Difference between revisions of "Submissions:2015/History of the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article"
(Created page with "<!-- Simply provide information about your submission below and save the page. --> ;Title: History of the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article ;Submissions#Proposal Themes|Th...")
|Line 45:||Line 45:|
# ''Add your username here.''
# ''Add your username here.''
; Comment: For the reviewers: Note that this submission comes from a user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:PhanuelB banned from the English Wikipedia] for harassment and threatening behavior related to the subject of this proposal. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 02:11, 1 September 2015 (EDT)
Revision as of 06:11, 1 September 2015
- History of the Murder of Meredith Kercher Article
- BLP, COI, Dispute Resolution, Advocacy in the context of one specific article.
- Type of submission
- Presentation. Possible request for 15 more min for panel if accepted.
- E-mail address
- Member of Injustice Anywhere. Presenter has blogged extensively off-Wiki in support of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
This proposal will involve a detailed discussion of the issues surrounding the Murder of Meredith Kercher (MoMK) article. The general subjects of dispute resolution, conflict of interest, blocking policy, administrator misconduct, advocacy editing, and the fair treatment of living persons (BLP) will be examined within the context of a specific topic.
The submitter is one of about a dozen editors blocked since 2010 for their participation in the topic. All those blocked had argued that the article did not treat Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito fairly. It is submitted here that the BLP issues surrounding a “highly biased” (exact words of Jimmy Wales) article about a heavily disputed murder case are grave.
The MoMK article is probably the most troubled entry in Wikipedia’s history and one that has caused profound harm to living human beings. Jimmy Wales has taken a close look at the dispute and found an article that employed “systematic exclusion of reliable sources” and “censorship to promote an agenda.” Wikimedia Foundation candidate Josh Lim went on to characterize the events there as “reprehensible.” Jimmy took an interest in the article following an open letter to him that was eventually signed by 454 people including seven reliable sources and the authors of six different books about the case. Jimmy’s attention was short lived and the article of today remains deeply flawed.
The case involved the highly publicized trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the 2007 murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. The case has been the subject of nearly 20 books, a dozen television documentaries, thousands of news segments, and two movies. Many reliable sources have criticized the fairness of the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito, a fact not reflected in the current article.
As noted in the article today, Knox and Sollecito were demonized in the European press. For much of this time Wikipedia became a central player in the dissemination of false and misleading information about the case. Both the Wikipedia dispute and the larger Internet debate pitted mostly European editors who believed in Knox and Sollecito’s guilt against less experienced editors from the US who believed in innocence. The US v. UK divide was so sharp and well defined that it can’t be ignored. Only with the final exoneration of Knox and Sollecito in March of this year did the Wikipedia article finely concede that the trial had been heavily criticized in America.
This presentation will include significant criticism of the English Wikipedia ARBCOM.
If accepted, a request maybe made to modify the presentation to a panel discussion of a little longer time as several of the important reliable sources banned from the current article reside in the DC area and might be interested in participating.
Wikipedia has of course done more to further the education of those children in the world who want to learn than any innovation in our lifetime, all at no cost to the taxpayers. That is an impressive accomplishment. It should come as no surprise that some articles will have problems and a very small number will have big problems. Wikipedia has done so much good for the world but in a handful of areas they may need to do a better job of listening to responsible voices of dissent.
- Length of presentation
- 30 min. Possible request for 45 min if accepted.
- Special schedule requests
- Will you attend WikiConference USA if your submission is not accepted?
- Probably not.
If you are interested in attending this session, please sign with your username below. This will help reviewers to decide which sessions are of high interest. Sign with four tildes. (~~~~).
- Add your username here.