[iDC] "Wikipedia Art" and the accused minor case

Kate Raynes-Goldie kate at k4t3.org
Thu Feb 19 17:47:42 UTC 2009 

one last nick picky:

> If someone wants to write a Wiki article because they consider this  
> an important event, they should title it something else -- "online  
> vigilantism" perhaps -- and refrain from naming the accused.

yup, they did - they wrote one using his alias "timmy" - it was well  
sourced and i'd argue, neutral and didn't use his name. it got deleted.



On 20/02/2009, at 2:13 AM, Lucia Sommer wrote:

> Dear Kate,
>
> While I'm far from uncritical of Wikipedia, it seems to me that the  
> Wiki editors were right on this one. There are serious ethical  
> issues involved in cases like this. Just because the kid's name is  
> all over the news (likely violating journalistic standards  
> concerning the naming of minors) should we, on top of everything,  
> permanently enshrine him in an encyclopedia as an "animal abuser"?  
> He is still a kid, after all -- and moreover, he has not yet had his  
> day in court. What if he actually faked the abuse? What if he was  
> under the influence of drugs or somehow forced to do this, or the  
> victim of severe abuse himself (often true of  cases like this).  
> What if he was misidentified or offered a false confession? We don't  
> know all the facts here.
>
> This is why there are also standards of journalistic ethics  
> involving all *accused* persons, not only minors. The idea is to  
> prevent people from being tried by the press before they are tried  
> in court. In this case, those standards have clearly been violated.
>
> One thing I do think Wikipedia can be commended for is their strict  
> policy on libel and defamation of living persons. I witnessed the  
> importance of this when a friend was repeatedly libeled by a  
> mentally unbalanced person. I was very impressed with how the Wiki  
> editors dealt with the case. They didn't rush to judgment either way  
> -- they took time to consider everything and in the end removed the  
> false and libelous comments.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Lucia
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Kate Raynes-Goldie <kate at k4t3.org>  
> wrote:
> Given this conversation about Wikipedia's admins and power structure,
> a current event might be of interest to you all.
>
> An American teen posted videos of himself abusing his cat on YouTube
> over the weekend (I found the video very disturbing, so be forewarned
> if you decide to watch). This enraged a loosely affiliated group of
> what can be best described as internet trolls called Anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group
> ) ) who decided to track him down and get him arrested, which they
> did. The story has been all over the internet and has been picked up
> by a number of news organizations, some of which have used the kid's
> name in their reports (see http://news.google.com.au/news?q=%22kenny%20glenn%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn)
>  This case is interesting for a number of reasons, one of which is
> that it could also be the first time a loosely organized group of
> people on the internet initiated a campaign to identify a suspect and
> then notify the police... in the least it has not been so high profile
> and had so many people involved
>
> Anyway, Wikipedia admins preemptively blocked the creation of an
> article about Kenny Glenn, despite it being all over the news. I asked
> that the protection be removed, and I was told if I was to create a
> passable draft it might be used as an article since all the other
> edits had been vandalism. At the same time, a group of people from the
> Facebook group about the story created a page called "Timmy (animal
> abuser)" (the name the kid used in the video) which was factual and
> backed up all its claims with journalistic sources, as required by
> Wikipedia. I followed up with the admin and asked if he/she could use
> the Timmy page as a draft. In response he deleted the Timmy article,
> saying it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the protection placed
> on the Kenny Glenn article. I asked the admin again if the page could
> be used as a draft in the way he/she first proposed, to which the
> admin replied that he/she wanted to take "a step back" and another
> admin should deal with it. The admin then posted to a special notice
> board on the topic basically saying that his reason for blocking the
> article was about the questionable ethics of posting information about
> a minor.  You can see our exchange here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MZMcBride#kenny_glenn_article
>
> What stuck out for me was that this seemed to be more of an issue of
> following rules rather than making Wikipedia a better information
> source. We didn't follow them perfectly, so the admins are upset and
> so that becomes the issue to block the page. Its also really really
> unclear to me as to what the process and rules actually are, since the
> reason the admin gave me for the block switched from a lack of a
> neutral well sourced article to being an issue of ethics. I do agree
> there are issues with the suspect being a minor, but I think there is
> a lot more going on here. It also begs the question as to why
> information about this kid and the case can be all over the internet
> (in "credible" sources and otherwise) but that it is being blocked
> from being reproduced on Wikipedia. Isn't one of the goals of
> Wikipedia to provide an open and valuable source of information that
> acts as an alternative to conventional sources of knowledge which are
> protected by gatekeepers?
>
> kate
>
> ---
> kate raynes-goldie
> phd researcher (facebook and the social web)
> curtin university of technology
> blog: http://k4t3.org
> skype: katierg
>
>
>
> On 18/02/2009, at 6:36 PM, Michael Bauwens wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > that power struggle did already take place, i.e. the civil war
> > between the abundance-orientated inclusionists, and the scarcity-
> > choosing deletionists.
> >
> > Scarcity forces created artificial scarcity, therefore an allocation
> > problem, and a power structure, but one that is self-selected and
> > doesn't allow forking,
> >
> > self-aggregation only works in an context of abundance, but if you
> > create scarcities needing decision, and this is done entirely
> > without formal democratic rules, that is really a recipe for the
> > tyranny of structurelessness, which is in full view in Wikipedia,
> > which now offers a full view of the dark side of peer governance ..
> >
> > for background, see:
> >
> > main article: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes/2008/01/07
> >  (text below)
> >
> > details:
> >
> >
> > - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/conflict-arbitration-at-the-wikipedia/2009/02/10
> >
> > - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/banning-the-wikipedia-bans-as-a-governance-tool/2008/11/21
> >
> > - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-it-time-to-go-beyond-wikipedia/2008/11/11
> >
> > - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/update-on-the-bagley-wikipedia-controversy/2008/10/26
> >
> >
> > TEXT
> >
> > The Wikipedia is often hailed as a prime example of peer production
> > and peer governance, an example of how a community can self-govern
> > very complex processes. Including by me.
> >
> > But it is also increasingly showing the dark side and pitfalls of
> > purely informal approaches, especially when they scale.
> >
> > Wikipedia is particularly vulnerable because its work is not done in
> > teams, but by individuals with rather weak links. At the same time
> > it is also a very complex project, with consolidating social norms
> > and rules, and with an elite that knows them, vs. many occasional
> > page writers who are ignorant of them. When that system then
> > instaures a scarcity rule, articles have to be ‘notable" or they
> > can be deleted. It creates a serious imbalance.
> >
> > While the Wikipedia remains a remarkable achievement, and escapes
> > any easy characterization of its qualities because of its sheer
> > vastness, there must indeed be hundreds of thousands of volunteers
> > doing good work on articles, it has also created a power structure,
> > but it is largely invisible, opaque, and therefore particularly
> > vulnerable to the well-known tyranny of structurelessness.
> >
> > Consider the orginal thoughts of Jo Freeman:
> >
> > "Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing
> > as a 'structureless' group. Any group of people of whatever nature
> > coming together for any length of time, for any purpose, will
> > inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be
> > flexible, it may vary over time, it may evenly or unevenly
> > distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group.
> > But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities and
> > intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are
> > individuals with different talents, predispositions and backgrounds
> > makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on
> > any basis whatsoever could we approximate 'structurelessness' and
> > that is not the nature of a human group.
> >
> > Consider also this warning:
> >
> > Every group of people with an unusual goal - good, bad, or silly -
> > will trend toward the cult attractor unless they make a constant
> > effort to resist it. You can keep your house cooler than the
> > outdoors, but you have to run the air conditioner constantly, and as
> > soon as you turn off the electricity - give up the fight against
> > entropy - things will go back to "normal".
> >
> > In the same sense that every thermal differential wants to equalize
> > itself, and every computer program wants to become a collection of
> > ad-hoc patches, every Cause wants to be a cult. It's a high-entropy
> > state into which the system trends, an attractor in human  
> psychology.
> >
> > Cultishness is quantitative, not qualitative. The question is not
> > "Cultish, yes or no?" but "How much cultishness and where?"
> >
> > The Wikicult website asserts that this stage has already been  
> reached:
> >
> > With the systems, policies, procedures, committees, councils,
> > processes and appointed authorities that run Wikipedia, a lot of
> > intrinsic power goes around. While most serious contributors
> > devotedly continue to contribute to the implied idealism, there are
> > those with the communication and political skill to place themselves
> > in the right place at the right time and establish even more
> > apparent power. Out of these, a cabal inevitably forms; the rest, as
> > they say, is history.
> >
> > Specialized sites have sprung up, such as the Wikipedia Review,
> > monitoring power abuse in general, or in particular cases
> >
> > The Wikipedia Review offers an interesting summary of the various
> > criticisms that have been leveled agains the Wikipedia, which I'm
> > reproducing here below, but I'm adding links that document these
> > processes as well.Spend some time on reading the allegations, their
> > documentation, and make up your own mind.
> >
> > My conclusion though is that major reforms will be needed to insure
> > the Wikipedia governance is democratic and remains so.
> >
> > 1.    Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts,
> > scientists, and others with special knowledge.
> >
> > "Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge,
> > expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to
> > distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely
> > claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is
> > typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia
> > affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their
> > fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing
> > Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no
> > controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature
> > and uneducated ones."
> >
> > Critique of Wikipedia's open source ideology, as opposed to free
> > software principles
> >
> > 2. Wikipedia's culture of anonymous editing and administration
> > results in a lack of responsible authorship and management.
> >
> > "Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-
> > changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining
> > conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article
> > editing. Wikipedia's adminsitrators are similarly anonymous,
> > shielding them from scrutiny for their actions. They additionally
> > can hide the history of their editing (or that of others)."
> >
> > 3. Wikipedia's administrators have become an entrenched and over-
> > powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and  
> contributors.
> >
> > "Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators,
> > administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with
> > blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in
> > implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned
> > simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any
> > transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a
> > powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut
> > code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process
> > leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not
> > corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked
> > editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed
> > regularly for misbehaviour."
> >
> > Overview of developments
> >
> > The blog Nonbovine ruminations critically monitors Wikipedia
> > governance
> >
> > The Wikipedia has stopped growing because of the deletionists:
> > Andrew Lih ; Slate
> >
> > Wikipedia's abusive bio-deletion process: case by Tony Judge
> >
> > 4. Wikipedia's numerous policies and procedures are not enforced
> > equally on the community, popular or powerful editors are often
> > exempted.
> >
> > "Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are
> > frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia's numerous
> > policies, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting
> > the release of personal information about editors, and those
> > prohibiting collusion in editing."
> >
> > The undemocratic practices of its investigative committee
> >
> > A personal experience
> >
> > The badsites list of censored sites belonging to Wikipedia's enemies
> >
> > Lack of transparency and accountability
> >
> > The Judd Bagley case
> >
> > InformationLiberation on Wikipedia's totalitarian universe
> >
> > 5. Wikipedia's quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee
> > (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.
> >
> > "ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent,
> > operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow
> > equal access to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to
> > undermine the Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful
> > administrators to sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in
> > public) on cases it is discussing in private."
> >
> > Monitoring of ArbCom's activities
> >
> > Summary of criticisms
> >
> > The case of the secret mailing list for top insiders
> >
> > 6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally
> > responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is
> > insufficiently independent from Wikipedia's remaining founder and
> > his business interests.
> >
> > "The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders,
> > resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture.
> > Because of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired
> > incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy
> > Wales for-profit business Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its
> > association with the non-profit Wikipedia."
> >
> > The Foundation's budget
> >
> > Wikimedia chairwoman rejects demand for transparency
> >
> > Review of the conflict of interest issue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Downes <stephen at downes.ca>
> > Cc: "idc at mailman.thing.net" <idc at mailman.thing.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:13:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [iDC] "Wikipedia Art"
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > There is eventually going to be a power struggle on Wikipedia. This
> > will occur because, in the process of enforcing MPOV, citations,
> > notability, etc., Wikipedia has created a power structure. It is no
> > longer a freely collaborative enterprise, but one now where a
> > smallish group of people (the moderators can make decisions that
> > over-rule the majority. This is a classic instance of a power
> > structure, and makes Wikipedia  a tempting target for an
> > organization large enough and self-organized enough to effect the
> > take-over.
> >
> > Wikipedia's only defense against this sort of action (and the
> > Wikipedia Art page is a first of a kind (though if one believes the
> > deleters' comments, not even that), not an anomaly) is to return to
> > its collaborative roots. It's nice that this particular attempt to
> > subvert the power structure is art. Subsequent attempts to control
> > the encyclopedia will not be so benign. It must be necessary for the
> > users of Wikipedia - that vast majority of people who for the most
> > part only make occasional edits, who are not insiders, and will be
> > moved only by egregious errors and omissions - to be able to over-
> > rule the power structure. If this does not happen, then when one of
> > these actions succeeds (as it inevitably will) we will have lost
> > Wikipedia as a voice of knowledge and reason forever.
> >
> > Since I don't exxpect the (current) Wikipedia elite to relinquish
> > power, this post is written for the record, so I can say "I told you
> > so" later on.
> >
> > -- Stephen
> >
> >
> > Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:24 PM,  <koltzenburg at w4w.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> sounds interesting to me but I do not seem to find any page of
> >>> that name,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> An article appeared on Wikipedia -- called "Wikipedia Art" --
> >>>> with the
> >>>> following description:
> >>>>
> >>> would you mind posting the link?
> >>>
> >> It was deleted:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art
> >>
> >> Now it all depends if they make enough noise that it be heard in  
> main
> >> stream media - then Wikipedia will have a real problem with it.
> >>
> >> I do like the paradoxical nature of it and I do think it is a  
> kind of
> >> art - but if they let it bury so easily then I guess it really is
> >> 'not
> >> notable'.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---
> >
> > Stephen Downes  ~  Researcher  ~  National Research Council Canada
> > http://www.downes.ca  ~  stephen at downes.ca        ** Free Learning
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> > (distributedcreativity.org)
> > iDC at mailman.thing.net
> > https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> >
> > List Archive:
> > http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> >
> > iDC Photo Stream:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
> >
> > RSS feed:
> > http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
> >
> > iDC Chat on Facebook:
> > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
> >
> > Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
> ---
> kate raynes-goldie
> phd researcher (facebook and the social web)
> curtin university of technology
> blog: http://k4t3.org
> skype: katierg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
>
>
> -- 
> Lucia Sommer
> 60 College Street
> Buffalo, NY 14201
> (716) 359-3061
>

More information about the iDC mailing list