User talk:Justmeherenow/Gates letter

--- On Sun, 8/9/09, {redacted} wrote:

Subject: Fw: Hi Dr. Gates! (From another contributing editor on Wikipedia) To: submissions@theroot.com Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 12:49 PM

Hi Dr. Gates (''Skip?": on-line comunications get so over-familiar!) I'm a contributor of edits to Wikipedia. Myself, Wikipedia user Off2riorob, and other Wikipedians would like to make a request of you, sir. It's about the use of the booking photo of yourself on Wikipedia. If you were to have other than a neutral position on the matter, it just might be the tie breaker. Do you have any thoughts off the top of your head that you'd be kind enough to share with us? I'm anticipating that whatever they are, they could help us to resolve our impasse. (And even if not, we'd feel extremely honored and priviledged to have even been lucky enough to hear from you!) (BTW the following snippet from our Wikipedia talkpage discussion might be the best way to provide context for our question. See the link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident#Harm_Test ): -
 * [... ... ...]


 * By the way, I just want to point out that WP:BLP says potentially harmful information about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed without discussion, not that information that is unflattering should be removed without discussion. This isn't a mugshot that was dug out of the archives of Massachusetts police booking photos; it has been widely published already, and the arrest is not something Gates seems to want to hide or want not to talk about publicly. I'm sorry, but I don't care to look for your comments in "numerous venues", I just want a direct answer to a direct question: What part of the WP:HARM#TEST does the image fail? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the harm to his reputation has already been done, and the inclusion of the demeaning booking shot is a continuation of that harm. The article goes on happily without the mugshot, so I would say, it is far better to err on the side of caution. Perhaps in an interview he will comment that he is ok with the mugshot, perhaps email him and ask him if he is ok if we put it on this page? When all the hurrah has died down and no one is bothered any more in a couple of weeks this article will sit here forever demeaning this innocent person. Actually the article is a way around policy by giving the incident a page of its own you circumvent the BLP issues, there is no way this mugshot would be inserted in his BLP and the innocent person should imo be protected to the same level in this article. Lets find out if there is any community support for the inclusion of this mugshot and put it to a vote. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Have a look at the viewing figures, here is the article 14 and here 15 is the talk page and here is his biography 16 you'll see that all the traffic is to the biography and that there is a lot less traffic to this article and in fact, if you remove the wikipedian traffic there is little or no interest from the outside world to this article, these figures show that too much is being made of this story here and actually it would be better to cut out all the excessive material and return it to gate's bio where it would at least get read.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry if my above comment sounded like I was getting impatient. I didn't mean it that way, but on a second look... Anyway, I think I can see your point about there being a lot more Wikipedian hubbub about this article than actual readers reading it, but my position is actually to move the article a little further away from Gates, because this whole thing wasn't all about Gates. I don't think he has sole ownership of the controversy. This was an event that centers around a conflict between Gates and Crowley, and then Obama and others stepped in. Personally, I'd rather see it moved to "Gates-Crowley controversy" than merged into Gates' bio article. I do also think you have something with 'let's see if we can really determine just what Gates thinks of the photo'. I haven't seen anything where he directly commented on the circulating photo, but does anybody have a good indication in a reliable source? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Nothing to be sorry for, I was fine with you. Is it possible that we could get his email and draft a little letter to him to get his opinion? I would prefer "Gates-Crowley controversy" to what we have now, agreed he does not have sole ownership of the incident. 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, I think. (Although some of the older viewing figures are skewed cos of this article's name change. And, hey! when it was "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates," it reached a viewership stat at all of 7.4k back on the 3rd of this month, even surpassesing the 5.8 reached to on that date by Gates's regular bio.  {coughs -- mumbling into my hand}   Of course, it would be incumbent on me to disclose that the "Arrest" article was linked to on Wikipedia's front page that day in its, uh, um, "Did you know?" column. ↜Just M E here , now 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's root.com's Face Book page. (Although I myself don't have a Face Book account to send Dr. Gates a message there.) ↜Just M E here , now 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. It's
 * fax #: 617-495-9490
 * snailmail address: Harvard University's WEB Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, 104 Mount Auburn Street # 3R, Cambridge MA 02138
 * e: hgates@fas.harvard.edu
 * [tele: 617-496-5468 extension # 65468]
 * ↜Just M E here , now 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * cool, well done.
 * Ok, I missed the older figures, however as things stand now the traffic has settled down, anyway the figures were really just a little way to try and get the perspectives in line with reality. There is one page where three editors are in dispute after dispute over the detail and asking RFC after RFC and when I checked the figures the page was getting 3 or 4 viewings a day and the talk page like a hundred and fifty. I will write to him later today if no one else does it, could someone draft up a simple neutral letter(not leading him in either direction) and lets ask him, saying this I am not suggesting that it is up to him whether we insert it or not, but it would add weight to one side or the other. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Gates' email is all over twitter, half going to the Glenn Beck et al demographic, so I think we'd be well advised to make sure we send a back-up fax, too. ↜Just M E here , now 14:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have sent this to the Harvard email address.
 * Dear mr Gates, I am the wikipedian editor Off2riorob. We are requesting your opinion regarding a matter we are discussing on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The discussion is over the insertion of the police booking shot of you into this article Henry Louis Gates arrest incident which you can see and read [here]. The discussion is over whether including the booking shot in the article is demeaning or harmful to you in any way. We would greatly appreciate your comment over this issue by way of a reply to this email. You are of course very welcome to discuss the issue with us online on the talk page [here]You also have your own biography on Wikipedia, if you would like to read it you will find it [here] Very best regards. Wikipedian editor Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [... ... ...]

=
======================================== Oh -- and actually, Dr. Gates, there are many more Wikipedian's who have been weighing in on this issue, as well. The point is, sir, we've simply not been able to reach a consensus about what to do, yet. Could you help us with your very pertinent input? With great interest, {redacted} East Rutherford, New Jersey (And, oh, sir, here is my own Wikipedia user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Justmeherenow )  :^)