Talk:Seth Finkelstein/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Last sentence 2 notability 3 unwillingness 4 notability (cont..) 5 Objections 6 Reasons he's notable 7 A question 8 Collateral benefit 9 Irony 10 Suggestion?

Last sentence

What is the last sentence in this article supposed to mean? Moe Aboulkheir 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The person who added that sentence thinks I'm very good at analyzing the key arguments in a debate and explaining a chain of reasoning for a position - Seth Finkelstein 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See Judith Krug Discussion page for interesting conversation between me and Seth Finkelstein. 24.149.135.182 04:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

notability

It appears to me that this article doesn't meet the criteria for notability.

BTW I knew Seth in school (we were both in ESG http://mit.edu/esg ) and I respect him greatly, but I don't think this article will ever be more than a stub. Ideogram 10:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

*Shrug*. I don't know if having the article remain a stub is blessing or curse. Anyway, I'm not offended. I'll neither campaign for being notable, nor nominate myself for deletion ("O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see ourselves as others see us!" - Roberts Burns) -- Seth Finkelstein 22:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm leaning to agree with you. It's more trouble than it's worth -- Seth Finkelstein 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, now that you've publicised your attempts to prove a lack of notability, that rather gives you some, certainly as far as the wikipedia project itself is concerned. Anon: 15:00 28 Sept 2006

You have no idea how extortionate that sounds :-( -- Seth Finkelstein 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly for you, that is the way it goes. If you were to become published in thousands of articles criticising Wikipedia it would be very hard indeed to successfully argue that you weren't notable, for those articles would themselves prove that you actually were. This is clearly a highly undesirable result for those who don't want an entry, yet since notability is the chief inclusion justification, I see no useful way to avoid it. FYI, private pre-employment discussions by my employer included discussion of fictional biographical details about me written by a Wikimedia Foundation board member on the Meta Wikipedia site, which I was able to read after being hired. I can cetainly see at least one reason for your concern! Jamesday 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think that counts as notability. One Guardian article does not a celebrity make, or Wikipedia would be a hundred times the size it is now. Orpheus 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He won an EFF Pioneer Award. I think that's more than enough to establish his notability. Rcade 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. At least according to the EFF, "The nominees must have contributed substantially to the health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications." — Matt Crypto 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeat - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life." -- Seth Finkelstein 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, and it does seem unfortunate, but Wikipedia really can't exclude articles on notable people simply because the subject wishes it. I'm sure you can see the problems that would cause. We could remove the article if you were not notable: the EFF award is an argument in favour of notability, and I've seen nobody address it. — Matt Crypto 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, stop misstating my argument as whim or caprice. It's not just "because the subject wishes it". It's because IT CAN BE HARMFUL. REAL PEOPLE CAN GET HURT! -- Seth Finkelstein 18:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then, but still, we don't remove articles on notable people just because a miscreant may add something that would cause them harm. (We try our best to make sure that doesn't happen, but you can't guarantee it on a wiki.) Should we remove Michael Jackson if he asked us to? No way. Obviously you're far less notable than that, but the question then becomes how notable must someone be before they can have a Wikipedia article that exposes them to risk of vandals writing malicious things. This is why this hinges on notability. — Matt Crypto 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I argue that's "cost-shifting" - it's very easy to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood, to tell another person they must endure being trolled and smeared and libeled, for the greater good. It's always different when it's you. Sure, it's a judgement call as to whether one is truly notable, just like it's a judgement call in the first place, so that argument is hardly insuperable. Allowing people to opt-out when they are not very important public figures is not impossible. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, Seth, but you're not a good example of a non-notable person who is being harmed by your presence in Wikipedia. It's already been argued that you're notable enough, and I agree with that assessment. Perhaps you are a notable person who is being harmed by your presence in Wikipedia, but if that becomes a criteria for excluding a subject from this site, where would it end? As someone in exactly the same boat you're in -- my bio's little-read, my critics in no short supply -- I think the solution to libelous editors is not to exclude more bio subjects, as you seem to be favoring. Rcade 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple - it ends at the point where the subject is so prominent and public that Wikipedia attacks are not significant. For example, and this is just one criterion, "multiple mass media articles appears about the subject regularly". To claim I'm in an identical category as Michael Jackson is absurd. Yet formally, that's the argument - that no principled distinction can be drawn between a guy who had a few column-inch profile a couple of years ago, and a huge celebrity. That the Wikipedia policy-setters don't want to do this is clear, because, as I point out, it would be admitting a fundamental failure in the driving ideology. But to claim it cannot be done is nonsense. -- Seth Finkelstein 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And, one should thank whatever gods may exist that you're not just like Michael Jackson... one of him is probably already too many. Still, you seem notable in the fairly specialized communities in which you have been active, which have considerable overlap with the (fairly geeky) typical Wikipedians. *Dan T.* 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I think in a way you've touched on a key part of the issue, in the reverse sense. That is, the problem is that Wikipedia does not restrict itself to "the fairly specialized communities in which [I] have been active", and may be argued notable, which is another way of saying I have a positive reputation which might help protect me from attacks. Instead, Wikipedia seeks to evangelize itself to the whole world. So the effect is that if I achieve notability in a specialized community, I'm then told I'm fair game for being involuntarily included in a process which has the effect of projecting attacks on me to the entire world, where I am *not* notable. Which points out an important structural difference between me and Michael Jackson. He's "notable" to the entire world. I'm "notable" (maybe) to some civil-libertarian geeks. Not the same at all. -- Seth Finkelstein 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed part of the logic there. Those who are likely to see the bio are those who are already aware of you. Random strangers aren't so likely to go looking. The interesting and more probable harms appear to be to your own peace of mind and to the harm the content might do when those who know you, but not well enough to recognise something as false, see it. Jamesday 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"G) SF: "It's easy for you to make the decision to include me because you don't have to pay the cost yourself; I do."". And it's not "random strangers", rather, "people who are not civil-libertarian geeks but who have a reason to want to find out about me" - potential employers, conference-organizers, media editors, journalists, etc. Of course one can't be absolute about this. But it's nontrivial to have a prominent reputation-laundering attack-platform for those who wish me ill. And I believe, a reasonable objection in terms of attending to what can be helped even granting there are things that can't be helped. -- Seth Finkelstein 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on my own experience reading the logs of my own emoloyer's discussions of the bio of me on one of the sites here I agree that it's a valid concern. Potential employers, conference organisers and such are in the know you but not well enough to recognise falsehood group which seems most likely to lead to adverse effects on you. Jamesday 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<--- I don't find this argument persuasive, unless those organizers/employers don't do any due diligence. When I wondered what all the fuss was about - I found sites with negative information about you in less than 5 minutes using google. None of that content is duplicated in your bio. So, I don't really see any additional cost to you from Wikipedia. There has been substantial cost to Wikipedia in maintaining your article interms of the man-hours donated to maintaining the article, monitoring it, and engaging you in conversation. Substantial costs - as there are several that have discussed things here who are paid $150-$300 an hour for their professional time, which they have spent discussing with you instead of improving other articles. We do this because we care about the impact it has on you and want to do all that we can to mitigate it. --Trödel 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeat - Per the ground already covered in the AfD: "and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.". Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website? Wikipedia's poor troll control has a lot of bearing as to whether it should contain biographical articles on people who can be hurt by them." (and this has been extremely draining on *my* time!) -- Seth Finkelstein 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see these issues as tied, unless Wikipedia does a good job protecting articles like yours from the rants and trolls, then it will be not be trusted anymore than a crazy ranter's website, if, OTOH, Wikipedia's quality initiatives do succeed then those rants/trollings won't be here and your fears about the potential for harm won't come true. Additionally, I would hope that business people could clearly identify "trolling comments" as suspect, but maybe I am giving them too much credit.

unwillingness

somebody, write about how he makes a fuzz in the media of not wanting to bo on wikipedia. i could, but my english spelling is so-so, and i have NO skills on the wiki-writing-program-thingy.

WP:SELF, remember? -- Seth Finkelstein 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous. Someone let me know when the article pops up on AfD again, so we can end it gracefully. Orpheus 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He was quoted in The Guardian 27th September 2006 as saying that he feels he should not be listed onm Wikipedia. Surely this information should be included in his Wikipedia entry. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rich flair (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2006.

The problem with the Guardian article is that it's about the article itself, rather than the subject of the article. Seth Finkelstein isn't notable for not wanting a Wikipedia entry. You won't find "So-and-so once told an encyclopaedia salesman to bugger off" in any other encyclopaedia, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. However, it shouldn't be ignored completely, which is why we have these talk pages. Here we talk about the article - in the article itself, we talk about the subject of the article. It's an important distinction, imho. Orpheus 10:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at it this way - if someone is trying to find out my overall Curriculum Vitae, is it an encyclopedia-worthy fact that I wish the Wikipedia page about me would just go away? That this is even a matter of debate is an indication of why I think I'm correct in my assessment that the page can do me more harm than good. Let me be clear, I don't think that mentioning the Guardian piece is a bad thing per se. But I do think it's an utterly trivial aspect of my life overall. And the focus on it reflects really poorly on what gets included. -- Seth Finkelstein

Of course a WP article should link to published online material by the subject. The title of the Guardian article says it all ("I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here"), so there is no need to do more than cite it.Kauffner 12:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is value in noting that someone who really would rather not be listed in Wikipedia - to the point of writing an article good enough that I went looking for his entry. In all fairness to Mr. Finkelstein, we really ought to delete the entry, or more explicitly note the irony that he doesn't want to be listed.68.250.41.142 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I keep thinking that if I list all my accomplishments which I believe really should be included ahead of "doesn't want a Wikipedia entry", I'll end up both weakening my assertion for marginal notability, and get accused of writing my entry surreptitiously :-) -- Seth Finkelstein 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

notability (cont..)

This is a really interesting case. Notability (fame) can be a terrible thing, many people would like nothing more than to be anonymous - with notability can come enemies, detractors and just plain crazies - combine that with Wikipedia and it is potentially frightening - I personally would not want a Wikipedia article (before I'm dead) and can sympathize with Seth. "Assume Good Faith" works great until they start talking about you. But in a Democratic society people have the right to comment on and discuss someone who is of public interest - courts rule all the time in defamation cases, public figures are handled differently from "private" citizens. In those cases the defendant will often claim they are not a public figure (notable), and similarly 8 times out of 10 notability is the issue in AfD cases on Wikipedia - the question of notability is a major bearing on which much of the world turns. Yet notability is entirely subjective, we have large amounts of public discourse over what qualifies as notable (professional critics - art, movie, literature - make a living telling us what is notable). This is an interesting case it gets to the core of a lot of issues. It is something we are going to see a lot more of in the future as Wikipedia, or something like it, graduates to be more serious. -- Stbalbach 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is another issue going on: Some bottom feeder has repeatedly added material and links that are clearly libelous. Naturally, this dreck is quickly reverted each time it appears. But the resulting controversy is now the article’s principle claim to notability. Yet the current version of the article has no reference to anything controversial. It’s Finkelstein’s resume, which makes no sense as a Wikipedia article. I see a couple of options. The controversy can be discussed briefly in a way that doesn’t repeat the libel. Now that the article is semi-protected again, I don’t think this approach will necessarily create "troll-bait," as Finkelstein puts it. In addition, the article should be deleted and recreated to eliminate the edit history, and it should be semi-protected permanently. Does anyone know why it goes in and out of semi-protection? Finally, an administrator should be apprised of the situation so that the next time there is trouble the perpetrator can be blocked ASAP.

An alternative approach is to delete the page permanently, which would certainly be better than leaving things as they are. But I see this a kind of surrender, and we shouldn't give up without a fight.Kauffner 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. What would we be surrendering to, exactly? Orpheus 12:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Surrendering our editorial independence and ability to make judgments on our own criteria, in favor of giving people veto power over what we write about. *Dan T.* 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I judged the article on the criteria of notability (WP:N) and I don't think it passes. I don't see that deleting the article would be giving anyone veto power, unless it was done arbitrarily by someone with administrative powers (which, of course, would NEVER happen on Wikipedia). Orpheus 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly argue against the notability of someone who won an EFF Pioneer Award? Rcade 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that this was the focus of the last AFD, linked in the box above. We knew Seth wanted the article deleted. The question was whether he was notable enough that it should be kept anyway. The article is here now, go read the AFD for the bulk of the prior discussion. GRBerry 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Like this - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". -- Seth Finkelstein 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending keeping this article, but this article has been added to a fair few watchlists, so it can be monitored by others for quality (at least in the short term). — Matt Crypto 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1) That doesn't solve the general problem 2) I'm not re-assured, given how much vandalism is *still* happening with John Seigenthaler's article -- Seth Finkelstein 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You should try looking up "Seth Finkelstein" on Google. The number of hits is astronomical (474,000). Perhaps there is more than one Seth Finkelstein, but the bulk of the hits seem to relate to this person.Kauffner 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE Orpheus 14:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD - "Look, from being on the net for twenty years, I have a huge Google count. It doesn't mean anything, except that I've wasted entirely too much time in my life." -- Seth Finkelstein 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: the count is wildly wrong. If you actually click forward on the hits, there's only 400.WolfKeeper 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Objections

I read the above, read the Guardian article, and reviewed the history of the article. Near as I can tell the objectionable content is:

1. The potential of trolls
2. A claim about how Finkelstein debates issues
3. Negative comments concerning Finkelstein's relationship with Sims

The latter 2 are resolved and not currently in the article - so that leaves the only objection being future negative comments will get propogated and will create harm. Although the information you complained about "propogated throughout the internet, a google search reveals that the specific negative comment you objected to is is no longer on any other websites I could find

Wikipedia has been taking great pains to correct information and living people and this effort has wide support within the community and the Wikimedia Foundation (shown by their efforts to improve the software to make it easier to find and delete wrong information).

Are there any other objections? --Trödel 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The basic reasoning is this: It can harm me. It can't help me. Therefore, I want to opt-out. That is the very simple version.

I don't want to have to play Whack-a-mole with attackers. I see what continues to go on with Seigenthaler. I don't like the way the agument it's-fixed-now is used to deflect both past failings, and the subsequent well-founded fear of future failings.

Of course you have good intentions. But as I keep pointing out, when the practice doesn't live up to the theory, the costs are mainly externalized, to other people. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're sufficiently notable, the need for — and people's right to produce — an encyclopedia article overrides potential future harm to you. Sure, it's much easier to make a decision when somebody else has to bear the cost, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make that decision when necessary. Personally, I believe that when there's no consensus about notability, and the subject wishes it, we should err on the side of caution and remove their biography. — Matt Crypto 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The key words in that paragraph are "sufficently notable". See "Michael Jackson" thread above. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein: are you really trying to equate the situation of your article with that of Seigenthaler's? His article is the focal point of the most publicly known "scandal", aired in USA Today and mentioned in every last piece about Wikipedia's failings - of course it will have the heck vandalized out of it, or at least often be in flux. Heck, if you were really worried about vandalism, then the last thing you would want to do is draw attention in mass media to it, because as sure as the sun rises in the east, the majority of the people who hear about it are not the ones who will as a matter of course refrain from vandalizing it as they thoughtfully consider issues of notability, what makes a public figure public and how to improve the article. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that since Seigenthaler's biography continues to be vandalized, I believe the correct logical inference from that fact is that Wikipedia's troll-control is inadequate. That the people who argue that many editors watching a page will be sufficient, have the evidence against them. I do not believe that it is correct to give Wikipedia a pass due to the infame. Rather, I take the opposite view, that it's the most visible evidence of a persistent problem.

There's one issue of off-the-street puerile vandals, and another of a few attackers who have very deep grudges against me, and find Wikipedia functions as a great weapon of "asymmetric warfare". Now, it may be that I'm making a mistake in discussing this, that's certainly a debatable proposition. However, I think there's also an element of the rhetorical defense system at work, where the implication is that if I protest, it's now my fault for protesting, cheap irony, etc. -- Seth Finkelstein 02:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article could harm you or help you should be an irrelevant consideration. The only two questions that matter are "Are you notable?" and "Is it accurate?" Rcade 12:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there can be a fuzzy situation where there is no consensus to the "are you notable" question. In that case, we might wish to consider the issue of the impact on the person involved. — Matt Crypto 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Rogers, I disagree (for the reasons examined ad nauseum). And since that's the subject under discussion, a mere statement of where you come out can't be an argument for that position, that begs the question. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was removed, what's to stop someone from posting this information somewhere else on the Internet anonymously so it shows up in Google searches? I mean the complaint about Wikipedia can be said for the Internet in general. If you want to remove material you have to constantly be vigilant and work at it, Wikipedia or not. At least Wikipedia has some claim to NPOV and community support to maintain articles. In fact you can use Wikipedia to discredit and debunk misleading information elsewhere. -- Stbalbach 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Per the ground already covered in the AfD: "and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.". Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website? Wikipedia's poor troll control has a lot of bearing as to whether it should contain biographical articles on people who can be hurt by them." -- Seth Finkelstein 01:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have great sympathy for you. However, I disagree that the potential for harm is great, and I disagree that the article exists to "help" you. It exists to provide encyclopedic information to people who need it. Please trust that great efforts will be made to keep your article free of slander and any negative information that is not clearly verifiable, and any such information will presented neutrally. --Trödel 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Trödel, that's the "cost-shifting" argument. I have a web-site, the information is readily available. What you've described is the set-up where Wikipedia gets the benefit, but I get any harm that occurs. It's too easy to tell someone else to accept such a trade-off. The next step is virtually always to tell me the harm didn't happen, or it wasn't the only thing, or anyway, it's all my fault in the first place. Please understand, I don't mean the following in a nasty way, only in the most neutral and explanatory terms - but I have no reason to trust. -- Seth Finkelstein 02:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated - the only relevant information is whether the article contains accurate information that is verifiable. If there is accurate, reliable information that is noteworthy, then the potential harm is already there - not created by Wikipedia, but created by others. Reporting it here does not change that. You may argue that it is more widely distributed, but that doesn't change the potential for harm at all - it is already there - that is why Wikipedia requires verfiable information and no original research. Any inaccurate information will be removed --Trödel 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that we don't have the right to make a decision that could (potentially) harm you, even if we believe that an encyclopedia should have an article on you? I think we do have that right. — Matt Crypto 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Matt, are we going to go down the "legal right" path? You may have a legal right to lie (short of libel/defamation, etc), to be intellectually dishonest, to engage in yellow journalism, to break promises, and so on - all these things are legal to do. That's not an argument to do them. The overall point I keep making is that to tell someone that you're willing to fight to the last drop of their blood has no logical value. More deeply, I believe one should err on the side of the assessment of the person at risk. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seth, you understate the case. You have every reason not to trust, for there are undoubtedly those who dislike your work and would seek to libel you here and it is certain that such material would be available for a while after being added. Do you have any thoughts on what might be done for those of less than huge notability to decrease the risk for them, other than raising the inclusion bar so high that those like yourself who are prominent in a narrow field can't qualify? Jamesday 20:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

James, thanks, the only thing I can think of is to hold any changes for administrator approval. I know there's talk about "stable versions" and various forms of moderation. But these are unproven. And I suspect the way they raise barriers overall makes the powers-that-be hesitant about deploying them (which goes back to cost-shifting). -- Seth Finkelstein 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the delay methods based on time, viewer count or any other implicit acceptance approaches may prove effective. I also doubt whether mandatory approval processes will work well, because of those barrier issues and the workload of the "trusted" users who would have to approve. Highlighting articles known to be subject to troublesome vandalism but not to be well monitored might also be of use. The latter may have most promise for your situation, since it could result in the opportunity for articles about living individuals as a whole to receive greater monitoring. Jamesday 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Seth, ethically speaking, if you want it removed, next time it comes up for vote, I'll contribute my vote to remove it. Remind me when if you want as I'm removing it from my overloaded watchlist. I think the issue remains unresolved (and interesting) on other grounds: Legal, Mediawiki corporate policy, Mediawiki PR policy, Wikipedia rules and procedures. -- Stbalbach 04:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons he's notable

For convenience here's a list of reasons why Seth Finkelstein is notable. I've indicated with notable - reason any which I think would standing on their own be sufficient to qualify him for an entry. Jamesday 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Founded the Censorware Project notable - consequences of its exposure of censorship practices and coverage that resulted
• Received the EFF Pioneer Award notable - status of the organisation and award
• Made two DMCA exemption requests that were accepted - few have been, but not quite enough to qualify on its own, I think.
• Guardian editorial I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here which suggests that he's considered a significant and influential public figure by the Guardian, a major British national newspaper. Unfortunately for Seth, becoming more notable makes inclusion more appropriate and there's no real way to counter this effect.

Repeat - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". I think there's multiple senses of the word "notable" at issue. I may have some local notability to civil-libertarian geeks, but that shouldn't be taken to be the same as global notability (this difference was quite manifest the last time I was job-hunting, and the implications there are very important). -- Seth Finkelstein 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion has reached the point where it's just a rehash of the same points over and over, with everybody involved turning into broken records (to use an archaism in this age of CDs and MP3s). People around here are taking your viewpoint seriously, unlike that of Daniel Brandt, which is ironic given that, on this particular issue, you and he are pretty much of identical viewpoint. However, he's a "loony, annoying troll" and is banned, while you're somebody with a serious viewpoint that merits consideration (though not necessarily agreement). The difference, as somebody perceptively stated recently on the wikien-l mailing list, is that you "speak fluent geek". You're "one of us", to the geeky community of Wikipedians. We still may disagree with you on this one point, but we care what you have to say. Brandt, on the other hand, is on the other side of a cultural divide; he dislikes and distrusts the "geek community", and the feeling is reciprocated. Maybe it's a combination of a "generation gap" (Brandt was a '60s youthful activist, the sort who would say "Don't trust anybody over 30!", until that generation got well on the other side of 30 and switched to a more curmudgeonly "Don't trust anybody under 30... they're all a bunch of worthless losers with no ethics or social conscience.") as well as humanities vs. sciences (literary types vs. geeks/nerds). *Dan T.* 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rehashing, agreed. That "speak fluent geek" is a really interesting message, and I think he's right, fascinating (hmm ... "fascinating", I'm illustrating his point). But the further implications are pretty troubling, since it's not a good thing for your grievance to be taken seriously depending on whether or not you're a club-member. Of course it's common in practice. But it's very problematic. -- Seth Finkelstein 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking geek isn't really the significant bit, IMO. The significant bit is being sufficiently notable that the Guardian was willing to publish your arguments. Being a capable writer is secondary to the effect of publicity, the achievement of which relied upon your being notable. Whether your notability is in a narrow field or a broad one doesn't really matter so much because those who are notable in a narrow field should be included here. Jamesday 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking geek pertains to why I'm engaged as a critic instead of banned as troll. Brandt's been quoted in the media about Wikipedia, but the interaction between the Wikipedians and him has gone, err, very badly. -- Seth Finkelstein 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As is stated above, we care about what you think (and care about all those who are suprised that they have an article about them on Wikipedia). And since you "speak fluent geek" suggestions like the one you made above, i.e. to have some way for less prominent people to get their article flagged in some way similar to a "stable version" (with some kind of rational standard which, you imply, includes those who are concerned about their article being a magnet for trolls [and people with whom they have had conflicts]). I would suggest that you bring your concern to User:Eloquence who was recently elected to the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors, and is prominent on the German Wikipedia which is testing a "stable version" like feature. --Trödel 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly the first person who has suggested something like a "stable version". I don't have much to say, other than it seems like a good idea to me. In terms of advocating it, I'd also be wary of getting myself into a "tar baby" situation (I have achieved a high enough geek level that I have acquired the "detect work" skill, as in, "That's a great idea, we need programmers for it, why don't you help code it, for free?"). No offense intended, but I have a large number of reasons to avoid getting involved in Wikipedia internals, past the minimum necessitated by attempting to get out of it. -- Seth Finkelstein 08:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To avoid any rehashing, the argument to date goes like this:

A) Seth Finkelstein: "I'm hurt by this article, remove it."

B) Wikipedians: "What happens if you're sufficiently notable? We wouldn't delete, say, Michael Jackson on those grounds."

C) SF: "I'm not like Michael Jackson. I'm insufficiently notable."

D) Wikipedians: "Here's a list of reasons you could be considered notable: EFF award etc"

E) SF: "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life" (repeated lots)

F) Wikipedians: "OK, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't include you if you're notable."

G) SF: "It's easy for you to make the decision to include me because you don't have to pay the cost yourself; I do."

H) Wikipedians: "OK, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't include you if you're notable."

The thing is, whenever someone gives strong arguments in favour of notability (the EFF award etc), Seth falls back on repeating an argument (E or G) that sidesteps the issue him being notable. — Matt Crypto 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, I won't quibble with your summary, except at the end. I think it's more

I) SF: "That's begging the question, since it's the point of contention."

[And because it's the point of contention, we end up executing a loop back to A)]

I don't think I'm sidestepping, rather that's the topic under debate. Otherwise, you're assuming the conclusion.

The problem can be located between C) and D) in your summary, and laying it out does show the key element. Parts A), B), and C) are concerned with implications of a position. But parts D), E), F) tend to embed an assumption that Wikipedia's current discounting of such implications should be taken as a given, which is again exactly what's being argued against in parts A, B), C). That embedded assumption is particularly prominent in why E) tends to be repeated, since it bridges the disconnect between implication (harm) and assumption (i.e. trying to rule out of bounds all debate except whether some sort of checklist is met) -- Seth Finkelstein 10:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no reasonable grounds for debate. You are notable, The fuss you have made has resulted in you being on sufficient watchlists that false or private material will be removed as soon as it is noted. Sorry for the inconvenience. Fred Bauder 12:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - notability hasn't been established. Founding the Censorware Project is enough for a one-liner in that article. Receiving an EFF Pioneer Award should rate a mention in the article about the award, and a link to the EFF blurb ("received the award for..."). Neither of them is enough to warrant an encyclopaedia article. Orpheus 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How far would I get if I complained to the Guardian? Fred Bauder 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian writes articles on prize-winning cabbages, but we don't put those on Wikipedia. Not everything written in a major newspaper conveys notability. I've had a column published in a nationally circulated newspaper (it was an essay competition many years ago), and I don't think that gives me any notability whatsoever. Orpheus 17:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the completion of the above algorithm would be something like:

I) PAUSE random()

J) GOTO A

so that, after winding down for an indeterminate period of time, it starts over right where it began the first time, for another go-around. *Dan T.* 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As explored above, I think the reasons for the looping are much deeper. The fundamental driving issue under this discussion is that allowing any sort of opt-out is an unacceptable admission of failure, and so the potential for harm has to be denied. It's a distant relative to the theological issue of "If God loves everyone, why do bad things happen to good people?" -- Seth Finkelstein 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is not quite on the mark. I suspect most Wikipedians see the potential of harm to be much less than you do: at the level of inconvenience. This is part of the issue, but, more than that (and to put it bluntly), if you're notable, then Wikipedians ultimately care more about having a comprehensive encyclopedia than your inconvenience. So, yeah, "cost-shifting", as you put it, but to do so is not always unethical. There is benefit to other people if encyclopedia articles exist. — Matt Crypto 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"G) SF: "It's easy for you to make the decision to include me because you don't have to pay the cost yourself; I do."". I understand that *you* are willing to fight to the last drop of *my* blood. Do you understand why you could, just possibly, hypothetically, for the sake of discussion, be wrong in that decision? -- Seth Finkelstein 00:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made that decision, remember? But if I had, sure, I could be wrong. So what? The point is that it's not always unethical for Wikipedia to make a decision that could incur some sort of cost on a person. Do you understand why it could, just possibly, hypothetically, for the sake of discussion, be the right thing for Wikipedia to choose to contain knowledge at the expense of your potential inconvenience and against your wishes? — Matt Crypto 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"So what?" shows the problem. I think that's irreducible. Repeat: "Please, please, stop misstating my argument as whim or caprice. It's not just "because the subject wishes it". It's because IT CAN BE HARMFUL. REAL PEOPLE CAN GET HURT!". Past that I fear I'm going to violate WP:CIV -- Seth Finkelstein 01:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're shouting and dodging the question, which is probably a hint that this is moving beyond useful discourse. Repeat: "Do you understand why it could, just possibly, hypothetically, for the sake of discussion, be the right thing for Wikipedia to choose to contain knowledge at the expense of your potential inconvenience and against your wishes?" — Matt Crypto 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You've loaded the question. I made the point metaphorically, but I did not load the question so obnoxiously. An analogous reverse would be "Do you understand why it could, just possibly, hypothetically, for the sake of discussion, be the wrong thing for Wikipedia to have a half-assed indulgence of some weenie cult group fantasy at the expense of costing me employment or reputation?" [deliberately florid]. Don't shout or dodge the question now ... -- Seth Finkelstein 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But let's go back a bit. There comes a point where a living person's notability is such that we just have to have an article on them, regardless of the risk of trolls. Extreme examples include George Bush, Nelson Mandela and Michael Jackson. In these cases, we shift the cost, we put aside that those real people can get "hurt" (in whatever sense), we spend the last drop of their blood, and so on. Now, I don't believe that you are saying we should delete those articles, and so, accordingly, you must agree that there are some situations when Wikipedia is ethically (and not just legally) entitled to have articles on people even though there is the potential for nasty people to say nasty things, and that might hurt the person concerned in some way. So how notable do you have to be before Wikipedia can do this to you? Deciding on the level of notability is something that Wikipedians can try and do in good faith. We can get it wrong (which is why I said "yes" above), but that's not the point. The point is that if we genuinely think you are notable, then we are not acting unethically by writing an encyclopedia article about you. And that applies even if you you will be harmed by it (just as it applies for indisputably notable people, like GWB, NM and MJ). (Please note, also, that I have not made much comment on whether I personally think you're sufficiently notable, and regarding this page, my comments have been closer to "delete" than "keep"[1]. Quite why Brandt wasted his time hunting down my "hidden identity" is beyond me...) I just think the issue of notability is paramount, and that discussing "harm" is really a red herring because notability always takes precedence. — Matt Crypto 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I answer that above - "Simple - it ends at the point where the subject is so prominent and public that Wikipedia attacks are not significant. For example, and this is just one criterion, "multiple mass media articles appears about the subject regularly". To claim I'm in an identical category as Michael Jackson is absurd. Yet formally, that's the argument - that no principled distinction can be drawn between a guy who had a few column-inch profile a couple of years ago, and a huge celebrity. That the Wikipedia policy-setters don't want to do this is clear, because, as I point out, it would be admitting a fundamental failure in the driving ideology. But to claim it cannot be done is nonsense." -- Seth Finkelstein 02:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes IT CAN BE HARMFUL. REAL PEOPLE CAN GET HURT! An article on me would have that effect. So much so that I would not want to explain why. Certainly an accurate article about Bill Clinton greatly pains his family. Fred Bauder 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

I just searched the New York Times archives for "Seth Finkelstein". I found 3 articles which mention you. The fourth is a report of the winners of the 1981 Westinghouse Science Search. It contains, "Seth Finkelstein, 16, of the Bronx, Bronx High School of Science, eighth, $5,000". Was that you? Right age I think. Fred Bauder 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Collateral benefit

If there are reliable sources which set forth the purpose of your internet activism, that would be very welcome. Fred Bauder 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this. Do you mean like my Pioneer Award ? -- Seth Finkelstein 01:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like that, although I don't really understand what that was all about. Fred Bauder 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about you. I just wonder about the reasons for your activism. I just though it would be nice if the article contained the points you are trying to get across, the reasons you are active. Your vision, if you will. Fred Bauder 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I object, but I assume that would be removed as POV or un-encyclopedic. You might enjoy my essay Thoughts On Winning An EFF Pioneer Award -- Seth Finkelstein 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if it were 3rd party, but non-controversial statements by the subject of a biography can be used. Like you attended MIT. Fred Bauder 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Irony

Seth - I have avoided bringing this up, but do you see the irony of opposing censorware because it can harm communication. But on Wikipedia, arguing for censorship of your article because it may harm you, regardless of what it does to knowledge/communication. From what I can tell you see this as a cost-benefit analysis where you are asked to bear the costs, but in censorware, you see the benefit of freedom of information/communication as much greater than the cost to parents/school district of having a children exposed to pornography/nazi propoganda/cult websites and becoming addicted to that world, because they also supress feminist newsgroups, sex-education, gay liberation, free-speech websites (which the parent/school may see as desirable or an unfortunate but acceptable consequence).

The point in both cases, IMHO, is that censoring in both cases refuses to recognize the responsiblity of the people being exposed to the information. Those that read your bio and make judgements on it that harm you have shirked their responsibility to critically read the information. Parents/families that blame exposure for a child's addicition/brainwashing have shirked their responsibility to teach their children how to control themselves/critically analyse arguments and/or monitor more closely their children's activities and discuss with them unpleasant information that they are exposed to (or teach them how to avoid such information and why they should [my personal approach]).

The more I read about your professional accomplishments, the more convinced I am that, someone researching censorware, or even the general development of the internet, would want to have some background on your credentials/published information in understanding the issues. --Trödel 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no irony. I'm not suing Wikipedia, or trying to get it on a secret blacklist. What you're arguing is a common strawman version of free speech, where criticism or ethical considerations are conflated with authoritarian suppression. Note I've thought about these issues for many many years, and there are few arguments I haven't heard, repeatedly. Of course there's a whole long debate about censorware, where e.g. the government of China says the West is not taking into the account the damage done from counter-revolutionary disruption of social harmony. It's analytically unsolvable (after all, look at this debate, which is small as clash of cultures go).

Background on my credentials/published information in understanding the issues is on my website, with very extensive coverage. It's not obscure or difficult to find. There's very little value, in my view, to having a Wikipedia page on me personally, given that I have a website. The unique thing done by such a page, that's not duplicated anywhere else, is to say to every troll, vandal, and score-settler, "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear, and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia." I think that's an overall negative for communications. -- Seth Finkelstein 02:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Only your claim that Wikipedia says, "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel defamation, or smear..." is also a strawman, as you've seen that isn't totally accurate, demamation is not tolerated, trolls are banned, Wikipedians are accountable for their edits. Additionally, those that care about Wikipedia becoming what it has the potential to become will make sure that any nugget of truth in that claim is attacked and driven from our midst. And pointing people to your website is one of the thing that this article will do - but there is no reason not to have a well-researched encyclopedic summary to give an overview and help the reader know whether he wants to dig through the details. --Trödel 02:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It didn't work. The initial vandalism of my article persisted for a long time and was scraped extensively. Given it happened, I wish there was more validity given to my distrust that it might happen again. Despite the good intentions, Seigenthaler's article is repeatedly trolled, with success for hours and even more than a day. Repeat - as I keep pointing out, when the practice doesn't live up to the theory, the costs are mainly externalized, to other people. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I already posted this on your talk page, but I'll post here too: the community is currently testing functionality which would reduce the necessity to police your own article. I think that trolling and defamation on biography articles is something that is taken seriously, and even though you are correct that there has been a problem with articles like Seigenthaler's in the past that does not mean that we're not adapting and creating a more effective process to deal with this. jaco♫plane 03:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your concerns are very valid - as do most of the comments I have seen. Because they are valid, Wikipedia is taking steps to address them. Unfortunately, the step you wish Wikipedia would take, remove the article, is not one that is agreed to by the editors here (note that while leaning towards a keep personally, I am still undecided and did not participate in the prior deletion discussion). I don't really know what else can be said to help alleviate your fears, so I will just watch the article. --Trödel 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I too understand your concerns, and certainly agree that it can be quite harmful to anyone if they are mis-represented or negatively represented in an article here. And, as has been stated far above here, it is true that even a factually accurate and neutral statement can have negative effects. Certainly, the current pope probably had a legitimate complaint when the photo of the Star Wars Emperor Palpatine was put in his article. However, I wonder whether your complaint is really about wikipedia per se or the current computer generation and all of its complications in general. Certainly, there was a well publicized story that Barry Gibb, at the height of his popularity, was forced to rent out an entire restaurant so that he and his family could eat uninterrupted by autograph hounds. I really think that a large part of the problem here is not necessarily wikipedia itself (although allowing anyone to edit anything at any time has shown at times to be problematic) but rather the rapid and easy access to information in general. In this regard, at least, wikipedia is only a part of a much larger base of information that anyone can access. Also, as has been somewhat indicated above, many people who come to wikipedia are not well enough versed with it to be know that vandalism happens regularly, and that the best way to acquire relevant information is to check back in the history of the article to see if the current "draft" is a vandalized one. However, this can also be a good thing. There was a well-publicized case of a woman who arranged for the arrest of a man she had scheduled a date with after learning, after setting the date, from the internet that he was wanted for federal charges of fraud and/or embezzling in another state. I think Trödel above probably has the best idea. If anyone, and I mean anyone, sees inclusion of information about them in an article here as being truly or potentially problematic, then they have as much reason to keep up on it as they do to keep up on their current credit status, and maybe more so. And the same rule would apply to other web sites, message boards, or any other web site which might mention them. However, as has been said above, wikipedia did not create this problem, it extends well beyond wikipedia to the entire net itself, and to try to demand of one site among many (even if it is one of the best) to be able to conquer problems that a much larger group of sites face and have yet to completely successfully deal with is absurd on the face of it. Basically, and I regret this, wikipedia, and all other internet information sites, are basically just another complication of the marginally notable in the modern world. I, too, will help in watching this page for you, as such regular attention to a page is, so far as I can tell, the only way to ensure that factually accurate and neutral information, whether positive or negative, is all that is shown here. Oh, and one other point. Considering that your speciality is in fact computers, and that a lot of "cybergeeks" are believed to be highly involved in wikipedia, I think that it would be possible for you to say that not having an article here, for someone in your position, could be just as damaging as having one. Not being included might cause some people to question whether any of the credentials or history you might give them of yourself is accurate if a person of your level of notability were not included here. You can I think see why wikipedia is itself in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation here regarding your situation. As stated above, the only reasonable way I can think of to deal with the situation is to acknowledge the potential downside, prepare for forseeable negative developments, and do what you can to prevent them. In short, the same rules apply here as in any other aspect of modern life. Bluntly, the only way to completely avoid them is to become a hermit or die, neither of which most people see as good alternatives. As stated above, I too will help as I can to ensure that no false data appears here which could do you damage. Like in the Bill Clinton example mentioned far above, however, any verifiable unfortunate activities of your own, and their possible inclusion here, is ultimately however your own responsibility, no one else's. Good luck. Badbilltucker 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion?

Can we archive this particular thread? Two signatures under the proposal to do so? Third signer -- archive? It's an unintentional eyesore. IMO. Might do better store any "beans" in the pantry. --QTJ 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's better to archive the page, rather than particular threads, to preserve chronology. There are no live conversations happening (other than this), so I don't see why you shouldn't archive the page. — Matt Crypto 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Rather than clutter up this page further, I've put a short (informal) essay on some aspects of the notion of such biographies here. -- QTJ 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I feel for the subject of any biography that ends up here. It's a simple matter for any article author to invite anyone to write a biography of anyone else... one simply has to include the potential subject's name in an article with double square brackets and a nice red invitation pops out at the reader. ("Write me! Write me! C'mon -- at least gimme a stub so the whole process can start rolling.") In this case, it's quite clear that he doesn't wish to be included, but only if one visits the discussion page. Perhaps if a "Biography of a Living Person" tag has a remove=yes flag, the main article itself should display a notice (and be exported to other users of these articles) such as "The subject of this biography has expressed that he or she does not wish to be included in Wikipedia." so that the general reader (who may not know what the discussion page is) is immediately alerted that he is reading an unwanted biography. Perhaps this topic has already been discussed somewhere else, I don't know. This is not just a matter of someone refuting the information presented -- this is a case of someone contesting the very right of existence of the article. (As for becoming more notable for contesting one's own notability -- ugh -- you can't win, you can't lose, you can't even play the game....)

-- QTJ 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PS -- Another possible suggestion: allowing people to register their names in advance of controversy starting such that anyone trying to create an article on them will be alerted to that person's desire to a right to privacy. This might prevent the circular "notable for claiming he/she is not notable" situation mentioned). Now, of course, that pre-registered desire would not have to be honored (such is Wikipedia), but it would at least alert well-intentioned biographers in advance that they're about to step on someone's personal wishes for their own life. -- QTJ 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. You would probably want to contact either Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia:Living People Patrol about the idea, they're probably the ones who would be best able to know whether what you're proposing is realistically possible or not. Badbilltucker 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave the idea some more thought, and then realized that putting up "The subject of this bio does not ..." on the front page would likely backfire by attracting those who might see this as an invitation to cause more disruption. ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions.") I remember asking my mother back when I was a kid, "Why is that woman always on TV?" Her reply was, "Oh, she's famous for being famous."

While one might wrap it all up into a nice little package, let's all of us remember that Seth is not a test-case. He's not an example of irony. He's not a social experiment. He's not a precedent setting example of what the admins and editors and biography vandal patrols here at Wikipedia can make the place with spontaneous assumed good-will and good-faith. He's a human being who was profiled, who asked to be removed on the grounds that the profile was an attractive nuisance, and whose wishes for his own privacy were categorically ignored in an all-too-public debate. A human being who was forced, without his having solicited, to assert his lack of notability. This goes against the Avoid harm to others (in their use of computing technology) clause of the ACM code of ethics, and anyone who is a computing professional who has agreed to uphold that code has a bit of mud on his or her shoes, IMO.

It is unfair to ask another human being to stand counterintuitively on the roof-top and declare he or she is not notable. It smacks of being an unnecessary call to self-deprecation. No man or woman should be asked to speak up against his or her own best light. ("Be ye humble or stay ye here.") What social disease has created a world where this appears to have become the case? It's sad. That's all it is. Damned sad. Anyhow, I shan't evangelize further. -- QTJ 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Nobody's "demanding" or "forcing" Seth Finkelstein to do anything. Like everyone else in the world, if he wants to, he can put forward arguments about whether any encyclopedia article should be included in Wikipedia. However, the fact that he happens to be the subject of this article does not mean that his arguments should be given any undue weight. — Matt Crypto 17:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seth was a single human being who indicated an interest in not being profiled in a major worldwide institution with contributions from thousands, perhaps millions (worldwide), of editors. Personally, I think it would be a "damned shame" if we allowed any one person to try to dictate policy for this large, voluntary, organization, and that some people cannot see the logic of that. Badbilltucker 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept that a single human being can override the indifference, or even active willingness to exploit, of thousands, perhaps millions of others, is called minority rights. The manifest fact that so many Wikipedia contributors oppose this concept so strongly, and repeatedly, avowedly, express a willingness to dismiss harms to individuals on the basis that the institution may benefit, is exactly what I find extremely worrisome about the operating basis of Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the concept that a single human being should be able deny access to knowledge to millions of others is indeed a worrying one, and one that I personally am willing to oppose strongly. I thought you were anti-censorship? Baffling. — Matt Crypto 09:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been REPEATEDLY addressed. It has been brought up and ANSWERED. No "knowledge" is being denied. Rather, a trivial redundant copying is simply not worth the harm of providing an attack-platform for every grudge-holder on the planet -- Seth Finkelstein 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Repetition of an answer does not make that answer any more correct, nor is your position somehow strengthened by shouting it. To follow through with the logic, we should also get rid of any other part of Wikipedia that a grudge-holder can use as an attack platform. So every editable page should be removed, or we otherwise disable the open editing model globally. And while we're at it, we should probably do away with Usenet, and IRC, and, well, any web pages not controlled by Seth Finkelstein. And maybe books, too. After all, someone may write something untrue that Seth's potential employer could read, and that would cause real HARM! — Matt Crypto 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this isn't even worth another go-around. I'll just point it out as another example as to why it would not be to my benefit to play the mug's game of trying to convince you. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem tu quoque. If person X is known to be Y, and article removal of article Z is anti-Y, person X may still argue for the removal of article Z. Once an appeal for formal logical debate is made, one cannot appeal to the other's presumed position in the debate. Moreover, even in a less formal debate, what a person is for or against in a general way does not speak to what that person is for or against in a specific case. (And moreover, suggesting that removal of a biography of a particular living person (on the basis of his or her own desire to not be listed) will lead to a flood of requests is a form of argumentum ad consequentiam.) Unfortunately, my justification for pointing out the tu quoeue is that in a subthread below, you appealed to a logical fallacy, which in turn makes my pointing out the tu quoque itself a tu quoque, and as we know, and two wrongs make a right is itself ... a specific form of ... egads ... a tu quoque. That said ... do appeals to formal logical fallacies make a discussion more neutral, or just make it more complicated? I could say so one way or the other, but that would be quickly fall victim to being an argument from personal incredulity. -- QTJ 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on the argument rather than the humans behind the argument is helpful for discussion, whether or not one uses poncy latin terms. ;-) — Matt Crypto 19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm all for de-personalization, which is why I've attempted to de-personalize the notions embodied in this (and a few other) cases on my talk page. De-personalization to the point of resorting solely to logical formality, however (even without the Latin), is fairly difficult to achieve, because to some large extent the issues at heart are inherently socio-logico-personal. (Please don't ever claim I used that word in public!) Since the human brain is a Turing machine, I could formally prove that any such logification of the argument must lead to a fallacy of the computational kind. But people are, at least by convention, assumed to not be merely math constructs to be subjected to pure logic. Harm or distress cannot always be expressed in quantifiable ways that correlate to a globally mutually grokkable context. The subject (receiver) of the distress certainly is qualified to speak out about his or her distress with an assumption that this distress is personal and not relative ratiotically to some amorphous global benefit. (That's a fancy way of saying: "We're not the one in the subject's shoes to say it doesn't cause real and considerable tangible distress.") Anyway, I'm tapping out an article on memoization and hope to avoid further comment. Don't call me on that if I return for the purpose of clarification. ;-) -- QTJ 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see: ACM Code of Ethics - GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES, with particular attention to sections 1.1 ("Contribute to society and human well-being" which reads in part: "An essential aim of computing professionals is to minimize negative consequences of computing systems....") and 1.2 ("Avoid harm to others" which reads in part: "This principle prohibits use of computing technology in ways that result in harm to any of the following: users, the general public, employees, employers.") and 2.7 (which reads: "Computing professionals have a responsibility to share technical knowledge with the public by encouraging understanding of computing, including the impacts of computer systems and their limitations. This imperative implies an obligation to counter any false views related to computing.") That CoE was create for reasons that go beyond Wikipedia, and computing professionals do not put aside the code simply to allow for the satisfaction of the curiosity of the masses at the expense of another's well-being. That said, my talk page is probably the best place to raise any issues of contention about this view of such things, since this is most likely not the place. Cordially. -- QTJ 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also be advised that this is perhaps the single organization on the planet which does not allow anyone to dictate its content as per here, and that professional standards of one set of editors, however well intentioned, do not apply to all the others. To permit any small group of people to dictate policy, based on their own as of yet unsubstantiated fears, to one of the few organizations which is dedicated to the free and unfettered exchange of information worldwide, would be to in effect kill it. And if this isn't the best place to conduct this conversation, then I suggest you no longer continue it here. I note by the way that you have not yet even followed up on the suggestions given earlier to implement your proposals, for reasons I cannot fully understand. Badbilltucker 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I struck my first proposal after some thought. And since I respect the fact that not everyone is bound by the same codes and imperatives (what a boring world that would result in!), I put up a section here on my talk page, for more general discussion of the concept, since it's a larger concept than just this one page. Cheers. -- QTJ 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In a lot of areas, ethics is not black and white, but it involves a balance. This is one of them. I mentioned above the extreme case of people like Michael Jackson. I did so solely to illustrate that sometimes it really is the case that "the curiosity of the masses take precedence over the expense of another's well being". Or, to put it from the other perspective, "the right of people to access knowledge outweighs another person's minor inconvenience". Wikipedia's mission, to which it is quite entitled, is to document all significant human knowledge in encyclopedia form. It's the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether that includes Seth Finkelstein or not. It's not black and white. By all means, disagree with the decision, and feel free to present arguments that we've made the wrong one, but the suggestion that we're being unethical by making that decision is quite false. — Matt Crypto 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A problem is that the "Wikipedia editors" are very loathe to take into consideration failings of the editorial process, since that would be an admission of failure of the ideology. Thus it becomes a decision about whether to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood, which is much too easy to make to someone else's detriment. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Last drop of your blood" is melodramatic. Let's get real for a moment. You are not harmed by this article in any real way; at worst, you're inconvenienced. — Matt Crypto 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an expression. But, indeed, let's get real - THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY WHICH WILL CONVINCE YOU. ZERO. NIL. NADA. *IT* *WON'T* *HAPPEN*. You will always, always, dismiss, belittle, trivialize, my concerns ("at worst, you're inconvenienced"). THAT'S MY POINT!!! (think about it). -- Seth Finkelstein 10:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? — Matt Crypto 11:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The point embodied in the phrase "fight to the last drop of someone's else blood", a phrase not original with me, is that it is simply too easy to decide another person must suffer for The Cause. That phenomena is manifest in the problem that if you believed the article could harm me, you would have a hard time justifying it, so inversely, justifying it leads to having to marginalize my concerns as to its potential for harm. Which then sets up a dynamic of denial. So there's a *meta-problem*, being demonstrated, where the process is not something which can be evidence-based (in terms of what can realistically be provided). Rather, it's an ideological necessity - you have to believe I'm wrong, so nothing I say will ever convince you I'm right. I have been through this process for far higher stakes, so I know how bad it can be. My joke is that if I produced a signed legal affidavit from a potential employer that I lost out on a job because the hiring person believed a lie about me, I would be told that I wouldn't want to work for such people anyway. -- Seth Finkelstein 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem circumstantial. So there's no chance that I could believe you're wrong...because (drumroll) you're actually wrong, then? Nice try at pop psychology, but, believe it or not, "Seth Finkelstein is wrong on this one" is a theorem, not an axiom, in my reasoning system. If you want to persuade me, or anyone else, about the truth of your viewpoint, it's best to demonstrate why opposing arguments are fallacious, and avoid speculating about why opponents would argue a certain way. — Matt Crypto 18:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw man - and see also Inductive reasoning, note "Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid". The problem is that whether I am in fact wrong or not is decoupled from your reasons for believing whether I am wrong or not, and strongly connected to a notional advantage to you. That you phrase the objection as a strawman, instead of dealing with the issue, is I believe a further demonstration that such analysis is correct. I keep making this point - there exists no reasonable evidence which I could provide that you would accept. It is a mug's game to attempt to persuade you, because I will only set up myself up for endless lecturing, hectoring, sermonizing, perhaps even personal attack, as every piece of evidence I present will be derided as woefully insufficient. I do not have to endure that, and part of real-world effectiveness is recognizing when one is going to get sucked into a no-win situation (and I should probably take my advice on the meta-level of this thread ...) -- Seth Finkelstein 20:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Seth, if you could produce that document, we know that you would have a strong basis for legal action, which is why I and others continually monitor this page. Your joke is a truly bad joke, because I at least believe that, if that situation were to arise, you would file a suit as soon as you could lay your hands on an attorney to do so. Kindly avoid these exercises in fallacious logic, as they do not in any way, shape, or form strengthen your case. Badbilltucker 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to violate WP:CIVIL, but as a pure statement of fact: You apparently have no concept of what a successful lawsuit entails, and how much it can cost. -- Seth Finkelstein 20:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The "non-convinceability" seems to be a mutual situation; it doesn't appear that either side in this dispute is likely to change their opinion no matter what is said. *Dan T.* 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, like Creationism vs. Evolution, that characterization may be technically true, but it shouldn't imply a moral equivalence of the sides. If I'm wrong, I am not trying to shift costs onto Wikipedia, while if I'm right, Wikipedia is trying to shift costs onto me. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are also attempting to "shift costs": you apparently take no account of the cost to readers who are denied a comprehensive encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The prhase was moral equivalence. Every proposition X can be phrased as "not-(not-X)", but that does not make everything morally equivalent to its reverse. That is, it is a trivial critique of a law against murder to say that it takes away the freedom of a murderer. What about the costs to the trolls, who are denied the pleasure they derive from an attack-platform? -- Seth Finkelstein 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: you apparently take no account of the cost to readers who are denied a comprehensive encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeat (per schema above) - "G) SF: "It's easy for you to make the decision to include me because you don't have to pay the cost yourself; I do." -- Seth Finkelstein 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, this is unfruitful, so this is my last post on the matter; feel free to have the last word if you wish. As Wikipedians, we have to consider the cost to readers of not having an article that they would wish to read, as well as the cost to biography subjects like yourself. People gain from having access to knowledge, and a Wikipedia article is a neutral resource written in a succinct encyclopedic format; they can get that nowhere else, as far as I know. Whose "last drop of blood" should I fight to; yours, or theirs? I am quite willing to consider how much bother this article could cause you, as well as how much real world harm it could potentially bring you. But my honest conclusion it is not a weighty-enough bother nor serious enough a risk of harm to override the benefit of knowledge to others. I've not applied some convenient retroactive reasoning to fit a conclusion that's necessary for my ideology. That's just what I think. (My initial instinct was "delete" when I first heard about this page, as it happens; I changed my mind later). It might be different in others' cases...but not for yours. That's my vote. Sorry. You clearly do some good stuff in the world, and I'm just sad you think we're being unethical. — Matt Crypto 23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll take it. Your statement is unfortunately partially fallacious. A Wikipedia article is also an attractive nuisance - It says to every troll, vandal, and score-settler, "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear, and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.". Now, this is simply a fact, and seen repeatedly in action. It's a common mistake to confuse an ought with an is. It's not disputed that the stance of Wikipedia is that it will favor even marginal benefits to itself over painful harm caused to people subjected to this, which is the cost-shifting argument. The argument on my part is that this is wrong in a moral sense, and that it feeds off a system that encourages discounting these negative effects since they are not experienced by the people inflicting them on others. -- Seth Finkelstein 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibid. He said it well enough -- this just to say ibid. -- QTJ 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I did not in any way wish to suggest anyone was being unethical (even though my above "in the heat of the moment" comment certainly could be interpreted that way, for which I apologize -- refactor --00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)). That would be presumputuous of me. I was simply providing context for my particular stance on the issue. Cheers. -- QTJ 18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)