Hi folks, This is just a quick interim update on the BLP issue I raised here last week.
First, thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion thus far. We all know that foundation-l isn't necessarily reflective of general Wikimedia opinion, and that many experiences and skills are unrepresented here – but nonetheless, I have read every word, and have found it really, really useful. Thank you for helping. Here's my quick rough summary of what we've discussed: First, there seems to be a general view that BLPs are a problem that is worth addressing. I won't recap all the reasons for that, because it seems there is ---happpily--- already consensus. Second, there is also a fear ---represented here probably most strongly by David Gerard, but I believe lots of other people think the same thing--- that if we tackle BLPs clumsily, we could make things worse not better, or at least might introduce new problems. For example, we might make the error of privileging kindness over neutrality, resulting in a general whitewashing of BLPs. Or we could accidentally encourage a massive wave of deletionism, resulting in much smaller and less useful Wikipedias. There is also general concern about policy creep and instruction creep, which is important. We know that the sheer volume of Wikipedia policies is confusing and intimidating for new people who want to engage with us – so in general, given that we aspire to attract new contributors and generally make it easier for people to interact with us, it is probably better to generally aim to refine and streamline existing policies, rather than adding to their number. With that as preamble, here are the areas that I think we've surfaced as needing further attention: 1) There is a big unresolved question around whether, if marginally-notable people ask to have their articles deleted, that request should be granted. My sense -both from the discussion here and other discussions elsewhere- is that many Wikipedians are very strongly protective of their general right to retain even very marginal BLPs. Presumably this is because notability is hard to define, and they are worried about stupid across-the-board interpretations that will result in massive deletionism. However, other people strongly feel that the current quantity of BLPs about less-notable people diminish the overall quality of the encyclopedia, reduce our credibility, and run the risk of hurting real people. There seems to be little consensus here. Roughly: some people seem to strongly feel the bar for notability should be set higher, and deletion requests generally granted: others seem to strongly feel the current state is preferable. I would welcome discussion about how to achieve better consensus on this issue. 2) There is broad general agreement that we should continue to create and implement mechanisms and tools designed to catch and correct vandalism and poor-quality edits, both before and after-the-fact. There is a lot of work being done in this area - for example, projects continue to request and receive implementations of Flagged Revs. I wonder if there is more we could/should be doing in this area. 3) Currently, we know that people with BLP problems have trouble getting in touch with us: the contact information is buried or confusing. I believe there is broad general agreement that we should make it easier for people to request help with BLPs, and to report problems in general. And I am glad that some work on that is beginning to happen (e.g., a “report a problem” tool, a “rate this article” tool, a BLP FAQ for article subjects). It's obvious we need to be cautious – we can't afford to open the floodgates to complaints if we will all then immediately drown in them. And we need to ensure the new tools are user-friendly - that they will actually help the people they're intended for. But in general, I believe there is agreement that we need to do a better job of enabling BLP article subjects to communicate with us. And 4) I believe there is general support for the notion of training Wikipedians to handle BLP issues well. I personally strongly believe that handling BLPs requires a set of specific skills and abilities – for example, an excellent understanding of core Wikipedia policies; experience with policies such as notability that are particularly important in BLP issues; diplomacy, kindness and patience. I am very interested in exploring further how the Foundation could support such training, and how it could be scaled up so everyone could access it. (I've been kicking around notions such as face-to-face training camps; training at Wikimania and the all-chapters meetings; the provision of support materials to chapters; monthly “train the trainer” webcast sessions, etc.) So .. that is my rough, quick recap of where I think we're at. In terms of next steps – as I said, I'll be speaking about this issue with the board in early April. This is just an interim note: Please feel free to help me further my thinking on all this -particularly #1 and #4 above- over the next few weeks. And thank you for your help thus far. Thanks, Sue _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
