Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Op-ed



← Back to Op-ed

Discuss this story

  • Now that is an exciting story. Cullen328 had dropped a hint privately about this, and I'm glad I got to read the whole account. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very thoughtfully written. I see no reason that a convict, per se, cannot edit Wikipedia. In the good ol' US convicts do all sorts of (very poorly) paid jobs, why should they not do unpaid work, provided that they observe WP policies?
As to responding to correction requests from inmates, it would be foolish to leave something incorrect in an article, regardless of the person who pointed it out.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I enjoyed reading. Thanks for sharing.--v/r - TP 03:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TL;DR abstract/summary needed. Signpost should use some editorial judgement when including posts published outside. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So short answer is "Yes, prison inmates should be permitted to edit Wikipedia" and I would agree. There is not only the question of murderers and their edits, but the whole question of what rehabilitation really means and whether we actually want these people to be productive members of society when they are released. There is a large number of people incarcerated in prisons today that are not a threat to society but are there because of poor legislation enforcement and the problem of "prisons for profit" that regards incarcerated people as a product. Though I disagree that context of edits is irrelevant, I also disagree that COI editors are deranged. Jane (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Swiss approach makes sense, as the prisoner is the same person who will be released. You might as well accept their contributions now; this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. That said, vandalism and abuse can happen anywhere, and it seems like the abuses in prisons could be extreme - prisoners might for example more easily be bribed or intimidated into adding links to malware sites and scams - so the administration of such edits has to be careful. Wnt (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need not be concerned about malware and so forth, because in US prisons for example (and many others abroad), prisoners do not have internet access due to terrorism prevention rules and other reasons (thus the handwritten notes). Jane (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is actually possible to post and tweet via e-mail and SMS. The services generate a unique link for you for the purpose. If you're deep enough in your settings (like me, I like finding things for no purpose), there are options. The article is pretty nice but I just thought I should say this. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prison inmates should be free to submit edit requests - that are dealt with under scrutiny. The level of transparency and accountability you demonstrate here is exemplary - and much higher than for most controversial additions to contentious political topics.
Look up Stormfront or Daesh on the administrator's noticeboards.
Dylann Roof, a recent pro-"race war" murderer, vaguely endorses the addition of white supremacist perspectives to Wikipedia articles in his manifesto. If white supremacist editors succeed in subtly modifying Wikipedia articles on race controversies, it won't be by publicly declaring their backgrounds on ORTS.
ISIL puts out propaganda in 20+ languages - they have an estimated 30,000 twitter sympathisers. How many of English wikipedia's smaller sister projects are 100% effective at removing all politically motivated contributions from terror groups? I wouldn't worry too much about the has-beens in the Manson family. -- Callinus (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC, the aim of Wikipedia is to produce a good encyclopedia. "False stuff" is not a hallmark of a good encyclopedia, ergo improving article factual content. A good case for iterating my general doubt about inclusions of opinions without making absolutely certain that no reader will or can mistake opinions for facts. I believe this covers any cavils made above. And, yes, political types tend to love "guilt by association" fluff in articles, and I find any such arguments, in my own personal opinion, to be execrable at best, and destructive of the entire project in too many cases. Collect (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason I would not let an inmate edit Wikipedia -- either directly or indirectly -- is that the incarcerating country has restricted that inmate from doing so. In US terms, there is a court order prohibiting him or her from editing Wikipedia. Yes, that means prisoners of conscience in totalitarian states can't edit Wikipedia, but in those cases said prisoners rarely have Internet access & are more concerned about basic needs like adequate food, shelter & medical attention than editing Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So had we found edits by Nelson Mandela, correcting details of the evolution of Bulbasaur, you would have recommended reverting and blocking his account? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
      • Had edits appeared with Nelson Mandela's name on them while he was incarcerated, would you be confident that they we'ren't the work of an imposter? By other existing rules they would have been reverted for assuming a false identity. (And my role in the resulting fracas would be to stand back & watch the wikidrama over the matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually the corrections agency in the U.S. will prohibit inmates from using the internet for unapproved reasons. For example the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (the agency for inmates sentenced as juveniles) states in its handbook that "You won’t get to use the internet except sometimes for school projects. You will never be allowed to get on sites like Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter while you are at TJJD. You will also not have email or instant messaging." on page 13 WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that prisoners are seldom allowed objects that can easily be thrown and hurt someone. Also no phones. Some may use the prison's computer room, if any, under strict supervision and narrow restrictions. Most are allowed pens and paper, and mail privileges for a volume that can easily be censored. These circumstances are not imposed to protect Wikipedia from subtle subversion by sly political prisoners, but together with our usual procedures they seem adequate to that purpose. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very well written submission that is also well reasoned. Everyone, including prisoners, should have freedom of expression — it is a basic human right, regardless of the charges for which the individual in question has been convicted. Facilitating such communication should in no way be viewed as bringing aid and comfort to these judged guilty of committing reprehensible crimes, but as a service to the public at large in expanding our field of knowledge and understanding. Common sense should, of course, be applied to any communication by prisoners, with its content screened for inappropriate details such as threats, libel, abusive language and anything else which might represent danger or be reasonably seen as causing specific or direct distress to victims of crimes. However, in the case at hand, with Watson already aware of the content of his Wikipedia entry and desiring to clarify certain "facts" which may, or may not, have originated from dubious sources, it would seem that the public can only be served by having access to information from all sides. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a good item to publish as it discusses an interesting situation. It think this article could have benefited from some additional copy-editing, though. The beginning sections were tedious to read and generally text improves as it is made more pithy. Still, this is an important discussion and I was previously unaware the OTRS folks were taking these sorts of requests. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Arjunaraoc's first sentence. Having skimmed the article, I see no reason to object, as long as you're able to verify that the contacting person really is the prisoner whom he says he is. I'm surprised that Internet access is available to any incarcerated individuals, so (if applicable) be careful to verify that it's not an impostor, but as long as the individual is permitted access by the penal system, there's no reason for us to treat him differently from other people. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO this item could have, and should have, been edited much more substantially. It read as a defence to some un-named charge. Maybe to people who already had some context it was fine in its current form, but I just found it far too verbose and too slow. "Get to the point, man!" :) Stevage 06:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this last accusation I must agree. As it happens, last week I sat down with my friend Lane to discuss other Wikipedia matters, unaware that his contribution to Signpost had been issued a few hours earlier. Surely, had he started with the intention that this piece be so widely read, he would have polished it to his usual briefer, less meandering standard. With his purpose, argument, and action, I entirely agree. Oddly, one correspondent stated that "It is actually possible to post and tweet via e-mail and SMS." This is surely true and would be relevant to someone having access to those or similar facilities. Most prisoners are not held incommunicado, but their opportunities to use the advances in communication technology of the past hundred years seldom go much beyond the ball point pen, which presumably was the instrument by which the edit was suggested. Another correspondent recommended caution in identifying correctly the requester, as though that question might be as important as proper reference to a published reliable source. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS editors who become aware that inmates of a particular prison are categorically prohibited by prison rules or state/national law from editing Wikipedia may have a legal obligation to immediately cease assisting inmates in that prison or state/country. In some cases, they may have an affirmative obligation to check first. When in doubt, OTRS editors should consider seeking professional legal advice. Will the WMF legal team be able to assist OTRS editors in such cases? The OTRS team should probably ask them now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the usual prison strictures, a need for assistance in censorship from our end would be surprising. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]