https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | 2021-10-31
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life: Section 230 in practice -
this Black life should matter to us.
The Signpost
- Back to Contents
View Latest Issue
31 October 2021
Opinion
A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life
Contribute --
Share this
* # E-mail
* # Facebook
* # Twitter
* # LinkedIn
* * Reddit
By Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe is a former co-editor-in-chief of The Signpost and
has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2006. The views expressed
in this opinion article are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of The Signpost, its staff or of
any other Wikipedian. Responses and critical commentary are
invited in the comments section.
Rogers, Jacob Nov 2014.jpg
WMF Legal Director Jacob Rogers
The Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Director, Jacob Rogers, this month
published a triumphant essay on Wikimedia's Diff blog, titled "A
victory for free knowledge: Florida judge rules Section 230 bars
defamation claim against the Wikimedia Foundation". As he says in his
post describing this legal victory for the Foundation,
The case began when plaintiff Nathaniel White sued the Wikimedia
Foundation in January 2021, claiming that the Foundation was
liable for the publication of photos that incorrectly identified
him as a New York serial killer of the same name. Because of its
open nature, sometimes inaccurate information is uploaded to
Wikipedia and its companion projects, but the many members of our
volunteer community are very effective at identifying and
removing these inaccuracies when they do occur. Notably, this
lawsuit was filed months after Wikipedia editors proactively
corrected the error at issue in September 2020. Wikimedia moved
to dismiss the amended complaint in June, arguing that
plaintiff's claims were barred by Section 230.
In its order granting the Wikimedia Foundation's motion to
dismiss, the court affirmed that "interactive computer service
providers" such as the Foundation generally cannot be held liable
for third-party content like Wikipedia articles and photographs.
... the plaintiff argued that the Foundation should be treated
like a traditional offline publisher and held responsible as
though it were vetting all posts made to the sites it hosts,
despite the fact that it does not write or curate any of the
content found on the projects. The court rejected this argument
because it directly conflicts with Section 230 ...
This outcome perfectly demonstrates how critical Section 230
remains to crowdsourced projects and communities.
-- Diff
So what actually happened on-wiki?
LeonCoCrtHs2-16Sep2007.JPG
The case against the Wikimedia Foundation was dismissed by the Second
Judicial Circuit court for Leon County, Florida. Picture shows Leon
County Courthouse.
The case discussed in Rogers' essay on Diff concerned the Wikipedia
biography of New York serial killer Nathaniel White. For more than
two years this Wikipedia article had as its lead image a police
photograph of a quite different Nathaniel White, an African-American
man resident in Florida whose picture has also, equally erroneously,
been used in a Discovery Channel broadcast on the New York serial
killer of the same name.
The image was inserted into the Wikipedia article by User:Vwanweb on
28 May 2018, incorrectly identified as originating from the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. It was
removed from the article on 4 September 2020 - an edit attributed by
Wikipedia only to an American IP address, rather than a registered
Wikipedia user account.
The removal of the image occurred about a week after Karl Etters,
writing for the Tallahassee Democrat, reported that the Florida Mr.
White had sued the Discovery Channel for defamation. In his article,
Etters wrote that Wikipedia was also using the wrong picture to
illustrate its article on the serial killer: "A Google search turns
up the name of the Florida Nathaniel White with a Wikipedia page
showing his photo and label as a serial killer."
Taken together, these facts contradict Rogers' characterization of
how well Wikipedia deals with cases such as this:
1. The photo was in the article for over two years. For a man to
have his face presented to the world as that of a serial killer
on a top-20 website, for such a significant amount of time, can
hardly be described as indicative of "very effective" quality
control on the part of the community.
2. The picture was only removed after a press report pointed out
that Wikipedia had the wrong picture. This means the deletion was
in all likelihood reactive rather than "proactive", as it was
described in the Diff essay.
3. The wrong photograph appears to have been removed by an unknown
member of the public, an IP address that had never edited before
and has not edited since. The volunteer community seems to have
been completely unaware of the problem throughout.
Image sourcing
2019 Discovery logo.svg
Vwanweb captioned Mr. White's picture as originating from the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision in the
Wikipedia article but named crimefeed.com, a site associated with
Discovery, Inc., as the source in the picture upload. The Florida
Nathaniel White first sued the Discovery Channel, with the Wikimedia
Foundation added as a Defendant later on.
Now, surely no individual editor can be blamed for having failed to
see the Tallahassee Democrat article. But it is just as surely
inappropriate in a case like this, where real harm has been done to a
living person - on which more below - to praise community processes.
It would seem more appropriate -
1. to acknowledge that community processes failed Mr. White to a
quite egregious degree, and
2. to alert the community to the fact that its quality control
processes are in need of improvement.
The obvious issue is image sourcing, and especially the sourcing of
photographs of criminals. The original upload of the picture by
User:Vwanweb cited crimefeed.com as the source of the picture.
Crimefeed.com today redirects to investigationdiscovery.com, a site
owned by Discovery, Inc., which also owns the Discovery Channel. The
Web Archive shows that an article on Nathaniel White was indeed
published on the site on August 2, 2017. The article itself is not in
the archive, but its URL matches the truncated "http://crimefeed.com/
2017/08/31713..." URL listed in the log of the upload.
If this, then, was Vwanweb's source, subsequent events clearly showed
that it was unreliable. And even less trustworthy sites (such as
murderpedia.org) have been and are used in Wikipedia to source police
photographs. Surely Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and community
practices for sourcing images, in particular images used to imply
responsibility for specific crimes, would benefit from some
strengthening, to ensure they actually depict the correct individual.
Correctly indicating image provenance in an article, along the lines
of the "Say where you read it" guideline that applies to written
texts, is another aspect that may require attention: according to the
upload information, the picture came from a "true crime" site, not
the New York State Department as was indicated in the article.
Section 230: a quick recap
Section 230.jpg
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has come under fire of
late, from both sides of the political spectrum.
As Rogers explains in his Diff essay, Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act is essential to the way Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia sites have operated for the past twenty years. The
key sentence in Section 230 is this: "No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content
provider." But the law has come under fire lately in the US, both
from the political right and from the political left.
Republicans who feel their views are being censored online argue that
social media websites have abandoned the ideals of plurality and
political diversity, and that as a consequence websites should no
longer enjoy Section 230 privileges that were originally designed to
benefit neutral hosts. Some Democrats, meanwhile, have criticized
sites for hiding behind Section 230 and doing too little about
problematic content. In their view, Section 230 was created to enable
sites to moderate content without liability risk to them, and if they
don't do so, then the law is not fit for its purpose.
A common but mistaken idea about Section 230 in this context is that
site operators like the Wikimedia Foundation would "lose" their
protection if they started to moderate more content than they were
legally required to remove (i.e. if they went beyond copyright
infringements, child pornography, court-ordered removal of defamatory
content, etc.). This notion is often expressed as follows: "If the
Foundation were to start moderating content, it would no longer be a
platform, but a publisher, and would become liable for everything
posted on its sites."
This is almost the exact opposite of the truth. As Mike Godwin,
former General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, explained in
Slate last year, Section 230 was actually "designed to empower
internet companies to remove offensive, disturbing, or otherwise
subscriber-alienating content without being liable for whatever else
their users posted. The idea was that companies might be afraid to
censor anything because in doing so, they would take on
responsibility for everything." Section 230 was designed to remove
that risk.
Interested readers can find more information on this issue in the
following articles:
* Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act (Mike Masnick,
Techdirt)
* Legal Shield for Websites Rattles Under Onslaught of Hate Speech
(Daisuke Wakabayashi, New York Times)
Who can the victim hold responsible?
Paula Angel (criminal).png
This picture, uploaded by Vwanweb in the same week in 2018, purports
to show Paula Angel, a woman said to have been hanged in New Mexico
in 1861. According to historian John Boessenecker, it is a
fabrication of far more recent origin by Gladwell Richardson alias
Maurice Kildare, a man described by Boessenecker as "a leader in
publishing fake stories and fake photos of the history of the
Southwest". Significantly, perhaps, the image is not - or no longer -
present on the page cited as its source in the Wikipedia upload.
The Diff essay contains another paragraph related to Section 230 that
is worthy of particular attention. It implies that Mr. White would
have done better to direct his complaint at User:Vwanweb. Let's look
at this passage in detail. Rogers states:
It is important to note that Section 230's broad protection of
Wikimedia projects and other online services does not leave
litigants like Mr. White without options. Instead, the law simply
requires that litigants direct their complaints at the
individuals who made the statements at issue, rather than the
forums where the statements were made. This both allows litigants
to challenge the appropriate parties responsible for their harm
and protects online hosting companies like the Wikimedia
Foundation from the costs associated with liability for
user-generated content.
-- Diff
This may sound plausible and equitable enough to the general reader,
but Rogers surely knows that Wikipedia editors, by and large, write
under the cover of pseudonymity - a practice which the Wikimedia
Foundation explicitly encourages and vigorously defends. Identifying
contributors is no easy task - and certainly not one the Foundation
wants people to pursue. According to the Wikimedia Foundation's
Universal Code of Conduct, which is in the process of being adopted,
determining and sharing a contributor's identity is "unacceptable".
So, how genuine is this advice given to Mr. White?
Moreover, there is no reason to assume that User:Vwanweb, the editor
concerned, would have been able to give appropriate compensation to
Mr. White. To cite a precedent, when John Seigenthaler learned the
identity of his pseudonymous Wikipedia defamer, Brian Chase,
Seigenthaler ended up feeling sorry for Chase, and interceded with
Chase's employer, who had fired Chase, to give him his job back.
Nor is there any reason to assume any malice or racist motives on the
part of Vwanweb. That user had been very involved in Wikipedia's
crime articles for a while, frequently requesting and uploading
police photographs. In 2016, Vwanweb argued passionately (and
unsuccessfully) for including criticism of an instance of all-white
jury selection in a criminal case in which the perpetrator was white
and all the victims were black. Their insistence on including
criticism of this practice eventually earned them a warning for
edit-warring. If there was any race whose failings this editor was
likely to highlight on Wikipedia, judging by that episode, it was
Caucasians.
I believe that like many other editors, Vwanweb simply followed
community practices they had observed here. In this subject area,
this involves widespread use of "true crime" sources that present
crime as entertainment, and whose level of reliability is akin to
that of tabloids and other types of publications that are banned or
deprecated as sources in other parts of Wikipedia.
When asked for comment by The Signpost the WMF legal department
responded that they are not trying to encourage victims to sue
Wikipedia contributors, only that there may be others beyond the WMF
who can be held responsible.
In this particular case the Discovery Channel was sued and is not
protected by Section 230. But in the general case, would the majority
of victims be able to find another responsible party?
The effect on Nathaniel White of Florida
Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical.svg
As an interactive computer service provider, the Wikimedia Foundation
is not considered to be exercising a publisher's traditional
editorial functions. Instead, the court order said, "the relevant
content was provided by another information content provider" - in
other words, the volunteer who uploaded the picture and added it to
the article.
Here are some excerpts from Mr. White's complaint. It states that
after the 2018 Discovery Channel broadcast,
... friends and family contacted Plaintiff concerning the broadcast
and asking Plaintiff if he actually murdered people in the state
of New York.
Plaintiff assured these friends and family that even though he
acknowledged his criminal past, he never murdered anyone nor has
he ever been to the state of New York. ...
Plaintiff has been threatened with harm to his person and
shunning by members of the public who, because of the broadcast
and social and digital media imagery, assumed that Plaintiff was
the vicious killer who committed the murders in New York state. ...
Plaintiff has resorted to dressing incognito so he is not
recognized in order to preserve his life and damp down the
threats he received.
Defendants published this false and defamatory image, photo and
information regarding Plaintiff to a third party which is and was
the public at large on its television broadcast, social media and
digital & electronic audience which encompasses millions of
people in Florida and billions of people around the world.
Plaintiff is an African-American man and Defendants appear to
believe that all African-American men are interchangeable and
that no one would notice or care Defendants were defaming an
innocent man, not even other African-Americans, in their
description of Plaintiff in this matter.
It is obvious in this case that Plaintiff is not the gruesome
murderer that was supposed to be depicted in Defendants'
broadcasts and media platforms and that this is more than a
simple, excusable or inadvertent error.
African-Americans have always borne an unequal brunt of
punishment in this country and this behavior continues from these
private Defendants upon Plaintiff.
-- Nathaniel White's complaint
This has clearly been an extremely harrowing experience for Mr.
White, as it would surely have been for anyone.
While to the best of my belief the error did not originate in
Wikipedia, but was imported into Wikipedia from an unreliable
external site, for more than two years any vigilante Googling
Nathaniel White serial killer would have seen Mr. White's color
picture prominently displayed in Google's knowledge graph panel
(multiple copies of it still appear there at the time of writing).
And along with it they would have found a prominent link to the
serial killer's Wikipedia biography, again featuring Mr. White's
image - providing what looked like encyclopedic confirmation that Mr.
White of Florida was indeed guilty of sickening crimes.
Moreover, it can be shown that Mr. White's image spread to other
online sources via Wikipedia. On the very day the picture was removed
from the article here, a video about the serial killer was uploaded
to YouTube - complete with Mr. White's picture, citing Wikipedia. At
the time of writing, the video's title page with Mr. White's color
picture is the top Google image result in searches for the serial
killer. All in all, seven of Google's top-fifteen image search
results for Nathaniel White serial killer today feature Mr. White's
image. Only two black-and-white photos show what seems to have been
the real killer.
Black Lives Matter
Wandbild Portrait George Floyd von Eme Street Art im Mauerpark
(Berlin).jpg
The Wikimedia Foundation has declared its solidarity with the
worldwide George Floyd protests.
The Wikimedia Foundation has in the recent past cited the fate of
George Floyd and the resulting Black Lives Matter protests as its
inspiration for the Knowledge Equity Fund, a $4.5 million fund set up
last year to support racial equity initiatives outside the Wikimedia
movement. It has declared "We stand for racial justice", expressing
the hope that the Wikimedia projects would "document a grand turning
point - a time in the future when our communities, systems, and
institutions acknowledge the equality and dignity of all people.
Until that day, we stand with those who are fighting for justice and
for enduring change. With every edit, we write history." A subsequent
blog post on the AfroCROWD Juneteenth Conference again referenced the
Black Lives Matter movement.
Yet here we have a case where a very real black life was severely
harmed, with Wikipedia playing a secondary, but still highly
significant part in the sorry tale. The Wikimedia blog post contains
no acknowledgement of this fact. Instead it is jubilant - jubilant
that the Wikimedia Foundation was absolved of all responsibility for
the fact that Mr. White was for over two years misrepresented as a
serial killer on its flagship site, the result of a pseudonymous
Wikimedian trusting a source that proved unreliable.
Now we can shrug our shoulders and say, "This sort of thing will
happen once in a while." Would we have accepted this sort of response
from the police force in George Floyd's case?
The Seigenthaler case resulted in changes to Wikipedia's referencing
requirements for biographies of living people. Will this present case
result in similar changes to sourcing practices for images,
especially those implying responsibility for a crime? Who will help
Mr. White clean up his continuing Google footprint as a serial
killer?
There is also a deeper moral question here. What kind of bright new
world is this we are building, in which it is presented to us as a
cause for celebration that it was possible for a black man - a man,
perhaps, not unlike George Floyd - to be defamed on our global top-20
website with absolute impunity, without his having any realistic hope
of redress for what happened to him here?
- Previous "Opinion"
S
In this issue
31 October 2021
From the editor
News and notes
In the media
Opinion
Discussion report
Recent research
Community view
Traffic report
Technology report
Serendipity
Book review
WikiProject report
Humour
+ Add a commentDiscuss this story
These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk
page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your
comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
Comments
* I'm not really buying that the Wikimedia Foundation's response
was out of line. The community responded promptly once notified
of the issue - a problem that nobody knows about can't be fixed.
This case is different from the Seigenthaler incident where a
vandal just made stuff up. The issue here is that a good faith
editor trusted a source, and it turns out that source was wrong.
Under the current Wikipedia model of verifiability, not truth and
aggregating what existing news sources say, there's an
understanding that sometimes these sources will be wrong, and
then Wikipedia will echo that wrongness - the blame is with
Discovery, here. The only way to stop this would be for Wikipedia
to do boots-on-the-ground fact-checking, which would essentially
not be Wikipedia anymore - that would require the resources of
the paid news media, a step far beyond Nupedia (and many
mainstream newspapers don't even bother with fact checkers
anymore, at least for most stories!). That said, I do agree that
being more stringent on image sourcing would be a good idea -
bringing up bad sources on the reliable source noticeboard and
deprecating them would certainly be a step forward if the goal is
to inform good-faith editors of what can be used (and maybe
adding in some sort of soft-blacklist edit warning if a link to a
deprecated site is noticed in an image description). But, this is
ultimately just whack-a-mole that will reduce the frequency of
this happening, not eliminate it entirely. Even really solid
sources will still make mistakes sometimes. So I don't think it's
realistic to expect that this kind of mistake will never happen,
again without Wikipedia stopping being Wikipedia and instead
becoming a normal magazine with a staff; fixing such errors
promptly when detected is far more feasible, and it's what
happened here. SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia addition occurred several months prior to the
Discovery coverage, so I don't agree that it was Discovery
who was to blame. The issue was a well-intended author
sourcing an image of someone with the same name and assuming
that it was the same person as the subject, and that we don't
have any means of picking these up - thus we need to own the
issue. (Oddly, we do when it comes to text, where
WP:BLPPRIMARY is intended to prevent this from occurring).
Perhaps we need something like BLPPRIMARY for images, in that
we required sourcing connecting the image to the specific
subject prior to including it, and that sourcing needs to
meet BLP. - Bilby (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a contradiction here, because what you write
above doesn't agree with the current version of the
article. According to the caption currently in the
article, "Vwanweb captioned Mr. White's picture as
originating from the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision in the Wikipedia
article but named crimefeed.com, a site associated with
Discovery, Inc., as the source in the picture upload."
That means the uploader was citing Discovery's crimefeed
website which apparently at the time claimed its picture
came from the Department of Corrections, and thus it was
Discovery that made the error in misclassifying the
picture, and the uploader was properly citing their
source - just the source, Discovery/Crimefeed, was
incorrect. If the caption is truly wrong and your order
of events is correct, then the article should be updated;
I'm just going by what the article says. SnowFire (talk)
23:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
We don't actually know what Vwanweb saw. I've been
unable to find the Aug 2 2017 article (Crime History:
Serial Killer Nathaniel White Gets Busted, Blames
"RoboCop" August 2, 2017 by Mike McPadden) in the
Internet Archive. You can see the blurb for it here
in the Internet Archive: [1] So we don't know whether
the picture was present in the article or not, and
whether it was captioned as originating from the New
York State Department or whether Vwanweb just
optimistically assumed that must have been the
source. At any rate, Vwanweb should arguably not have
said the picture came from the New York State
Department if all he had seen was crimefeed.com. This
is what WP:SWYGT tells editors to do for text: cite
what you've actually seen. And moreover you can
certainly argue that editors should check state
records rather than relying on true crime sites that
have no or poor professional oversight - just like we
don't allow editors to cite tabloids for articles on
cancer.
The timeline was, as far as I have been able to piece
it together:
1. The crimefeed.com article listed here appears in
August 2017. It is now lost (unless someone smarter
than me can find it).
2. The picture is uploaded, citing this article, and
added to the serial killer article in May 2018.
3. The Discovery Channel broadcast is shown in August
2018. --Andreas JN466 23:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
My fault for the earlier error - I was going by
the broadcast date. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 1
November 2021 (UTC)
The potential issue you raised is just as
valid. --Andreas JN466 00:47, 1 November 2021
(UTC)
There's an earlier article, dated July 1, 2017,
on Monsters and Critics website that also sports
the same photo of the wrong Nathaniel White, so
Mike McPadden's article at crimefeed.com can't
have been the original source of the
misidentification (or not the only one, at
least).
2001:8003:1DF2:D00:2482:6F1C:C109:DAC6 (talk)
07:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning it, you're absolutely
correct. I was aware of that page but had
missed that it preceded the crimefeed article
by a month. The show referred to on that
monstersandcritics page, CopyCat Killers, was
produced by another defendant in the suit,
Reelz. This also seems to have a Discovery
connection. The program is listed e.g. as
episode 4 on https://www.discoveryuk.com/
series/copycat-killers/?ss=2#episodes It
should be obvious that Wikipedia has no
business citing this sort of material.
Discovery used to be reputable but has
descended into the realms of pseudoscience
and reality TV. --Andreas JN466 09:51, 4
November 2021 (UTC)
*
+ @SnowFire: "Verifiability, not truth" was never supposed to
mean that verifiability is all that matters and truth does
not count. The complete phrase was "the threshold for
inclusion is verifiability, not truth." In other words,
things had to be both true and verifiable in a high-quality
source before they could be added to Wikipedia. It's
precisely because of this common misunderstanding that the
phrase "verifiability, not truth" is deprecated today, and
has been for years. If we propagate incorrect info by relying
on poor sources then we are actually spreading fake news. Cf.
the Paula Angel picture mentioned in the image sidebar: we're
creating an alternate reality. --Andreas JN466 09:56, 1
November 2021 (UTC)
o Of course the goal is truth, but that's just a desired
end state. It's like a coach telling their sports team to
score more points - sure, but how? VNT makes people
uncomfortable precisely because it's honest and accurate
about what the Wikipedia process really produces. The
problem of garbage in, garbage out is not one easily
fixed - it can only be mitigated.
o That said, I agree with the suggestion below on being
stricter on sourcing in articles on purely negative
aspects of people, as this is suggesting a useful change
- to simply not accept anything on certain topics without
ironclad sourcing, and to perhaps cover such topics in
less detail in general. SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 1 November
2021 (UTC)
* Inmate photos for the New York prison system are not as readily
available as in Florida, which has a broad public records law. So
this guy's problem is compounded by the Internet's inability to
find an actual photo of the serial killer to replace the "bad
photo", which helps the "bad photo" continue to propagate. The
Internet hates a vacuum, and insists on filling it with anything
it can easily find. Wikipedia editors could play a fact-checking
role by attempting to verify facts or photos provided by
secondary sources by attempting to obtain verification from
primary sources. - wbm1058 (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
* At the bottom of every page in Wikipedia is a link, "Contact
Wikipedia", which goes to Wikipedia:Contact us, which has very
clear instructions as to what to do about problems in a Wikipedia
article. There is no indication that Mr. White or a friend or
relative ever followed that link. If the photo in the Wikipedia
article was causing a lot of pain, why wasn't something done by
Mr. White before he paid a lawyer (I presume) and a process
server? -- John Broughton () 05:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
+ John, at the time the WMF was added to the suit, the picture
was already gone. I don't think he was aware of it during the
two years it was on here. --Andreas JN466 09:35, 1 November
2021 (UTC)
o Which was sort of my point. It's true that harm can be
caused even if one is unaware of the underlying source of
libel, but if he was unaware, and no friends or family or
acquaintances mentioned it, then it's more difficult to
argue for large damages. -- John Broughton () 18:23, 1
November 2021 (UTC)
# He was aware of being threatened with violence by
people who thought he was the perpetrator, John.
Think about it: he could, without ever being aware of
the WP image himself, quite realistically have been
beaten up, stabbed or shot by someone who'd looked
him up online just before to check they really had
"the right man". He took to donning disguises ...
Covid restrictions may have saved his life.
# Conversely, if Wikipedia had had the correct image,
or even no image, this would instantly have reduced
the level of threat to him, and he would not have his
image all over Google even today. Do you see what I'm
saying? I can't imagine that you would not feel
aggrieved upon learning that your picture had been in
a Wikipedia article like that for two years, if you
had experienced threats and feared for your safety
during that time. --Andreas JN466 19:15, 1 November
2021 (UTC)
+ @John Broughton: Your response is still going round my head
this morning. You speak like someone who - like me - spends
hours online each day. I'm sure you're old enough to remember
what life was like before the Internet. Well, there are
people living much like that today (I'm sure some of us here
have (grand)parents for whom that's true ...). Even among
people who do go online, many don't consider Wikipedia part
of their lives. According to survey data in a recent UK study
, 32.14% of the UK online population say they do not use
Wikipedia. This matches my own observations. I used to play
competitive pool in a local league (badly) until Covid put a
kibosh on all that. For many of the people who competed there
Wikipedia was like something from a different universe. Just
not on their radar.
+ This notion that we can rely on injured people to complain if
something goes wrong here neglects to take that into account.
Do you remember Jimbo's 2014 suggestion to James O'Brien
(who'd been vilified in his WP biography) in a BBC interview
that it's a good idea for people to check Wikipedia regularly
to see whether it says anything bad about them? Even O'Brien,
a professional media person, said he had been unaware of his
Wikipedia biography until his wife accidentally spotted it,
and thought it would be "kind of hard to get the message to
Wikipedia". What seems natural to you or me now, from our
perspective as long-time, regular users of Wikipedia, just
does not match the world other people live in. Nor, I'm sure,
would you have spoken or thought with the same assurance and
conviction about Wikipedia on the day you made your first
edit. Regards, --Andreas JN466 10:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jn466 This is so true. Though I am new at editing with a
logged-in account and attempting to make changes of
substance, I have occasionally just edited a page from an
anon ip for years; generally to fix a spelling error or
improper link. Recently my wife showed me a legal error
(she is a lawyer); specifically a law attributed to the
wrong statute. I told her "don't complain, fix it". She
was shocked that she could just go in and fix the article
(again, minor error, the period was in the wrong place,
leading to a completely incorrect Texas code). So she
moved the period one spot to the left.
The ideas that Wikipedia has become an authoritative
source AND that anyone can just change it are mutually
exclusive to many people. FranMichael (talk) 14:19, 1
November 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Exactly the way people in my family have
reacted. And actually, if you click "Contact us", you
are first presented with a bewildering array of
discouraging disclaimers like "edits will not
generally be made in response to an email request"
that look almost designed to instill a sense of
hopelessness. Regards, --Andreas JN466 15:05, 1
November 2021 (UTC)
When you click on "Contact Wikipedia", the upper
left of the large box with content says, in
fairly large font, under the link "Readers", "How
to report a problem with an article, or find out
more information." Since English speakers
normally read starting on the upper left of a
page/article, this is fairly prominent. (I do
agree that the disclaimer you mention is overly
broad; it should include something like "except
when legal issues are involved".) -- John
Broughton () 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Surprisingly, the "left to right" often
doesn't apply to web pages, especially if
someone is trying to glean information about
a subject quickly. Check out this image for a
common web consumption method; basically it's
a 'z' pattern. I think this overlay on
Facebook's login page is fairly
representative, which would land viewers of
contact us into the disclaimer and then into
"article subjects". [here is a good article
on the overall theory of z-shaped UX ).
That's all a little outside my overarching
point, though; I have never went to the
Britannica website to see if I can edit their
entries. I just assume I can't. Back when WP
was considered an extremely unreliable
source, I believe many people did believe
they (and anyone else) could change things at
will. Heck, I did it in 2009; the article I
wrote would have gotten deleted before I hit
save now (rightfully so, it was
overly-biased, poorly sourced, and I worked
for the company).
However, once Wikipedia first started
deserving respect as a place for accurate and
fairly unbiased information, and then a few
years later actually started getting
recognized as such, I think the idea that you
could just change something exited the
(non-wiki) collective consciousness. Of
course, that is an opinion with anecdotal
evidence at best, but it has been my
experience. FranMichael (talk) 18:54, 1
November 2021 (UTC)
* This is horrible. I'm not saying the WMF was legally responsible
for it, but regardless, I am disappointed in the way this was
handled. I'd like to see the community go through existing BLPs
on criminals and check that the photos are accurate, and
implement a stronger policy going forward, to reduce the chance
of such a case occurring again. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 17:32, 6
November 2021 (UTC)
What could the WMF have done better
* Instead of gloating over a win on a legal technicality, WMF
should had paid some compensation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 3
November 2021 (UTC)
+ @Hawkeye7: That was my instant response to the blog post: it
felt like gloating, and so inappropriate in this context
where Wikipedia had evidently harmed someone who had done
nothing to deserve being tarred with this particular brush.
(I've added a subheader above, as this is a new and important
aspect in this discussion.) And it seemed to me from looking
at the Google results for Nathaniel White serial killer that
no one at the WMF (or Google, for that matter, who were also
sued along with the WMF, back in February) seemed to have
lifted a finger to even do as much as clean up Mr. White's
Google footprint.
+ There was a bit of correspondence with Smallbones and the
WMF's Greg Varnum prior to publication of this piece (in
particular, the WMF asserted that I should not have
interpreted their blog post as telling people that lawsuits
should be directed at Wikipedia contributors rather than the
WMF; we added a paragraph to that effect and made some other
changes). Subsequent to that I put it to Greg a couple of
days ago (Monday) that when you bump into someone in the
street, and they drop their shopping, oranges rolling across
the sidewalk, surely the most natural thing to do is to stop,
voice concern and help the person pick everything up. This
situation here, I said, is surely much the same: Wikipedia
and the Wikimedia Foundation were demonstrably instrumental
in creating Mr. White's undeserved Google footprint, even if
thanks to Section 230 they weren't ever going to be held
legally responsible. (It's worth noting that if Wikipedia had
had the correct picture, it would have countered rather than
amplified the misinformation from the Discovery TV broadcast.
Even no picture would have been better.)
+ I added that the WMF are well placed to help here: they have
plenty of contacts at Google. Jimmy Wales even once went on
holiday with Larry Page, years ago, and User:Denny, as a
former Google staffer who worked for years on the Google
Knowledge Graph and is now a WMF employee, could provide
expert advice on how best to help clean up Mr. White's
appalling Google footprint, which continues to dominate
searches for the serial killer. It just seems the decent
thing to do.
+ I have had no reply to date, not even a brief note to confirm
receipt. It feels like nobody cares, which would be very
concerning, because if you stand by when an individual is
crushed by the wheels of the system it makes all the talk
about George Floyd empty virtue-signaling - more than that,
hypocrisy. I'd like to see the WMF live up to its words and
at the very least try to do this much for Mr. White. --
Andreas JN466 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC) While I was
writing this post, Greg posted the WMF comment below. --
Andreas JN466 12:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
BLP policy implications
* It seems to me that if we have a system where someone can be
falsely labelled as a serial killer then we have a system which
is broken - it doesn't really matter if the sources we used were
broken too, as we're still responsible for what we allow to be
accepted. In BLP there's a section on photographs. It only speaks
of not including photos to disparage the subject, but I don't see
why that can't be extended to require photos to be "reasonable
depictions of subjects", and to require high quality sourcing for
the use of photos where the subject is accused or convicted of a
major crime. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
+ I've started a thread at WT:BLP#BLPs and image sourcing. (I
also added the section header above.) --Andreas JN466 19:42,
1 November 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing and verification on Wikipedia is poor all round
Before people get too hung up on thinking this is about image
sourcing, or policy or images in general, can I direct your attention
to the very next edit after the mysterious stranger who removed the
image. Another IP editor has changed the date of birth. They didn't
say why, and didn't provide a source. Which is perhaps immaterial,
because the original date, added all the way way in 2008, never had a
source either. Who knows which is correct, if either even is. Why
would that be important? Well, obviously, dates of birth are one way
you can prove you're not the serial killer that Wikipedia says you
are. On current evidence, a malicious actor, on seeing the press
coverage, could have altered the date to make it look even more like
the misidentified man is the serial killer. There's nothing here that
suggests anyone would have even noticed. Even now, even after this
article has been subject to much attention for lack of editorial
oversight, still nobody appears to have noticed (or perhaps have but
just don't care) that the date of birth is unsourced. A basic and
obvious violation of BLP, if ever there was one. Policy is clear, and
has been for a very long time. That unsourced DOB should be removed
immediately. Would take seconds. And yet, it hasn't happened. There
have allegedly been efforts to improve Wikipedia's sourcing. If those
efforts have not even reached a quick first pass over dates of birth,
it doesn't instill much confidence. One wonders what's behind the
delay. Perhaps it is lack of editors all round (see below section for
a related observation). Mackabrillion (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021
(UTC)
Agreed, and while BLP are rightly a particular concern, it's poor
sourcing all around. Most of my editing time on Wikipedia is on
STEM articles, mostly geology and mostly noncontroversial. Much
of that time is supplying missing sourcing. I find myself
hesitant to rip out entire sections of articles that lack
sourcing, out of fear that some source, somewhere, might support
it, and because I am as prone to anyone to the magical thinking
that if I simply put a "citation needed" mark on the statement,
the source will magically appear. In spite of the fact that I can
count the times that has happened on one hand with fingers to
spare.
But, not long ago, I found that most of a geology article I had
started reviewing was extremely well-written but suspiciously
devoid of any sourcing. Sure enough, after some digging on Google
Scholar, I found that it was a flagrant, extensive, and
16-year-old copyright violation. Copyright violation may not be
as serious a moral issue as libelous BLP, but it's nonetheless a
serious legal issue.
I am strongly inclined now to put a "citation needed" on an
unsourced statement only if it really, really sounds right, is
interesting and important, but for some reason I can't
immediately dredge up a supporting source. Otherwise I just cut
it and be done with it.
I am coming round to the view that if a statement in an article
is unsourced (whether a BLP article or a definition of a igneous
rock type) it should be removed immediately. It's nice if the
editor makes a good-faith effort to find a supporting source
first, but I'm beginning to think there is no obligation to do
so. Sure, if we pull every "citation needed" statement out of
Wikipedia today, the encyclopedia will lose half its content --
but I suggest that this content will not be much missed and the
rest will acquire a much better reputation.
Apologies for the long rant. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:13, 2
November 2021 (UTC)
Kent G. Budge is right on the money here. Large amounts of
Wikipedia articles, even highly viewed ones, have tons of
uncited material that is very difficult to deal with, usually
the easiest solution is to rip it out and start again, but
it's so much work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2021
(UTC)
Mackabrillion, the article actually had two birth dates for more
than six years, ever since this 2014 edit: [2] - 26 July in the
infobox, 28 July in the lead paragraph. No one noticed or cared.
The edit you mention made the two dates the same ... both wrong.
The date in the article now (28 July in both lead paragraph and
infobox) is sourced ... The article had nearly 12,000 views in a
single day in August 2018, when the TV program aired. Overall,
there were more than 128,000 pageviews during the time when it
contained Mr. White's photograph. As a system for writing a
reliable reference work, at least in this subject area, it's
surely a very, very far cry from being "very effective at
identifying and removing these inaccuracies when they do occur".
Cheers, --Andreas JN466 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Low participation is also a factor
What should also be noted is that although a mysterious IP editor did
notice and remove the incorrect image, in all likelihood because of
the press coverage of the lawsuit, they didn't detail why they were
doing it. It could quite as easily have just been vandalism for all
anyone knew. And after that edit was made, no other edits are made to
either the article or the talk page for at least a year. While we
can't know for sure, it seems quite likely that no established editor
noticed the removal, or they did but they weren't sufficiently moved
by the unevidenced claim that Wikipedia had misidentified a serial
killer, to investigate and provide their colleagues with a positive
indication that they had chased this down and found the press report.
There was, as far as I can tell, nothing stopping the image from
being readded from one of the sources that had reused it from
Wikipedia. Most likely by someone who might never have even seen the
IP editor's note in the edit history. Mackabrillion (talk) 18:17, 2
November 2021 (UTC)
The folly of being mostly right, most of the time
The Wikimedia Counsel cited a study in Wikipedia's defence that says
Wikipedia editors are quite quick to removed most bad edits. And who
knows, maybe that study is true. I am dubious of the Berkmam Klein
Centre's findings, ever since it was quite obvious that in the case
of a publication of theirs that mentioned Gateway Pundit, they had
sourced basic descriptive information from Wikipedia. Information
that didn't have a source here, and appeared nowhere else on the
internet before it appeared on Wikipedia, suggesting quite strongly
that this had been simply made up by a Wikipedia editor, and other
Wikipedia editors either never noticed or simply didn't care (for
obvious reasons, the Gateway Pundit isn't exactly going to get a gold
star service from Wikipedia). The folly of resting on some assurance
that you'll get it right most of the time, is when you have the risk
of the few times times you do get it wrong, it can quite easily be
very, very, harmful. It has been suggested that BLP articles should
be fully protected. And to be honest, when there is nothing to
suggest that in similar cases the editor community would not make the
same mistake here again (chiefly to not notice press coverage of a
lawsuit that mentions Wikipedia), that looks like a wise move. As
this case showed quite well, other often suggested changes, such as
preventing IP editing, might not yield the same level of protection.
Mackabrillion (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The identity of the IP editor
Probably futile, but an explicit on the record denial from the
Wimimedia Counsel that to the best of their knowledge, neither he or
anyone in the Wikimedia Foundation is behind the IP that removed the
image from the Wikipedia article, would go some way to better
understanding the true weaknesses of the Wikipedia model.
Mackabrillion (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment from Wikimedia Foundation
First, we note that the editorial makes some thoughtful suggestions
regarding the possibility of taking greater care when dealing with
articles and photographs of people accused of crimes. We agree with
the editorial that the most ideal outcome would be that the mistaken
photograph on Wikipedia had been caught and removed immediately after
upload and we are supportive of the community's ongoing efforts to
develop processes which improve the quality of potentially sensitive
articles. At the same time, we also believe that the overall
Wikipedia process for this case worked once the problem was
discovered. It appears that the broader internet was not aware of the
original research mistake until after the Discovery TV program came
out. Once the mistake was reported on, Wikipedia's open structure
allowed someone (an IP editor) to remove the image quickly and there
was no further problem on Wikipedia. This is a considerably better
outcome than how the TV program responded and compared with other
websites that hosted the same content. We would point to this as an
example of Wikipedia's open structure working well while agreeing
that it could still be further improved to catch future mistakes
sooner.
Second, we wish to offer a clarification regarding a misunderstanding
in the Signpost editorial. The original blog stated "Instead, the law
simply requires that litigants direct their complaints at the
individuals who made the statements at issue, rather than the forums
where the statements were made." The Signpost editorial interprets
this to mean that one should sue a specific Wikipedia editor, but
this was neither the intent nor what the section stated. In this
case, the "statement at issue" is the original research conducted by
Discovery Television that misidentified Mr. White. Our intent was to
highlight the fact that Mr. White actually did sue Discovery
Television in his lawsuit and the case against them was not dismissed
by the motion that ended the case against the Foundation. It is
fairly likely that Mr. White will be able to proceed with the court
and receive a full hearing regarding his claims of harm from the
misidentification or to reach an agreeable settlement with Discovery
Television. We would also note that in the cases that are most
difficult to address on Wikipedia because they have an existing
reliable source, there is very often a corporation that can be held
responsible for what they originally published.
The goal of the people from multiple departments within the
Foundation that came together to help Jacob author and factcheck the
Diff article was to show that this is a successful case where the law
worked well: Mr. White still has a route to compensation for his harm
from the business that appears to have made the original mistake
while the Wikimedia Foundation was protected from legal liability
that could have significantly disrupted open community editorial
processes. While many other websites have feedback links to report
errors, this is yet another example of how and why it often takes
less time to address these issues on open platforms like Wikipedia in
comparison to closed platforms.
--Stephen LaPorte, Wikimedia Foundation Associate General Counsel
-- Preceding unsigned comment added by GVarnum-WMF (talk * contribs)
10:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant passage of the WMF blog post reads:
It is important to note that Section 230's broad protection
of Wikimedia projects and other online services does not
leave litigants like Mr. White without options. Instead, the
law simply requires that litigants direct their complaints at
the individuals who made the statements at issue, rather than
the forums where the statements were made. This both allows
litigants to challenge the appropriate parties responsible
for their harm and protects online hosting companies like the
Wikimedia Foundation from the costs associated with liability
for user-generated content.
-- Diff
If Wikipedia is the forum that was improperly sued here, then the
Discovery Channel is not "the individual who made the statement
at issue" in this forum.
I am certainly not alone in having interpreted the post this way.
For reference, the top-rated post at last month's Slashdot
discussion (which I was unaware of until a couple of days ago) of
the Diff post reads as follows:
It is important to note that Section 230a(TM)s broad
protection of Wikimedia projects and other online services
does not leave litigants like Mr. White without options.
Instead, the law simply requires that litigants direct their
complaints at the individuals who made the statements at
issue, rather than the forums where the statements were made.
So they want him to subpoena the IP address and sue the
contributor who posted his image.
Seems like a fair compromise.
The effectiveness or otherwise of the quality control system is
amply covered by others in the discussion above. I don't think
the system works at all well in the True Crime area. Also, why
should it matter what the "broader internet" is aware of? Reality
matters. People matter. Mr. White matters. (And there actually
has long been what I believe is a real photo of the killer on the
Internet. It does not look like Mr. White, beyond their both
being African-American men.) Regards, --Andreas JN466 11:38, 3
November 2021 (UTC)
Some thoughts
* Even though Section 230 in Wikipedia's case does not lay the
blame for any damaging edits on the responsible editor, it also
does not mean they won't get sued; it just immunizes the
Foundation. In this case, Vwanweb can still be sued, & even if
they successfully defended themselves in court, lawsuits are
expensive.
* It can be surprisingly easy to misidentify people in photos;
there are only so many combinations of names, & even people with
uncommon names can find someone else in the world with the same
exact name. For example, years back I was surprised to find a car
salesman in Australia with the same first & last names as me,
same spellings -- & my birth name is unusual. (While I do have
some distant relatives living in that country, AFAIK the salesman
is not related to me.) Further, based on incidental surfing, I
suspect a non-trivial number of teen-aged & college-aged women
happen to have names identical to the stage names of female
pornstars. So caution is warranted.
* I had a look for that "Contact Wikipedia" link. Now I have more
experience with Wikipedia than probably anyone else reading this
article, but I had some difficulty finding that link. And once I
did, & followed the link as if I were the concerned subject of
the article, the remedy I was offered was to leave a note on the
Talk page.
That's not feasible.
Anyone with more than casual Wikipedia experience knows the vast
majority of pages are reviewed by volunteers maybe once every few
years. A note on the talk page of one of those articles may never
be read. There ought to be a link to some place where it will
receive immediate attention. (Yeah, I know such a place exists,
but the name slips my mind at the moment.)
* And I agree with Andreas above: when derogatory information is
identified & removed from Wikipedia, Google should have a process
for scrubbing its echoes from their search engine. Once upon a
time, their motto was "Don't Be Evil"; it would be nice if they
still tried to follow that occasionally. But they are a
for-profit business, unlike the Foundation. -- llywrch (talk)
17:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
If we learn any lessons from this, one of them ought to be
that the nonprofit status of the Foundation does not
automatically keep us from doing evil. --Kent G. Budge (talk)
17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
An additional point I forgot to make, in addition to my first
2 points above. Since it is easy to make mistakes with
articles about living people, the dangers of editing them
could have a chilling effect on new editors -- which is not
desirable. I would hope that the Foundation has some plan of
action for those cases where an editor is being sued over a
good-faith mistake. As I wrote above, lawsuits are expensive
to defend, & editors should not be penalized for such
mistakes. Even experienced editors can make mistakes that
less haste or more sleep would help them avoid. -- llywrch (
talk) 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Invalid fair use rationale
Fair use rationales are not valid for images living people, this
image should never have been uploaded in the first place.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't see deleted images, but the image was likely uploaded
under a claim of being public domain - which is accurate for
mugshots taken by the federal government, and I have no idea for
mugshots taken by New York State Corrections. (See
File:Thomas_Hagan.jpg for a suspicious example that's still
current - is this really public domain?). That said, even if it
was copyrighted, there are rare exceptions that do allow fair use
images for living people when taking a fresh compatibly licensed
photo is not reasonable, and prisoners may qualify. (As usual, no
guarantees, FFD is a roulette wheel.) SnowFire (talk) 22:38, 3
November 2021 (UTC)
Here is the log entry, which you don't need special
permissions for: [3]. It says,
o "(== Summary == This is an inmate photograph (mugshot) of
American serial killer Nathaniel White, by the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision, United States, dated: after 1993. ==
Rationale information == {{Non-free use rationale 2 |
description = After 1993 inmate photograph (mugshot) of
American serial killer Nathaniel White. |author = New
York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision, United States. |source = http://
crimefeed.com/2017/08/31713...)" (The picture was only
deleted because it was an unused non-free fair use
image.) --Andreas JN466 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, then. Guess it was uploaded as fair-use,
surprising. SnowFire (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2021
(UTC)
This part of the edit that added the rationale was truncated in the
edit summary:
|commercial = If this image is subject to copyright, it belongs to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Which is a government (or government contracted) public service and not a commercial entity nor artist, and by using this low-resolution image it does not impact the department of any monetary value.
|other information = Source (no image): provides inmate data from the state's department of incarceration:
http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/kinqw00
DIN (Department Identification Number): 93A4050
Fair use: Ensured conformance with the image's "low-resolution" sizing by using the recommended [https://tools.wmflabs.org/cp/resize.php Image Resize Calculator].
Vwanweb acknowledged that there was "(no image)" on the NYS
Department of Corrections' website, and wrongly assumed that this was
where crimefeed.com obtained the image from, despite the failed
verification. - wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
An observation: Good intentions do not justify cutting corners. I
have to remind myself of that frequently. --Kent G. Budge (talk)
14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a sentence covering images and media files to
WP:SWYGT. Also, I learned today that the Discovery program only
featured the picture very briefly, right at the end of the
program. Of course that's long enough for anyone who knows a
person to recognise them, but for everyone else it would have
been far harder to memorise the face from that than from a
stationary image on an internet page. --Andreas JN466 18:44, 5
November 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost is written by editors like you -- join in!
Home
About
Archives
Newsroom
Subscribe
Suggestions
*
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion&oldid=1053209418"
Categories:
* Wikipedia Signpost archives 2021-10
* Wikipedia Signpost RSS feed
Hidden categories:
* Pages with syntax highlighting errors
Navigation menu
Personal tools
* Not logged in
* Talk
* Contributions
* Create account
* Log in
Namespaces
* Project page
* Talk
[ ]
Variants expanded collapsed
Views
* Read
* Edit
* View history
[ ]
More expanded collapsed
Search
[ ] [Search] [Go]
Navigation
* Main page
* Contents
* Current events
* Random article
* About Wikipedia
* Contact us
* Donate
Contribute
* Help
* Learn to edit
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Upload file
Tools
* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Permanent link
* Page information
Print/export
* Download as PDF
* Printable version
Languages
Add links
* This page was last edited on 2 November 2021, at 15:28 (UTC).
* Text is available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
. Wikipedia(r) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers
* Contact Wikipedia
* Mobile view
* Developers
* Statistics
* Cookie statement
* Wikimedia Foundation
* Powered by MediaWiki