Talk:Katelyn Faber/Archive 1

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CURRENT VOTE IS TAKING PLACE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE, NOT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE

An article needs to be written about Kobe Bryant's accuser including her full name and this article needs to be redirected to that one or deleted. Why is it so wrong to cover her name? Doesn't wikipedia strive for accuracy? --Flockmeal 01:08, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * This right now is a big debate around here. On Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion we came to this as a compromise.  I'll admit that not everyone was aware of that debate.  However I think that we can have a debate here, it'll be a nice central place for everyone to make their views known.  I'm about to link to here from vfd and the pump, so that everyone can participate.  moink 01:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note this thread on the mailing list:. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Original page history:
23:10, 26 Mar 2004. . 128.125.30.44  06:24, 26 Mar 2004. . 172.198.168.127  18:55, 25 Mar 2004. . 172.197.239.24  04:08, 25 Mar 2004. . Seth Ilys (restoring content) 23:54, 24 Mar 2004. . 128.125.30.46  19:57, 24 Mar 2004. . 128.125.30.37  07:06, 24 Mar 2004. . Fuzheado (listed on Votes for Deletion, see that page for discussion) 14:23, 21 Jan 2004. . Seth Ilys 14:19, 21 Jan 2004. . Seth Ilys 16:44, 22 Aug 2003. . 216.37.46.162 (this name is not easy to find)

Include her name?
The following is a list of people who have thoughts and feelings on the topic of including or not including the name of this woman in this article and elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Publish her name

 * 1) Flockmeal 02:01, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) silsor 22:59, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Steven jones 04:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) - It's not worth the stress to try to keep it out, and in the end it will get in anyway.
 * 4) Seth Ilys 22:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ryan_Cable 05:39, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
 * 6) Jamesday 06:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) It's already public information
 * 7) Lirath Q. Pynnor Already public domain, pretending otherwise won't change that
 * 8) Cribnotes 06:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) 12.221.208.33 09:22, 25 July 2004 - Yes display [her] name. Her name is public knowledge. Many magazine's have displayed it. This is an encyclopedia. It is a place for knowledge.
 * Since when have IP addresses been allowed to vote in polls? Mike H 01:48, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Jxg 01:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Citizensunshine Unless disclosure of data is illegal, it ought not be blocked from Wikipedia.
 * 3) Applegoddess 02:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) -- If someone really needs to know, all they need to do is look at the history for the page.  Might as well put it there.  It's already in the news anyway.
 * 4) Guanaco 21:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) "Katelyn Faber re-filed her sexual assault lawsuit against Kobe Bryant in federal court Thursday, using her real name." anthony (see warning) 17:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Since she filed the civil suit using her real name, yes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:49, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Do not publish her name

 * 1) moink 01:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Maximus Rex 01:26, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Rainier Schmidt 01:28, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Finlay McWalter |  Talk 01:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Texture 02:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Michael Snow 02:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Not at this time.
 * 7) Moriori 02:37, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC) Waiting to see what happens can't hurt anyone. When in doubt.........
 * 8) Ambivalenthysteria 08:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) At least for the time being. If say, she wrote a book, then that would be another matter entirely.
 * 9) Arvindn 17:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Jacob1207 22:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) If and when her name is put into general circulation, then it can be included here. But for now it should be witheld.
 * 11) RickK | Talk 01:48, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Unless Kobe wins his case and then she sues.
 * 12) Nunh-huh 01:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) I'll be pleasantly surprised if we don't.
 * 13) --FvdP 18:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) +sj+ 07:07, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC) until it becomes accepted in mainstream sources.
 * 15) User:JustanyoneUser Talk:Justanyone 2004 April 14: We should set a high moral tone here, methinks.  Don't publish until a major newspaper (Chicago, NY, Washington, LA, Seattle, etc.) and/or (CNN, Reuters, AP, etc.) does, and can be cited with weblinks.  This convention exists for a reason.  We can depend on major news outlets to discern when it's a lost cause.
 * 16) Fredrik 22:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Neutrality 00:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) What Justanyone said.
 * 18) Surfinshell23 17:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) There isn't a need to publish the name. If it were to be in public, the major media orginizations would have published it freely, as Justanyone said.
 * 19) Mike H 22:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Seconded previous comments...or thirded...or fourthed. :-/
 * 20) jguk 00:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Sometimes it's right and proper to exercise self censorship out of common decency. That is our democratic right. This is one of those times.jguk 00:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Not unless the name is generally public. I find moink's argument quite persuasive. -- The Anome 00:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) *The name is generally public. Moink's argument is obsolete. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Undecided

 * anthony


 * 1) &mdash;Eloquence agree with Anthony below - if it becomes accepted to use the name by mainstream sources, we should not deliberately hide it
 * 2) Pfortuny we should take into account that not including it may just be a matter of POV! I guess there are plenty of countries where this is not an issue? On the other hand, be it legal or illegal, I would prefer its not being included, but I am voting here to raise the point. (sounds like this has already been discussed)
 * 3) &mdash; Jor (Talk) 21:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Her name is now public knowledge, yet I agree with many of the 'nay' arguments given.
 * 4) Plato, this is sticky situation, Kobe's accuser's name is all over the internet (I found it out back in June), however, his accuser does have a right to privicy, thus i'll weigh my options with it.

citizen sunshine's thoughts
I was suprised in looking over the list of locked pages to find that the Kobe Bryant one was. Finding that this subject was the bone of contention was shocking. Moink makes excellent points about why he, or I, or others might not want to disclose Bryant's accuser's name. However, I think he misses the point. In stating these reasons, although I tend to agree with them, we are taking a non-NPOV. That is, we are espousing certain values and ideologies--not wanting to further dissuade rape victims from seeking redress, or not wanting to reward attention seekers' fabricating facts--and attempting to employ these values and ideologies (however righteous we, or even a majority may find them) to censor information that no one argues to be fallacious or non-NPOV.

To be fair, that mainstream media have not published the name makes it less credible. I think a fair reporting would indicate that a certain publication, say here the Globe, published a report that is believed to accurately identify the accuser.

Moink is right that we don't publish ALL data that is factual. But on Wikipedia, only three things ought to militate against dissemination of facts: glaring irrelevancy (that is, all the tidbits of knowledge that just don't matter to anybody, anywhere, as indicated by nobody taking the initiative to post it), legal injunction (if disclosure is actually penalized by law), and overweening non-NPOV (not at issue here). Here, the data is clearly salient to many (witness this Talk), and is not illegal to post. We ought not take our own desires to support or denigrate certain values and practices and impose those on the neutral and factual posting of information.

I therefore am in favor of permitting anyone who finds the information about Bryant's accuser relevant to post it in the Bryant article, so long as it is factual (i.e. we don't know for a certainty who his accuser is, only that the Globe has reported who his accuser is). Citizensunshine 04:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You make some very good points. You're right, not including a name is a consequence of a certain POV.  But I think we can make a subtle distinction between an article espousing a certain point-of-view, and our points-of-view having an effect on the article.  The first is certainly a no-no in Wikipedia.  The second is much more complex.  For instance, some points of view have had significant effects on the display of images and the types of images at penis, clitoris, Nick Berg, and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.  I have to think a little more about this distinction; I'll see if I can make it more clear later, and reconcile my strong committment to NPOV with my feelings on this issue.  moink 18:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

moink's thoughts
I have strong feelings on this issue, so strong in fact that I've mostly refrained from the discussion for fear of getting overly heated.

I don't believe that there is a legal issue either way. This is not about censorship or free speech. Free speech says that the government cannot tell us what to say or not say; however, the Wikipedia community may make a decision as to what we publish. And we do not publish all information, obviously.

I'm going to oversimplify the discussion and say that either the allegation is true or it is not. And I believe that in each of these cases there is good reason not to publish her name.

If it is true, then this woman was raped and is reporting a crime. It is fairly well established that many rapes are not reported because many victims feel that their privacy will be excessively invaded. The fact that this woman has had threats etc. means that these fears are not unfounded. Choosing to publish the names of rape victims is choosing to further invade victims' privacy and discouraging future reporting of rape, especially when the accused is a celebrity. And accurate reporting of rape is a good thing; it gets more rapists convicted and prevents rape.

If it is not true, then this woman was not raped and she is lying. At this point we would have to question her motivations. I don't think we can get in her head, but one possibility is that she's doing it for attention. If we publish her name, we would be giving her the attention she wants. This is then proof that it is easy to become a celebrity by falsely accusing a celebrity of a crime. Making this woman famous would be incentive for people to concoct accusations against celebrities in the future. And I think we can all agree that false accusations of crimes are a bad thing too. moink 01:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ruthless logic. I had my doubts but I'm convinced now. Arvindn 17:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons not to do it is a supposition that there will be unmerited stigma. Such women are crime victims. Continuing to treat it as something to hide perpetuates the idea that there's something shameful about being a crime victim. There isn't. The name should be published. Jamesday 06:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've thought about that too. If I, personally, were a rape victim I might very well choose to have my name published for exactly that reason.  But the fact is that the world is not perfect, that there is a stigma (which in this case has gone farther than a stigma and has included death threats, job losses, stalking etc), and that it has to be the particular woman's choice whether she wants to brave the hailstorm in order to change society.  It is unreasonable to insist on someone being an unwilling pioneer.  moink 18:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * But the fact is that the world is not perfect, that there is a stigma (which in this case has gone farther than a stigma and has included death threats, job losses, stalking etc), and that it has to be the particular woman's choice whether she wants to brave the hailstorm in order to change society. She has made that choice, and has filed a suit in her own name.  Why do you still object to this? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

don't be the first
I'd say if a mainstream publication publishes the name, we shouldn't censor it. Until then, leave her name out. Since I don't know of any mainstream publication which has published this, my vote is currently undecided. anthony 01:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony (unless the above comment changes) that we should not name the accuser unless mainstream media names her. I have issues with the current legal system that embarrasses one party (considered innocent) with the smear of accusation while allowing the other party to make (possibly baseless) accusations without having to bear the responsibility of that claim. - Texture 02:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Changing circumstances
I think we should not publish the name, for now. However, there are quite a few scenarios in which it might become appropriate: There might be other circumstances that warrant publication, but those are the primary ones I can think of. --Michael Snow 02:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) New developments in the case (Some people have suggested that it might be published if Bryant is acquitted. I don't think an acquittal alone justifies it, but certainly we should publish if, hypothetically, she confesses that the accusation was false.)
 * 2) Somebody else goes first - see Anthony's suggestion (Perhaps, but I don't think we should uncritically allow other publications to make our editorial decisions for us)
 * 3) The passage of time (I don't know how much time, but at least when all the parties involved are dead, I wouldn't see a problem then)

It is the very nature of Wikipedia to allow other publications to make our editorial decisions for us. Wikipedia is not a primary source. See No original research. Now, admittedly, adding the requirement of the sources being "mainstream" perhaps goes a bit beyond No Original Research. But that's really a matter of what you consider mainstream. Is The Globe mainstream? Should Wikipedia be using it as a primary source? I can't answer yes to that. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, The Globe is a mainstream publication, widely distributed throughout the US. The initials KF are very reputably used, featuring repeatedly in court documents published on the court site. Jamesday 07:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources make editorial decisions too. They have to decide what information to include, and what to leave out. It's not an issue of whether the content is original research or not. --Michael Snow 02:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources can make editorial decisions, but those decisions are limited by those of the primary sources. I think I've explained why it is an issue of whether the content is original research.  Unless there is a respected source which is making the claim that Kobe Bryant's accuser is named [whatever], Wikipedia should not be listing that information.  Wikipedia is not a rumor mill for anything which happens to be published in some tabloid. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point Anthony. I agree that things should be in a reputable source before they are published in Wikipedia.  The Globe doesn't count as a reputable source, in my opinion.  On the other hand, if it does get published in a reputable source, we are under no obligation to publish it.  Lots of stuff is published and verifiable and not repeated on the pedia.  Like my telephone number.  moink 03:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Your phone number is not encyclopedic. This woman's name is.  It's completely different. Also, I'd say as a non-profit carity dedicated to creating a free encyclopedia we are under an obligation to publish anything presented to us which furthers that goal.  Not a legal obligation, of course, but a moral one.  anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess this isn't much of a surprise, but there are a variety of definitions of encyclopedic. moink 17:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No. I'm claiming that the name of a live rape victim who has not chosen to self-identify is not encyclopedic. moink 21:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Frankly, no, I wouldn't change my mind. I would then say that I think that Wikipedia should hold itself to higher standards and I just might say rude things about the other encyclopedia. However, I'd be interested in knowing if that were true.  Not also that I added "live" to my comment just now, I figured that would be ok since you're ok with changing comments after people have replied.  moink 22:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand at all why Anthony thinks this is a No original research issue. Nobody on Wikipedia did original research to find out this woman's name. It's an editorial decision on whether to publish it, and the reliability and reputability of the primary sources are a factor to consider. But we don't simply regurgitate everything that gets published even in, say, The Times. That would be abdicating our editorial judgment as to what information is encyclopedic, as opposed to simply news. --Michael Snow 04:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, we need to keep our options open. I don't want us to get into a revert war 3 months from now, when Mrs. F. tours through the talk shows, or 12 months from now, when she publishes her book (speaking hypothetically, of course), because someone thinks "we have decided" not to publish her name, period. As long as Mrs F.'s role is in the courts only, I can agree to withhold her name for privacy reasons. If she does, however, become a public actor in the media, or if the media effectively force her to be one, then we should reconsider that approach.&mdash;Eloquence 06:26, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've managed to come up with the one condition under which I would have no problem publishing her name. You're right; if she decides to put herself in the media spotlight by, for example, going on the lecture circuit, I would absolutely have no problem with publishing her name.  But as long as this notoriety is being imposed on her by others; I would rather not publish her name.  Even if the New York Times and the Washington Post published her name, I would prefer not to.  But at that point I expect to be overruled by the rest of the community.  And of course, all polls etc are open to be revisited when situations change. moink 06:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If she decides to publicize herself, that's something I would include under my new developments category (#1 in my list). I didn't say it very clearly, but that shouldn't be restricted just to the legal situation. By the way, I'm not aware that this woman is married, so it's somewhat incorrect to refer to her as Mrs. anything. We don't have a naming convention on Ms. versus Mrs., but current usage tends to favor using the former, since it can be acceptable whether a woman is married or not. --Michael Snow 16:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Why bother with a title at all? Don't we usually just use the person's last name? anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying we should use it, just commenting on its use in this discussion. --Michael Snow 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "Nobody on Wikipedia did original research to find out this woman's name." Then how did they find her name?  I can't find any reliable source which has it. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I expect that they probably found the name using one of the sources you consider unreliable. --Michael Snow 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's original research, then, as used in No original research. In fact, looking at Verifiability, " If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research." Continuing, "Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question."  anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Using an "unreliable" source is not the same as doing original research - it's using poor editorial judgment in our capacity as a secondary source. What you're getting at is that whoever found the name didn't verify it to your satisfaction, not that they did any original research to find it. --Michael Snow 23:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I have to admit that there is a certain temptation to publish her name now, because if she does become more widely known, our article will almost certainly be the first Google hit on her name and drive a lot of traffic to our site, and I don't think it can do a lot of harm in the meantime that is not already done. Of course by that logic we should publish a lot of articles about "potentially famous people".. &mdash;Eloquence 06:26, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Her name is already in the open. A search for "kobe bryant" rape on Google returns her name in plain view on the first page of results (with 10 results retreived). Since her name therefore is quite easily found if anyone wishes to find it, I feel the Wikipedia should have an article on her. As Eloquence stated it will bring traffic to the site, which may benefit the Wikipedia and the Wikipedia publishing her name will not harm the accuser any more. Then again IANAL. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 19:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I did the same search. I found a number of pages that I believe were pushing a very specific and vitriolic agenda (i.e. how dare that mentally-unbalanced slut accuse my favourite ball player of anything, his basketball skill proves his innocence), one Wikipedia mirror that apparently mirrored us at exactly (IMO) the wrong time, and a tabloid that never seems to worry too much about verifiability.  We have other ways of bringing traffic to our beauteous site than joining others in the gutter.  moink 20:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should we add a "please don't add" notice?
Given that visitors (especially new ones) may well come across this page and may chose to add the name, innocently unaware of this discussion, should we add a highly visible (coloured) box saying something like "At this time, Wikipedia has chosen not to publish the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. A discussion about whether, or when, to do so is presently underway at this page. Please don't add it yourself, but rather join in the discussion there.  Thanks.". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. I know I would add it if I wasn't aware of the existance of talk pages and came across it. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 21:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The format on the Kobe Bryant page is "Note: Due to concerns over privacy the name of the alleged victim is not being included in this article at this time." The notice certainly shouldn't include a self-reference. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. moink 22:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just did this, but instead of putting it openly on the page I put it as a comment so it will only be seen by those actually editing the page. moink 18:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A precedent
There's now a situation where Juror Number Four at the Tyco trial, who allegedly "flashed the 'OK' sign to the defense" and is believed to be lone holdout for conviction in that case, is being identified by name and address in certain media. Is there some way we can establish a precedent and put it into a policy page? RickK | Talk 01:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say not, because these situations need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. --Michael Snow 02:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say there already is plenty of policy. See no original research and verifiability. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for information: in the Tyco case, the juror was identified by name in the New York Times and the New York Post, major reputable media outlets in he US. -- Seth Ilys 22:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, um, at least the Times is, although from what I understand they didn't give her name, though they did give her address and biographical information. RickK | Talk 02:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And now the Tyco trial has been declared a mistrial, because someone sent Juror Number Four a threatening letter, based on the release of her personal information. RickK | Talk 06:41, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it illegal for us to publish this?
If we can determine that it is illegal under the rape shield law, the question becomes moot, since I assume that we won't want to break the law. Jamesday 07:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * According to about.com, the rape shield law is a rule regarding admissibility of evidence which I would assume has nothing to do with this. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Rape shield laws do indeed apply only to rules of evidence in court. An analogous example might be a confession which is coerced from a suspect by improper police conduct. Such a confession would be inadmissible in court, but media outlets would be free to report the confession. Furthermore, rape shield laws apply only to to a victim's sexual history, not to her identity. Cribnotes 07:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deletion?
Is this still up for Vfd? I couldn't find it but the page still has the message. Rmhermen 03:29, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)