Censored Wikipedia Articles Appear On Protest Site 589
Gregory Rider writes "According to a recent article in The Guardian, a group of disenchanted Wikipedia administrators has been going through back channels on Wikipedia and retrieving articles deleted by Jimbo Wales or other higher-ups. Now they're putting them back up on a website for everyone to see. This includes articles on Justin Berry, Paul Barresi, and, most strangely, Brian Peppers, which has been solicited for deletion off of Wikipedia 6 times with mixed success and is now banned from being edited on for a whole year."
Re:Censored or edited? (Score:2, Interesting)
Forking (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, why do these articles matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did the submitter even RTFA? (Score:3, Interesting)
So why is this on Slashdot now, instead of several months ago, when the Justin Berry flame war was going on in full force, when Jimbo and his drones were actively deleting all article content and were banning anyone who questioned their motives? Why did Slashdot ignore the situation at the time, when Slashdot readers could actually have made some noise about Jimbo's concessions to a whiny camwhore who didn't like reading the truth about himself? I know for a fact it was submitted several times.
Typical Slashdot style of late, I'm afraid... Totally drop the ball when a story is relevant, only to pick it up a few months later and post it... and then probably dupe it.
Re:Wiki isn't Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia has been subject to a lot of criticism in the press lately (mostly because the publishers of the competeing commercial encyclopedias have a lot of influence in the press) but here is something they did right. As the parent said, Wikipedia is supposed to only hold specific type of information, it is not supposed to be free all shouting match where everyone can air their own gripes.
Re:Censored or edited? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, great to see you here, and thanks for giving us the straight dope.
Maybe you could clear up something else. You were appointed to Wikipedia's "Arbitration Committee" a quasi-judicial body, and afterward won your seat as top vote-getter.
Three other editors who ran for seats on that committee lost with significant community disapproval, including one who -- arbitrarily and without prior discussion -- deleted (censored?) portions of many editors' personal pages.
But despite those three failing to receive the community's trust, you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee then created novel and previously unheard of official positions for them as "clerks" -- a role approximately that of prosecutor. The creation of these new positions was done apparently without any discussion or community consensus.
Why did you and your fellow arbitrators create positions without anyone's input, and staff them with three persons whom the community, just a few weeks before, had unequivocally rejected as not having the trust of the community, one of whom had engaged in massive vandalization of users' personal pages?
Why were these novel positions created without any transparency or community consensus?
As the top vote-getter in the race for the Arbitration Committee seat, did you have any qualms that doing so might be seen as an abuse of the trust placed in you by the voters?
Do you think the lack of transparency harms wikipedia?
Do you now regret doing this without community consensus?
Re:Journalism 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
Bollocks. You make it sound as though it's impossible to have an article about someone that's factual and informative just because they have some kind of disability. Oh, and an article about Brian Peppers is definitely not worthless. Whether he wanted it or not, he has achieved widespread Internet notoriety and his name is known by hundreds of thousands of people the world over. Whether he is largely mocked or not is irrelevant, there is still opportunity to present the known facts about him. If Snopes can do it, why not Wikipedia?
Re:Journalism 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Snopes of course can have a Brian Peppers article, because Snopes does not aim to show encyclopedic information, but to talk about rumors and urban myths.
Re:Censored or edited? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, what I suggest is that the verb censor be used (m-w.com):
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Therefore, any anytime you self supress anything you think is objectionable, often out of fear, then you are self-censoring.
Anytime a company "suppresses or delete[s] anything considered objectionable" they are censoring.
I'm not sure how you're using this verb, but censorship encompasses things beyond just what governments do.
Re:Censored or edited? (Score:5, Interesting)
This Slashdot story is about a lack of transparency at Wikipedia -- had the articles been deleted normally, through community consensus, the "rogue admins" wouldn't have set up a site to complain about the deletions.
But the deletions were not done by process, but instead by the fiat of a heretofore unheard of "Front Office", an end-run around the community consensus that wikipedia presents as its public face.
The Arbitration Committee has, at the least, created the appearance of a similar end-run, by creating a special and heretofore unheard-of office for editors whom the voters -- by an over 2 to 1 margin -- rejected as trustworthy.
Besides, if you post your answer on wikipedia, most slashdot readers won't see it. And I see that page where you promise to post your explanation is "archived" more frequently than most, and there are already accusations that's done to hide things.
As I'm sure your explanation is convincing, and as you say yourself you don't want to hide anything, why not just explain here, where Slashdot reads?
It's lack of transparency that is causing this mistrust of Wikipedia, so why add to it by posting your response elsewhere?
History is more then what is in the history books (Score:4, Interesting)
The tv-series Gilligan Island was, to my knowledge, never aired in Holland. Yet it is constantly referenced in more recent, american, media. Off course when I was young the internet did not yet exist so I couldn't just google it.
I think I learned what the series was about by having seen parodies off it in other series along with the occasional clip in tv history programs.
Nowadays I could simple google it or look it up in wikipedia and I will know what the hell that obscure (to a dutchman) reference is about.
Remember the movie Rainman? It had a reference to an Abbet and Costello sketch with the rainman not getting the joke.
Well neither did I. Never having heard of the sketch before I had no idea what the fuck he was on about and just presumed he was rambling some script that made no sense. (he wasn't all that audible and the subber was apperently as confused as I was)
It is only years later when I learned about the sketch and heard it in full that I got "it". He was trying to really work out who was on first when it was clear too any normal person "who" was a joke name.
Does it matter that I didn't know this? No. Is it nice to be able to look things like this up nowadays. Yes.
This is the information age kiddo. That doesn't just mean info vital to our survival.
It can be just info that makes it easier to know what the fuck someone else is talking about. When you talk to people throughout the world it is very handy to have a place where you can simply look up trivial information as it saves a lot of time.
This is exactly what encyclopedia are for. Not for detailed info for researching complex chemical process but for getting quick lowdown on simple info that you just don't know.
Saying that an encyclopedia does not to need to include certain trivial articles is like saying a dictionary does not need to include trivial words.
Re:You're mistaken... (Score:2, Interesting)
Merriam Websters:
censorship [m-w.com] Noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
censor [m-w.com] Transitive Verb to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
American Heritage:
censorship [bartleby.com] Noun: 1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor [bartleby.com] Transitive Verb: To examine and expurgate.
Oxford English Dictionary: [subscription required]
censorship [oed.com] n. 2. a. The office or function of a censor; official supervision.
censor [oed.com] n. 2. a. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.
censor [oed.com] v. trans. To act as censor to
Re:Journalism 101: On the Web (Score:1, Interesting)
The summary made me irritated enough to comment. I of course clicked through the links and found out who the people were (though the article itself is slashdotted and I never did get to read it). It's not that I'm incapable of finding this information myself. Though on another day I might have passed it over completely if I didn't have the time.
My point was that the whole purpose of a summary is to make me want to read the article. If the submitter wants me to read the article, he or she would presumably want to make the summary sound interesting, and contain enough information for me to make a decision to read further. The W5 - who what when where why - fit in well here. Hence, journalism 101. Maybe it is an interesting issue but one that I don't think is relevant to me. I would appreciate knowing this before I decide to read further so there is less chance of me wasting time.
After reading the summary and not recognizing any of the names, my best inference was that Justin Perry and Bryan Peppers were Wikipedia authors (like Jimbo Wales perhaps) who had removed articles about themselves and that this whole thing was some sort of internal spat. This is clearly way off base, but that's what happens when you don't provide enough information. The most interesting part about this debate, namely the source of the dispute over censorship, is missing. If the summary had said that the censored articles were all about internet memes, and that there is a continuing debate at wikipedia about whether such memes should have articles, then I would have been sufficiently intrigued to read the article. And that is the point of the summary.
Re:Journalism 101: On the Web (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I still see this particular example as a reasonably good example of the way things should be done on the web. The main story was well described, it was about editorial conduct at Wikipedia, not about Brian Peppers, who was only raised as an example and a link to whatever relavant biographical material was already available on him was the appropriate way to handle providing that information.
It was perfectly clear from context that his name was raised because he was a person at the center of some controversy for some reason and that's all you really needed to know to unstand the article; about removing pages from Wikipedia.
I'd go so far as to say this is a reasonably good example of what hyperlinks are for.
KFG
More important censorship of Wikipedia (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and the ArbCom is going to do what they are going to do, but I think it should be generally known how people are unhappy with Wikipedia. A recent poll on Wikipedia Review showed the majority of users there were left-leaning. Wikipedia is run by an Ayn Rand devoted millionaire, who says he runs Wikipedia on a Ludwig von Mises model, so this is not much of a surprise. I hope that Wikipedia Review will build an alternative to Wikipedia, especially in the abysmal categories like History and Culture.
Re:Journalism 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
But there's an article on sexual intercourse, isn't there?
Extremely dubious?
Every man and his dog on YTMND knows about Peppers because he was a massive fad. Peppers was also on Snopes, so many people there would have come across him. Check the traffic rankings on Alexa if you want, these sites are not small beer by any means. Add in the people circulating the picture/description through e-mail and all of the other sites that feature him and you'll discover that six figures is actually quite a reasonable estimate.
The major benefit of Wikipedia over paper encyclopaedias is that you can include the more obscure and niche information with a more limited appeal than traditional articles. True, you can't turn it into a 'I had a mango for lunch today' blog, but Brian Peppers is way beyond that level of irrelevance, no matter how you spin it. Is keeping Peppers really that much of a big deal? Is anyone being forced to view the article?
What's a few paragraphs and a few links? A couple of kilobytes? I think that's more than worth it considering the volume of people aware of Mr Peppers.
Re:Journalism 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the 'guilty until proven innocent' nature of sex offense charges these days, I would give Brian Peppers the benefit of the doubt, here.
Re:Wikitruth has some good moments (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia is not Britanica. It needs to stop pretending that it's a traditional encyclopedia. The whole concept of deleting articles because they aren't "notable" enough is bunk. If a Wyoming town [wikipedia.org] with 17 pepole is "notable" enoguh to warrant an article, certainly an article on an internet fad is. Far too often, the Wikipedia admins hide behind the convenient excuse of "notability" when they are eliminating an article that is too offensive or controversial.
Wikipedia's status as an "encyclopedia" ceased long ago. Wikipedia is more like a mini version of the Internet itself, a version where pages can be edited by anyone and vandalism and immaturity is removed by helpful moderators. That's the role of the admins - keep vandalism off, keep the articles on-topic, and make sure that articles keep a more-or-less neutral point of view. If an article doesn't meet the standards of quality, it should be revised, not deleted. Nor should it be the role of the moderators to decide whose opinion carries more weight. The header on the request for deletion page says it all - your opinion, however valid, may not carry much weight at all, unless the moderator decides that it should. For a project that has built itself on transparency and objectivity, this is a massive failure. What if the state legislature decided whose votes were most important when voting on a referrendum? The current deletion method is like a city council who asks for votes on an important decision, then goes ahead and does whatever they want.
Re:Censored or edited? (Score:2, Interesting)
(Full disclosure, I am an admin on Wikipdedia).
First off, consensus is actually a higher standard than majority (don't believe me? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus [wikipedia.org]). In fact consensus usually implies a super-majority (although a measure of subjectivity is available to account for pile-on-voting, uninformed voters, quality of arguments and common-sense). Nothing is ever deleted when there is not *at least* 50% support for deletion (and in marginal cases, up to 60%, things are usually kept as "no consensus"). Oh yeah, if you don't like how something was deleted we have the VfU (votes for undeletion page) to help stop rogue admins. Yes, there will be some improper deletions, but a good system is in place to help stop them. (And what was with that eminent domain metaphor?)
There is no page called, "Miscellany For Delete" the page he is talking about is "Miscellany for deletion" (shows what kind of research he did). Describing MfD as "and what this means is you can actually reach consensus on what other people on Wikipedia are allowed to do." is (and I am being nice) horse shit. Why not read the page's description of itself, "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace." What does that mean? It means that it is the same thing as RfD (requests for deletion, the main deletion page) except for pages that are in the Wikipedia namespace (project pages). What's being discussed now? Some portals (alternate main pages) that are overly specific (RuneScape portal?), some poorly maintained and old pages and some people's mistakes. There are something like 15 items to be deleted currently. The page is entirely innocuous.
Finally, the person wrote "It is also possible to vote for the adding and deletion of administrators". This comment is ridiculous. Would you prefer that Jimbo appoint the admins? Would that make things more fair? Also, we don't vote to remove (delete?) admins. I think de-admining has happened once (maybe twice or thrice, I'm not sure) and it was by the elected Arbitration Committee (to be fair a few of the members were appointed in a confirmation style system, think the US Supreme Court nominees).
So, yeah...the only thing wrong here is that your comment was modded down. Sorry about that, but you don't have to turn it into a conspiracy.
Re:Journalism 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia is a dictatorship (Score:3, Interesting)
The benevolent part is speculation, but the dictator part is 100% spot on.
While Wikipedia has many admirable attributes, a dictatorship is a dictatorship no matter what color you paint it.
Re:Censored or edited? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the proof's in the pudding: an Arbitrator appointed by Jimbo (whose choices, you'll admit, are almost always given great deference on Wikipedia) was voted out of office by a 2-1 majority.
Sounds like quite a few people were pissed.
I don't think anyone really went out and touched any userpages directly.
This I admit, is unclear to me; you may be right.
I do know that the vandalizing arbitrator, in her own defense, claimed that she went through users' pages alphabetically, which suggests that she was editing the user pages directly, not the template.
But if you can shed some more light on this, enlighten me. (And tell me how you derived the editor's numbers -- I take your word, but that would be a handy trick to know.)
Oh, and let us all know who you are on Wikipedia, and create an account on Slashdot if you don't have one already, so we can continue this conversation!
Thanks for the numbers!
Re:Bollocks (Score:3, Interesting)
Plea bargain mean nothing to you. The man is a parapalegic, for crying out loud, though I'm sure the jury would have been quite positively swayed by his appearance. I mean, just look at how innocent that face is...
Currently, there are over half a million registered sex offenders in the United States. This is an increasingly suspicious statistic - half a million out of some 100 million adult men that can legally be charged for it (yes, there are female sex offenders, but they are the minority), where, at least in California (not the state he was convicted in, I know), 97% of trials end up in a conviction - rather higher than other types of crime.
Objectionists (Score:3, Interesting)
This will be marked troll or flamebait if an Ayn Randian with moderation points reads this.
Their server, their rules... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now fark -- Drew used to have a really great system, but not since his band of nancy-boy sissies took power--those fascist blog barons will ban you (and remove your posts) for any little infraction. He also started bowing to commercial interests and removed any content his "ad affiliates" found offensive.
My solution is... I no longer submit stories, participate in discussions or have anything to do with fark. I also do not participate in TF (their pay-per-use system, which is really a pay-for-porn service).
This leads me to my point... oh yeah, my point: their server, their rules, you don't have to go there.