Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Proposed decision

Moved from the project page:

Ted Wilkes and Wyss's view of the standard of editing
8) Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James_Dean and Talk:Nick_Adams

'''Uhm, so sorry to interrupt but... "“We need to verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article.”--Jimbo Wales 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)"''' [ [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

An Outside Comment
I think that this proposed decision is a serious mistake for several reasons.

First, in criticizing Wyss for applying too strict a standard of verifiability, the ArbCom appears to be modifying the Onefortyone decision without stating that. If the ArbCom is deciding, after the first case was already decided, that it had been decided too strictly, then a revision would be in order. In that case, imposing a parole on Wyss is excessive. A simple caution would be in order.

Second, any decision that some stories do not require rigorous fact-checking is unfortunate in the wake of the John Seigenthaler debacle. The concept that "celebrity gossip" does not require rigorous fact-checking is not very different from saying that idle speculation about Seigenthaler did not require rigorous fact-checking. Who are "celebrities" who are not entitled to the truth?

Third, the proposed decision appears to overlook the problem of using Wikipedia to game search engines, and encourages such use. Onefortyone was using Google to game search engines by increasing the number of hits on rumors about the sexual orientation of Elvis Presley. By applying a numerical standard based on Google hits to when scholarly fact-checking is not required, the ArbCom appears to be saying that when search engines have already been gamed, it is fair to use Wikipedia to continue to game them further. Whether or not the camel may put his nose into the tent, once his head is in, he is allowed to walk the rest of the way in.

Fourth, the decision says that "celebrity gossip" is not subject to the same standard of rigorous fact-checking as serious historical articles. Elvis Presley and James Dean are no longer living "celebrities". They are dead entertainers, and have been dead long enough that they can themselves be subjects of serious scholarly biographies. Their memories and reputations and their survivors are now entitled to the best efforts at reconstructing the truth. Permitting Wikipedia to be used for tabloid speculation long after entertainers are dead ignores the fact that Presley and Dean have become serious subjects for history, with its intellectual demand for accuracy.

The ArbCom has not yet voted to close and finalize this decision. I respectfully ask the ArbCom to approve an entirely different decision. Robert McClenon 14:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting that an outside comment by user Robert McClenon, who was never involved in discussions about Elvis Presley and related celebrities, repeats the false accusations made by Wyss and Ted Wilkes some months ago that "Onefortyone was using Google to game search engines by increasing the number of hits on rumors about the sexual orientation of Elvis Presley." Certainly Elvis Presley and James Dean are important celebrities and their sex life is still of much interest to many readers. It is also a fact that there is only a small number of peer-reviewed publications on these celebrities. Even reputed biographies such as Peter Guralnick's books on Elvis include gossip. You might say that gossip is part of the culture of celebrities. If it is published in books it is surely worth a note in a Wikipedia article, especially if it is cited by several independent sources. It should also be noted that I once created a new paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry based on publications by Professor David S. Wall. Significantly, this paragraph was deleted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See, for instance, . Even User:Hoary said about this passage: "...I do think that there could well be something in it that's worth saying. Actually when I look at the latest arguments ..., presented by 141 and TW, I'm happier with 141's than with TW's." However, there is still no paragraph of this kind in the Elvis Presley article. Onefortyone 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. Yes gaming google is a problem as is reliance on wholly unreliable sources. Keep in mind Onefortyone remains on probation and may be banned from any article concerning a celebrity which he disrupts by trying to insert original research or information from unreliable sources. But the standard should be different from that applied to serious scientific or historical subjects. Fred Bauder 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Disinformation, which is the inevitable result of weak sourcing methodologies, is never helpful to a project whose stated mission is the writing of an encyclopedia that is "better than Britannica" (to quote Mr Wales"). Wyss 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls
Even as the Seigenthaler scandal was breaking in hundreds of news reports across the world, arbcomm member and suspended (in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder voted to endorse the statement that my sourcing standards were "unrealistic," as in, "Why bother for accuracy? Any tabloid crud will do!" Over at the village pump, Zoe accused me of "whining."

Here's what the Register has to say today about Wikipedia's sourcing standards and credibility:


 * Calls for responsibility, we learn, in that unique strangulated prose style that is truly Wikipedia's legacy to the world -


 * "... often form a pejorative means of attacking political opponents. This habit of demanding behaviour aligned to one's own desires also occurs in other arenas: one expects "responsibility" from children, parents, spouses, colleagues and employees, meaning they should change their attitudes to suit the speaker."


 * From which the only thing missing is:


 * ".... booooo big bad teecher - I'm not going to skool today. fuck you!!"


 * Which is terrific stuff.


 * Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape.


 * He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.

Yep. Wikipedia's vaunted Hive mind happens to behave like a clueless, irresponsible 14 year old boy. Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls. Also from that article:


 * Involvement in Wikipedia has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Wikipedia mailing list, speaking up for quality. Wikipedia is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?

Hint: It's not all the bad publicity. Wyss 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway I'd like to note that the person who originally brought this RfAr against me has sinced apologized to me and asked that it be dropped (he's been ignored as far as I can tell), along with McClenon's suggestion that it's entirely inappropriate. Meanwhile WP has a serious, systemic sourcing problem. Why can't this be addressed constructively? Wyss 03:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because a huge number of people -- including a substantial percentage of university students and others who might be presumed to be part of a well-informed intelligentsia -- are clueless about matters such as sourcing. WP can't (a) make this demand for sourcing and simultaneously (b) meaningfully retain the appealing soundbite/subtitle "[an] encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and it's the latter that generates the press coverage, whether good or bad. As somebody who would often find a reliable WP useful, I don't want a WP article that anybody -- whether a practical joker, a crank, or whatever -- has been able to edit. Perhaps my demands don't matter, and perhaps most people will be happy with a cross between a fanatically edited cruftopedia and an unreliable mishmash of other articles ranging from the superb to the libelous. WP's "encyclopedic facts" will then be recycled elsewhere, perhaps even finding their way into printed encyclopedias. -- Hoary 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So I've read arbcomm's decision and there's still zero evidence to support 141's assertions about Nick Adams which only goes to show, Wikipedia is all about community and process, not encyclopedic content. 141 knew that because 141 is a Wikipedian and admin of long standing under a different user name. Anyway I disagree that I ever disrupted Wikipedia or ever had the personal potential or whim to do that. My contribution history speaks for itself. I've been slapped hard by arbcomm for expressing my opinion that among them lurk wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls who coddle their own kind. Wyss 07:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)