Talk:Katelyn Faber/Archive 1

message: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CURRENT VOTE IS TAKING PLACE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE, NOT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE
An article needs to be written about Kobe Bryant's accuser including her full name and this article needs to be redirected to that one or deleted. Why is it so wrong to cover her name? Doesn't wikipedia strive for accuracy? --Flockmeal 01:08, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
:This right now is a big debate around here.  On Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion we came to this as a compromise.  I'll admit that not everyone was aware of that debate.  However I think that we can have a debate here, it'll be a nice central place for everyone to make their views known.  I'm about to link to here from vfd and the pump, so that everyone can participate.  moink 01:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: #Flockmeal 02:01, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
#silsor 22:59, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
#Steven jones 04:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Publish her name

message: # moink 01:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not publish her name

message: : anthony
# —Eloquence agree with Anthony below - if it becomes accepted to use the name by mainstream sources, we should not deliberately hide it
# Pfortuny we should take into account that not including it may just be a matter of POV! I guess there are plenty of countries where this is not an issue? On the other hand, be it legal or illegal, I would prefer its not being included, but I am voting here to raise the point. (sounds like this has already been discussed)
# — Jor (Talk) 21:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Undecided

message: I was suprised in looking over the list of locked pages to find that the Kobe Bryant one was. Finding that this subject was the bone of contention was shocking. Moink makes excellent points about why he, or I, or others might not want to disclose Bryant's accuser's name. However, I think he misses the point. In stating these reasons, although I tend to agree with them, we are taking a non-NPOV. That is, we are espousing certain values and ideologies--not wanting to further dissuade rape victims from seeking redress, or not wanting to reward attention seekers' fabricating facts--and attempting to employ these values and ideologies (however righteous we, or even a majority may find them) to censor information that no one argues to be fallacious or non-NPOV.
To be fair, that mainstream media have not published the name makes it less credible. I think a fair reporting would indicate that a certain publication, say here the Globe, published a report that is believed to accurately identify the accuser.
Moink is right that we don't publish ALL data that is factual. But on Wikipedia, only three things ought to militate against dissemination of facts: glaring irrelevancy (that is, all the tidbits of knowledge that just don't matter to anybody, anywhere, as indicated by nobody taking the initiative to post it),  legal injunction (if disclosure is actually penalized by law), and overweening non-NPOV (not at issue here). Here, the data is clearly salient to many (witness this Talk), and is not illegal to post. We ought not take our own desires to support or denigrate certain values and practices and impose those on the neutral and factual posting of information.
I therefore am in favor of permitting anyone who finds the information about Bryant's accuser relevant to post it in the Bryant article, so long as it is factual (i.e. we don't know for a certainty who his accuser is, only that the Globe has reported who his accuser is). Citizensunshine 04:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some very good points.  You're right, not including a name is a consequence of a certain POV.  But I think we can make a subtle distinction between an article espousing a certain point-of-view, and our points-of-view having an effect on the article.  The first is certainly a no-no in Wikipedia.  The second is much more complex.  For instance, some points of view have had significant effects on the display of images and the types of images at penis, clitoris, Nick Berg, and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.  I have to think a little more about this distinction; I'll see if I can make it more clear later, and reconcile my strong committment to NPOV with my feelings on this issue.  moink 18:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: citizen sunshine's thoughts

message: I have strong feelings on this issue, so strong in fact that I've mostly refrained from the discussion for fear of getting overly heated.  
I don't believe that there is a legal issue either way.  This is not about censorship or free speech.  Free speech says that the government cannot tell us what to say or not say; however, the Wikipedia community may make a decision as to what we publish.  And we do not publish all information, obviously.
I'm going to oversimplify the discussion and say that either the allegation is true or it is not.  And I believe that in each of these cases there is good reason not to publish her name.
If it is true, then this woman was raped and is reporting a crime.  It is fairly well established that many rapes are not reported because many victims feel that their privacy will be excessively invaded.  The fact that this woman has had threats etc. means that these fears are not unfounded.  Choosing to publish the names of rape victims is choosing to further invade victims' privacy and discouraging future reporting of rape, especially when the accused is a celebrity.  And accurate reporting of rape is a good thing; it gets more rapists convicted and prevents rape.
If it is not true, then this woman was not raped and she is lying.  At this point we would have to question her motivations.  I don't think we can get in her head, but one possibility is that she's doing it for attention.  If we publish her name, we would be giving her the attention she wants.  This is then proof that it is easy to become a celebrity by falsely accusing a celebrity of a crime.  Making this woman famous would be incentive for people to concoct accusations against celebrities in the future.  And I think we can all agree that false accusations of crimes are a bad thing too.  moink 01:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruthless logic. I had my doubts but I'm convinced now. Arvindn 17:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: One of the reasons not to do it is a supposition that there will be unmerited stigma. Such women are crime victims. Continuing to treat it as something to hide perpetuates the idea that there's something shameful about being a crime victim. There isn't. The name should be published. Jamesday 06:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about that too.  If I, personally, were a rape victim I might very well choose to have my name published for exactly that reason.  But the fact is that the world is not perfect, that there is a stigma (which in this case has gone farther than a stigma and has included death threats, job losses, stalking etc), and that it has to be the particular woman's choice whether she wants to brave the hailstorm in order to change society.  It is unreasonable to insist on someone being an unwilling pioneer.  moink 18:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is that the world is not perfect, that there is a stigma (which in this case has gone farther than a stigma and has included death threats, job losses, stalking etc), and that it has to be the particular woman's choice whether she wants to brave the hailstorm in order to change society.  She has made that choice, and has filed a suit in her own name.  Why do you still object to this? anthony 警告 19:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: moink's thoughts

message: I'd say if a mainstream publication publishes the name, we shouldn't censor it.  Until then, leave her name out. Since I don't know of any mainstream publication which has published this, my vote is currently undecided.  anthony 01:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: don't be the first

message: Given that visitors (especially new ones) may well come across this page and may chose to add the name, innocently unaware of this discussion, should we add a highly visible (coloured) box saying something like "At this time, Wikipedia has chosen not to publish the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser.  A discussion about whether, or when, to do so is presently underway at this page. Please don't add it yourself, but rather join in the discussion there.  Thanks.".  -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 21:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I know I would add it if I wasn't aware of the existance of talk pages and came across it. — Jor (Talk) 21:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  moink 22:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we add a "please don't add" notice?

message: There's now a situation where Juror Number Four at the Tyco trial, who allegedly "flashed the 'OK' sign to the defense" and is believed to be lone holdout for conviction in that case, is being identified by name and address in certain media.  Is there some way we can establish a precedent and put it into a policy page?  RickK | Talk 01:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say not, because these situations need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. --Michael Snow 02:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd say there already is plenty of policy.  See Wikipedia:no original research and Wikipedia:verifiability. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for information: in the Tyco case, the juror was identified by name in the New York Times and the New York Post, major reputable media outlets in he US. -- Seth Ilys 22:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, um, at least the Times is, although from what I understand they didn't give her name, though they did give her address and biographical information.  RickK | Talk 02:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A precedent

message: If we can determine that it is illegal under the rape shield law, the question becomes moot, since I assume that we won't want to break the law. Jamesday 07:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to about.com, the rape shield law is a rule regarding admissibility of evidence which I would assume has nothing to do with this. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rape shield laws do indeed apply only to rules of evidence in court. An analogous example might be a confession which is coerced from a suspect by improper police conduct. Such a confession would be inadmissible in court, but media outlets would be free to report the confession. Furthermore, rape shield laws apply only to to a victim's sexual history, not to her identity. Cribnotes 07:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it illegal for us to publish this?