Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 07:43, 17 June 2014 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Jun) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WP:BLP

Does this claim:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The confiscated Armenian but also Greek property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.

Make a claim affecting living persons which can be deemed "contentious"? I have this peculiar notion that claims asserting that a family profited from genocide are particularly contentious, requiring exceeding strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of claim should be strongly sourced. I don't have the subject-matter expertise to evaluate the specific sources that have been offered. (And I'd also caution that as a general matter of historiography, we should be wary of ascribing any phenomenon or event to a single cause where the actual events were more complex.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was told I was "emptyminded" on this, and that it is perfectly proper as an edit <g>. Collect (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Worse news: The "sources" do not remotely support the claims made in the first place. Collect (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And that material is still there - argh! Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Next up -- Marco Rubio being labelled a "climate change denier" which was one of the general BLP issues in the Climate Change case IIRC. I suggested conservative wording, but those who appear to regard Rubio as a major player in the climate debate seem intent of,IMO, overstating what he says, and using newspaper headlines as thought they were part of the article proper :(. Cheers -- looks like the "American Politics" ArbCom case disaster is yet to unfold. Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that someone is going to use your comment that "I suggested conservative wording" out of context someday.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That has already been done too damn often. Meanwhile, MastCell (with no advance warning) posted at WP:ANEW - including his claim that (apparently) the use of "climate change denier" is not "contentious" and that it is essential that readers be told about such evil-thoughters. I fear he did not read the Climate Change decision (sigh). BTW, the Infobox officeholder RfC seems to have been totally ignored at this time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your summary of my viewpoint is disingenuous and mistaken, and the lack of any actual diffs to back your claims should raise red flags in that regard. As for advance warning... I tried that the last time you edit-warred and violated 3RR, just a month or two ago. I gave you a heads-up rather than reporting you. And you responded aggressively and gave me a bunch of BS about it—even though you were the one violating policy, and I went out of my way to be courteous and give you a chance to self-revert. I'm past the point in my wiki-career where I keep doing the same thing and expecting different results from people. This time, I gave you a courtesy notice when I posted the ANEW report, as per our best practices, and now it's up to someone else to decide how to handle your 4 reverts. MastCell  00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask NYB how he feels about the edit which made you so upset? is a nice simple example for him to judge the righteousness of your umbrage. If he deems it improper per WP:BLP,you shall not see me edit there again. If he deems it proper, I ask that you apologise for your indignation. BTW, ANEW notices are not done out of "courtesy" - they are an absolute requirement there. (You must notify any user you report. is in big red letters) Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering to be the Official Referee of Disputed Edits (though it might be a better wikijob than some I have now), but since you ask so nicely... I'd say that that is a proper edit, though I'm not as sure as you (Collect) that it's an essential one: I see the distinction you are drawing between "labeled" and "called" now that you've pointed it out, but had you not done so I would have thought the words more-or-less synonyms in this context. "Jones has called Smith an XYZ" and "Jones has labeled Smith an XYZ" both say nothing about the views-of-Smith of anyone other than Jones; and while the subjectless passive "has been called/labeled" is more open-ended and implies that there may be more than one Jones, it doesn't go so far as to say that the whole world, or the editorial voice of Misplaced Pages, agrees with the Joneses. But as I say, I think this level of nuance would evade 99+% of readers of the article. I'm not sure if this helps, but it will have to do for 3:00 a.m. Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain where my "umbrage" is coming from, as best I can. It's not the content of one specific edit that has me frustrated. It's the constant recourse to edit-warring. These are not BLP violations. They're not even close. These are simple content disputes and editorial preferences, and as such they should be discussed rather than ramrodded into the article at a clip of 4RR/day. I'm not asking Brad for a judgement here, but in my view Collect constantly frames his personal content preferences as matters of urgent BLP importance to justify what is, in reality, simple edit-warring. It's sort of a maddening experience to try to edit an article under these circumstances - and it has nothing to do with the distinction between "called" and "labelled". It has everything to do with the tactics that editors employ to short-circuit the normal process of content development. The normal frustration of dealing with edit-warring is compounded by constant self-righteous and ill-founded BLP claims. MastCell  23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean like my edit on Maureen Dowd? Sorry if I am dismissive of your continued derogation of my beliefs in BLP strictures. I have no "content preferences" as you genteelly phrase it. Collect (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The AGF policy/guideline (whatever it is) often works to obscure the elephant in the room. I can't comment on climate change content but, I have observed both Collect's and MastCell's editing for a number of years. Collect and MastCell, each of you does, from what I have observed, have a particular ideological bent to your editing and it is actually fairly obvious and doesn't take long to detect at all. Collect, however, from what I have observed, is faithful to the principles of WP:BLP. When an editor revert wars on a BLP because they believe a real-life person is being unfairly treated by WP, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Remember, a real-life person's life might be affected and therefore, 3RR does not apply. We need to put aside ideological differences and not be so quick to report someone to the 3RR board. Non-BLP content is a different matter, but BLPs should be handled with kid gloves. It's disappointing that WP's administration still so often doesn't understand this. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I edit from no "ideological base" at all if you actually read all my edits. Small subsets of a large oeuvre are a tad misleading at best, and are grossly abused at worst. I tend to think that BLPs should be neither hagiographic nor demonological about anyone, and that where NPOV is involved, it is better to show a saints as slightly less saintly than editors know them to be, and to show demons as slightly less evil than editors know them to be. And the use of pejoratives I regard as a sign that people wish to make sure people know saints from sinners - which would be lovely in Truthopedia, or Correctopedia, but is not a great idea for this modest project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm jaded, Collect, but it appears to me that all the editors who were here to build a truly neutral 'pedia have long gone and those that remain are using this website to try to pursue an agenda of imposing their own, Machiavellian philosophy on the Internet, some more obvious than others. They hide behind anonymity and WP:AGF and perhaps I'm no better than they are because I do the same. Cla68 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am the damn exception to what you assumed. Collect (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cla68, who were these neutral editors then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would expect that most of the 1,000 editors listed here would be good examples. I thought your question was a good one, so I started a thread on Wikipediocracy in response. All here are welcome to participate in that thread. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the meta-question was why these random BLP questions are being raised here on NYB's talk page, instead of on the BLP noticeboard that is intended for questions of that sort. It's probably better in general for arbcom members to not get too tangled up in such content development questions where there is potential controversy, unless they themselves are already involved in writing the content. That way if a dispute does arise that arbcom has to deal with, they can come to it with fresh eyes. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As the questions are posed at BLP/N, the reasoning here was prior discussions regarding exactly what ArbCom decisions and findings in the past actually meant and stated. NYB has stated he does not intend to stand for re-election, thus this is likely a good place to get the vantage point of one who was active in the prior decisions - for example whether linking people falling under BLP should be linked to the Holocaust either directly or indirectly, and whether the labelling of people directly or indirectly as "climate change deniers" falls under prior ArbCom dicta. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision, and a slew of AE cases about "Armenian genocide" in the past. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Final_decision and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Final_decision among others. These were not "random" items brought here at all, nor did NYB aver that they were "random." I suggest you read those decisions and discussions before leaping in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Follett v. Town of McCormick

I'm working on a CCI, one of the items is an article about a law case - Follett v. Town of McCormick

The sections called Facts of the Case and Prior History is mostly a copy paste, with very light editing, of the text in the Findlaw summary.

I am assuming that the text of actual Supreme Court decisions is public domain, even if copied into a copyrighted document. However, I wasn't sure to what extend the wording in Findlaw was a straight copy from the opinion, versus a Findlaw editor's summarization.

If I go to the Wikisource page and chose the "Opinion of the Court" it appears, if the Wikisource was done correctly, that the copied text is virtually all from the decision. Which would make it OK (except that the reference needs to be added.

I'm also mulling our rule that we do not Wikilink inside quotes. This isn't strictly a quote, but darn close.

Do we consider it acceptable to write an article about a case where virtually all the content is copied from the case? I am sure it is not a best practice, but is it allowed?

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@TPS, I see that brad will not be around until Monday. On the one hand, this is not a rush. On the other hand, I'm addressing it to Brad, because he is the first lawyer who came to mind. Anyone else is welcome to chime in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As best I can tell from what you've linked (and to the extent I can read it on a Blackberry), the Findlaw page basically is the opinion of the Court, followed by the separate opinions—I don't see a separate editorial summary section. (Obviously it's a relatively short opinion, which is not unusual for Justice Douglas during this period.) So we should be okay from a copyright point of view, although I may take a shot at copyediting the article for style and sourcing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My narrow focus is whether I need to do anythign to address copyright concerns, and it sounds like that's not the case. If you want to improve it editorially, that would be great. In fact, when I read it, I saw the line That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. and was surprised at the conclusion, but reading closer, I see that SCOTUS overturned it, but I do not see why. There seems to be a gap between the South Carolina opinion, and the result, mentioned in the lead, but not explained in any way. To add a pedantic, but hopefully important point, the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and I do not see anything in the body except for the name of the Justice delivering the opinion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly has the sense of being half-finished. I would ask Pseudo-Richard if he plans to return to it (in his own words), but I see he hasn't been active in several months. If no one fleshes out the substance in the next few days, I will do so, although I must admit it's a case I hadn't heard of before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

a thought

re COI, it's not really a COI, however since you were apparently involved in the decision to ban Kohs, perhaps your !vote on the page should be tempered accordingly? Alf has previously suggested that anyone who received a scholarship to the conference had a conflict of interest w.r.t the conference (a contention several including me rejected) - however I did posit that the committee that decided to ban him may not be in the best position to decide if such material should be considered "controversial" - since you may not want to believe that your own actions were controversial - so it's not really a COI in the formal sense, but there is a sense of being somehow a subject. Your insider knowledge notwithstanding, perhaps a comment rather than a !vote? Does my argument hold any water?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. Are people who want to use Misplaced Pages to promote an ultra liberty viewpoint recusing? How about anyone who contributes to WO (who might be suspected of wanting to promote attempts to subvert the encyclopedia). Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about NYBrad's political philosophies more generally or what web forums he haunts in his spare time, I'm saying that if he went into a room, decided to do X, walked out of the room, and then is asked "was X controversial enough to be added to this article", could NYB be truly neutral about same, since it involves a decision he actually participated in making? It's not editing an article about himself, but it is, indirectly, editing content about a decision he was one the few people involved with, if I understand correctly. It's a minor point, and I'm only suggesting that he consider recusing himself from actually voting in the discussion in the same way an involved admin would not use his tools? In this case he'd be recusing his right to !vote. As to your other point, WO forum members would not be conflicted by my logic, but Kohs of course would be. I suppose that's a moot point since Kohs is already editing there and has already !voted, under the pseudon***CARRIER LOST***

Looking at it again, NYB clearly stated his COI, so I suppose whether he puts his comment under "oppose" or elsewhere isn't that big of a deal. Nothing to see here, go about your business.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If you aren't jesting and if Mr. Kohs is actually participating in that discussion about himself via a sockpuppet without disclosing it, a claim I am extremely reluctant to accept without powerful evidence, then it would be doubly problematic, secondarily because he is indefblocked or banned and not allowed to edit at all, and primarily because his conflict of interest in that discussion would exceed mine sevenfold. (And if you are jesting, it might be best to say so, as I'm sincerely not sure.) And with that I am going to again step back from commenting on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry I thought my being cut-off midstream by nefarious ninjas clipping my modem cables would have illustrated I was kidding...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies for my humor detector's not being well-honed at this insomniac hour. I empathize with the pain of having a punchline squashed like this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

From the AUSC list Guerillero | My Talk 14:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC

The Sixth Circuit has issued its decision today in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC. This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents are deplorable. The court's decision can be found here. A blog post summarizing the decision can be found here.

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt" about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.

The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Misplaced Pages to operate without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone, such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose value we appreciate. That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about how Misplaced Pages treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective, non-delegable editorial responsibility. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a tad unsure about your sanguine view. The court appears to view "adding comments" as not related to "developing" the improper posts, and basically stated the first course should have been to unveil the anonymous contributor(s) and to seek redress from such contributor(s). Using the reasoning of the court (and assuming it is not, in turn, overturned as it did the initial court ruling) editors on Misplaced Pages can not assume their anonymity is protected in any way, and that their comments anent any edits might, in the hands of some future court ruling, come back to haunt them. If a court held that facilitating such comments amounts to "developing" an improper post, then this precedent is quite fuzzy indeed. Collect (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct that nothing in Section 230 or in this decision protects individual contributors from liability for defamation. But that assumes that the offended party has the resources to track them down, and also that the contributors have assets with which to satisfy any judgment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The offended party only needs to track WMF down -- it is the WMF which would have to unveil the anonymous contributor. I suggest that the WMF is pretty easy to find <g>. And refusal by the WMF to break that veil, per the implications of the decision at hand, would appear to be salient to the court. Collect (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the body of case law governing when a website or ISP must disclose the identity of a user. (It is "case law" because many sites will require a court order before disclosing subscriber or contributor information in all but perhaps the most flagrant cases of abuse, in order to give the user the opportunity to file a "John Doe" appearance in court and challenge the subpoena.) It can be complicated (although, that being said, anyone thinking of posting defamatory or even controversial content should assume that he or she can be tracked down if someone is determined enough). And even when the identity is disclosed, it might turn out to be an open proxy, or a dynamic ISP that can be narrowed down only to a couple of thousand people, or someone in a country on the other side of the earth. In short, that the contributor of content that is sufficiently defamatory to give rise to liability may ultimately be held liable provides little actual protection to BLP subjects, and the greatest protection is our collective vigilance in upholding the standards and aspirations reflected in our BLP policy—a statement I expect you will find yourself in agreement with, though you and I may share despair that the goal is achievable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My posts here are absolutely not in disagreement with you on the BLP issue, but only on your lesser concern than I have about future court decisions. The technology to track down IPs is a tad greater than some who fear "'open proxies' are untraceable" realize, and the odds of a person being "truly anonymous" on the Internet now are nearly zero. Our mutual opinion is that Misplaced Pages must err on the side of the living person if any doubt as to the propriety of using the material exists. Collect (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

95% agreement; "any doubt" meaning "any possible or conceivable or theoretical doubt" is a bit rigid for my taste, but you certainly have the concept down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the formulation is actually "any doubt which a reasonable person might have." Specifically including, IMO, allegations made by unnamed or anonymous sources. Collect (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)