Group 1 Dispute Results

Group 1 Contact Info

• Chris Johnson (cjohnson@law.harvard.edu)
• Tyler Tassin (ttassin@law.harvard.edu)
• Jason Liss (jliss@law.harvard.edu)
• Ed Roggenkamp (eroggenkamp@jd09.law.harvard.edu)

Potential Wikipedia disputes that we can address

• There's a Request for Comment as to whether or not it is appropriate for waterboarding to be referred to definitively as torture. I have no particular affection for the topic, but it's more substantive than many. On the other hand, it's also quite far along, so we would really be late to the game. There's also one about the meaning of "compete" that I find entertaining. In general, the 3R and RFC pages appear to me to be the best candidates for our participation. Jhliss 06:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

• • I agree, and like the idea of participating on the RFC page.

Proposed Meeting

Should we try to meet face-to-face? Either just before or just after class on Monday? Cjohnson 21:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I vote after. In the meantime if people have areas they are passionate about maybe they can try to find a dispute on a subject matter they like. User: ttassin

I vote before. Jhliss 06:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Unless everyone has visited the wiki to find out about a meeting, it might have to be after. We can keep it short and just agree to do all of our collaboration here? Cjohnson 08:23, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Alright, so let's just meet right after class. Mshacham 15:51, 7 January 2008 (EST)

The Topic

[The WSJ RFC]

Should we try to get a general consensus on how we feel about this RFC, once we're all up to speed?

• I think the quote needs to be shortened Cjohnson 21:25, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Proposed Approach

There are a few areas that I think are worth addressing. I've tried to lay out a framework that acknowledges the merits on both sides of the argument, and will allow us to balance them and make a recommendation. Please add/subtract/modify at will.

1) What value does the lengthy quote add? What are the key elements of the message it conveys?

• I may just be showing my political colors on this, but doesn't this just seem like the wrong place to have this sort of information? I think a sensible (though not necessarily middle-ground) solution would be to drastically shorten this section and instead have the user who wants this information out there post it on the Rupert Murdoch page. It seems more in line with wikipedia's mission to make a reference to the takeover and the players and then allow people to search other resources if they are interested in Rupert Murdoch and any history of broken promises he may have. Anyway, just my two cents. Ttassin 23:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)
  • I suspect my political colors are quite different, but my initial response was that although the long excerpt doesn't show a particular point of view exactly it seems a strange inclusion on the WSJ page from a Wikipedia-as-encyclopedia perspective. I would be inclined to reference this topic with a link to an appropriate part of the Rupert Murdoch or News Corp. page. Jhliss 10:26, 8 January 2008 (EST)

2) Are such long quotes consistent with Wikipedia policies and common practices?

3) Are there external legal issues (e.g., copyright) that need to be considered?

4) Other Concerns

• I am a fan of the WSJ and its editorial integrity. However, the encyclopedia discussion at issue centers on Murdoch's intent / trustworthiness in purchasing the WSJ - is the WSJ itself a good source to be citing? Let alone citing at such length. An outsider unfamiliar with the WSJ might question its ability to express a neutral point of view ("NPOV") on the matter. Cjohnson 21:27, 7 January 2008 (EST)
• I am not a fan of the WSJ, especially its editorial board, and see using quotes from the newspaper as being very problematic. But, there is not one single newspaper that is viewed with uniform deference and, therefore, quoting articles at such length will always draw the ire of some. Brando starkey
  • Isn't a quote from the WSJ particularly problematic here, though? Shouldn't there be plenty of alternative sources for views on Murdoch's controversial history? Jhliss 10:26, 8 January 2008 (EST)

5) Suggested paraphrase (which should tie back to #1 above and, ideally, fully appease Nbauman)

"However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past. One large shareholder commented that Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Former Times journalist Fred Emery also described Murdoch's allegedly dismissive view of editorial independence. Claimed Emery, when Murdoch was reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire Sunday Times editors without independent directors' approval, Murdoch responded: "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?""

• The above paraphrase was suggested last night. I am happy to endorse it because:
  • (1) It captures important elements of the original quote: That Murdoch has allegedly broken promises (with the egregious quote to back this up), and that he uses media to express his personal biases.
  • (2) Even if the long quote would likely be protected as "fair use" and therefore not constitute copyright infringement, there is no need to test this theory.
  • (3) Shortening the quote has several advantages
    • (a) As with any news source, not everyone will agree that the WSJ represents a NPOV. It is probably best not to rely so heavily on a single source.
    • (b) This is especially true here. Using the WSJ to make a point on the WSJ Article, about the WSJ takeover, seems suspect. The WSJ is an interested party and its neutrality is questionable at best
    • (c) As Nevin noted, the point being made is speculative rather than factual (Will Murdoch's purchase lead to bias?) - an encyclopedia should not spend so much time dwelling on issues of this nature. Cjohnson 09:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)

• One minor concern - the original WSJ quote indicates that Emery is "a former Times assistant editor." Should we be switching the language here, to call him a "Former Times journalist" ? I would change the suggested paraphrase to be consistent with the WSJ piece.