might perhaps be a stronger lede to discuss something specific, instead of a statement so general as to be next to useless. Can these "controversial attempts" be linked to a single editor? A group of editors? Who's attempting to intervene and why are important questions unanswered by this lede.
Jimbo Wales recently removed a reference to majority votes when reviewing deletions, with a comment that "Voting is evil, this is nonsense." -- What makes this less newsworthy than the first paragraph? In fact, "Wales Changes Deletion Review Policies" is perhaps the most noteworthy thing in this article.
Recently, Badlydrawnjeff (whose user page currently calls him "the Vile Dark Lord of Inclusionism") -- I assume you confirmed with Badlydrawnjeff that this is a self-description? (Of course, being a Wiki, anyone can edit his user page.)
In light of previous controversy over IRC discussion leading to questionable blocks of longstanding contributors, this was a rather provocative claim. Provacative according to whom? Sentences that lead to these types of questions need to be re-written, stat! "IRC discussions leading to questionable blocks of longstanding contributors have caused past conflicts between editors, including (example here.)" That's a fact. "Provacative" is an attitude, and a categorization that's not supported by facts.
The actual conversation was mixed, and whether it could support Zsinj's characterization is debatable. -- I'm not sure what a "mixed" conversation is. I am sure I don't want to "debate" characterizations! There's no need to do so; sticking to verifiable facts will help prevent these types of problems.
The controversy over the block gave added impetus to the possibility of an arbitration case dealing with the situation. -- According to whom? "If you can't attribute, don't include" is a pretty good rule of thumb for sentences like this.
With the additional developments, a number of arbitrators now favor addressing the case, although it is not yet clear whether it will be accepted. Also unclear from this sentence: How many arbitrators want to take the case, how many arbitrators it takes to accept a case, and what the "additional developments" are, and how they might impact whether or not arbitrators would be interested in taking the case. Don't assume your readers know everything about arbitration policy! The vast majority don't... Jenolen speak it! 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your comments seem to confuse Signpost writing with the principles that apply to encyclopedia articles, such as asking to whom statements should be attributed -- Now, I'm confused. I thought the Signpost articles adhered to the accepted standards of journalistic neutrality, which would, in fact, call for all statements and facts to be appropriately sourced. (In this article, some are, some aren't, as I tried to point out.) Also note: The vast majority of stories in newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are attributed to reporters, as well, but no one would ever think that unattributed statements, except for the most uncontrovertable and innocent of facts were attributable to the reporter. ("The sky is blue..." doesn't need an "according to..." but just about everything else does.)
In fact, my proposed article was derided (by some) as being too much like an opinion piece. ("an absurd piece of editorializing rhetoric" huffed one editor...) so for you to say that unattributed statements should be attributed to you seems like a very odd mix to me. Either it's journalism in the traditional sense -- or ALL Signpost pieces are, by their very nature, opinion pieces. Which is it?
many of your comments are simply objecting to the result of that work. Not at all. The article is simply filled with mistakes, primarily in the realm of attribution, that a freshman journalism major would be expected to correct before their sophomore year. I know very few Wikipedians are practicing journalists, or professional writers, and any attempt to mimic the form of something without truly understanding it would, no doubt, be a bit like a person off the street looking at a fine painting, and thinking they could paint. Sure, they could put a brush in paint, and slap it against a canvas. But is it art? Probably not. :)
I think if you actually investigated and tried to recreate this reporting you would find most of them aren't significantly controversial -- So, you're saying that some of the reporting is at least partially controversial? ;) Again, if you want the Signpost to have any sort of basis in actual journalistic practice, this simply isn't good enough. But the good news is, the better way -- of removing unsupported characterizations and unattributed statements -- will make your stories leaner, more tight, and just plain better!
I also try very hard not to let stories adopt any of the internal political agendas floating around Wikipedia, something that comes across in your comments and was probably a large part of the reason your own story wasn't used. The only reason that "my" story wasn't used should be that it wasn't newsworthy. But then again, on Wikipedia, there is no "my" version -- I fully expected an actual editing process to take place.
What was perhaps more interesting to me was that after all the complaining, and after all the critiquing, not one editor has suggested in the traditional Wikipedia way -- by EDITING -- a single change to the version I wrote. Odd, huh? I'm not in love with that story as a first draft; there's certainly room for improvement. But I am a little surprised that a community of enthusiastic editors, who were certainly quick to jump in with opinions about the story ("beyond repair," "an absurd piece of editorializing rhetoric," "heavily pov, in the way you interpret the facts and stitch them together" (the horror!), and "(failing) just about every measure of sourcing, objectivity, neutrality, etc.") couldn't think of a single thing to change, other than to complain that the article was useless.
Worse, I think the judgement that thousands of logos and album covers are being deleted by a former admin who lost his admin powers for prior poor judgement when it comes to image deletion isn't newsworthy to be puzzling, at best. (At the current rate, Wikipedia may, in fact, someday delete itself... but then, who would read the Signpost?) :)
I'm sorry that you see an article critque as a "fit of grandstanding." That certainly wasn't my intention; I'm simply trying to determine what standards are at work here. Jenolen speak it! 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So while heavily pov, in the way you interpret the facts and stitch them togetheris a bad thing in one instance, it's S.O.P. in others? I guess, my point is that so much of what people see as bias in reporting is actually their own biases, reflecting back at them. They see the world through a prism, and indeed, I think that's what's happening here.
My only motivation for critiquing this article was that it seemed to be the most "newsy" and newspaper-like of the articles in the Signpost this week; nothing more, nothing less. But if Signpost submissions are going to be held to strict objectivity standards, it seems only fair to me that those standards are applied equally.
In terms of critiquing a creative work, poor critiques sit on the sidelines and throw stones at windows. Better critques illustrate potential problems, and offer potential solutions. I'd like to think the critique here was at least of some value in that department, while allegations an article is "beyond repair" strike me as, perhaps, not having enough weight to be taken seriously.
As for attribution examples - the top four stories on LATimes.com right now: The American Civil Liberties Union announced this morning that it would sue a Boeing subsidiary in San Jose federal court today, alleging that the company helped the Central Intelligence Agency with "the forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment" of three men the government suspected of terrorist involvement.
Disappearing just as quietly as they arrived, a pair of wounded humpback whales that spent more than two weeks wandering up the Sacramento River appear to have slipped back into the sea, officials said today.
After spending 16 years in prison, Hudie Joyce Walker walked out of a Pomona courtroom Tuesday a free woman — a sign of how much the law has changed for battered women who strike back. - This is what you're talking about - the reporter, seeing something first-hand, and writing about it. "Sky is blue" territory, when it comes to attribution.
Continuing a week that has been as close to unforgettable as any in the Lakers' rich history, Kobe Bryant has said he wants to be traded from the Lakers. "I would like to be traded, yeah," Bryant told ESPN radio. "Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative."
Each of these stories has what I would consider the "proper" attribution. ...picked up steam this past week with some controversial attempts at intervention... is on the border, definitely, of straight reporter opinion, and is perhaps supported by the facts in the story. Then again, those invovled may or may not have thought the intervention attempts were controversial. We just don't know -- which is we we always try to leave words like "shocking," "controversial," "unbelievable" and others out of news copy -- give the readers the facts, and let THEM determine whether something is controversial. Or if Jimbo says, "This policy is very controversial"... then report that JIMBO says so. But I still think Signpost stories would be stronger with less "reporter opinion," and more truth. Jenolen speak it! 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborative editing of the Signpost
Jenolen makes an interesting point above about collaborative editing. I also agree that the topic of his rejected article should be covered in some way, though maybe his choice of attention-grabbing headline was unwise "Defrocked Admin goes on Deletion Tear..." Hmm. Anyway, getting back to the collaborative editing point, I would love to see a Signpost article written by the community for the community, in the true wiki-way. Has that ever been done? Carcharoth 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]