4 ms·

I feel like Wikipedia could take some small steps to make amends to Mr White. Now that all of this has happened, it feels like he is now a minor pubic figure w

by mabbo 5y ago

I feel like Wikipedia could take some small steps to make amends to Mr White. Now that all of this has happened, it feels like he is now a minor pubic figure worthy of his own wiki page. Something like "Nathaniel White (not serial killer)" with an article describing the mistake. Ask a newspaper to do a small article about it, interviewing him, and taking a really nice photo of him- which can go on the wiki page. Yes, it would probably be the exact kind of page that Wikipedia would take down saying this person isn't important enough. But they can choose when and how those rules apply. Give him five years with it up, protected from take down. It doesn't make up for the problem, but it is something they can do, at no cost to anyone, and it would make a difference. A small amount of compassion can matter.

akolbe 5y ago
I get where you're coming from. As of now the only press article about this is this little piece in the Tallahassee Democrat that may have led to the Wikipedia image being removed: https://tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/08/28/man-confused-robocop-killer-national-tv-sues-discovery-channel-defamation/3442125001/ https://tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/08/28/man-confused-r... Nobody else has written about it. I suspect though Mr. White might possibly prefer to go back to his private life and never hear about Wikipedia again. If Wikipedia ever covers this, it had perhaps best be in an article about Wikipedia controversies (which could be linked from the Nathaniel White article).
- mojomark 5y ago
  > Nobody else has written about it. > I suspect though Mr. White might possibly prefer to go back to his private life and never hear about Wikipedia again. Except that the image was used in a Discovery channel doc on the killer - which isn't an easily fixable Wiki. No idea if Discovery Channel nixed this episode, or clawed back any distributions of this content from consumers. The focus of the article was on Wikipedia errors, which is undoubtedly to blame for the onset of the issue (albeit now "corrected" with a.link to the Tallahassee article - further subtly perpetuating), but the primary issue of perpetuation appears to be the fault of Discovery Channel's journalistic negligence. 1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8358280/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8358280/
  - akolbe 5y ago
    The oldest page I've found featuring the wrong picture is this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20201128204840/https://www.monstersandcritics.com/tv/copycat-killers-spotlights-robocop-2-serial-killer-nathaniel-white/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201128204840/https://www.monst... It's dated July 1, 2017, which would mean it precedes the presence of the image on Wikipedia by almost a year. I haven't seen the complete Reelz episode referred to on that page (see trailer at the bottom of the page), but it looks like it may feature (or may have featured) the wrong image as well. https://www.reelznow.com/video/9c2e55a5-0478-4e91-a338-983e7e3aebb0 https://www.reelznow.com/video/9c2e55a5-0478-4e91-a338-983e7... I don't have access to it so can't check. In Google, this Reelznow page is dated 16 June 2017. The broadcast date for the Discovery episode on the IMDb page you linked ("Episode aired May 3, 2018") seems to be wrong. According to the legal papers, the episode was broadcast August 13, 2018. See page no. 4: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2e/White_v._Discovery_Channel_et_al._-_Complaint.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2e/White... This is borne out by the Wikipedia page views: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2017-01-01&end=2020-09-04&pages=Nathaniel_White https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&pl... Big spike in August 2018, nothing in May 2018.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > If Wikipedia ever covers this, it had perhaps best be in an article about Wikipedia controversies Well, judging from TFA and a The Register link posted in this discussion, I think I know of someone who knows how to write such articles... ;-)
ignoramous 5y ago
> Ask a newspaper to do a small article about it, interviewing him Per general notability guidelines, a brief article isn't likely to help a case for a separate wiki page [0]. Per low-key, may be there's a case to be made [1], though there's also concerns around advocacy [2]. > and taking a really nice photo of him- which can go on the wiki page. To get a photo on wikimedia you own, upload it any where (preferably flickr / straight up on commons.wikimedia) and release it under a wikimedia-compatible license [Ex A] > It doesn't make up for the problem, but it is something they can do, at no cost to anyone, and it would make a difference. Wikipedia has its warts, and the community is pretty open about what it means to have an article on there and why it may not be the best thing for anyone that's famous [3]. Wikipedia favours verifiability over truth [4], and is not bothered with incorrect information [5], because someone somewhere ought to eventually correct it [6]. (And of course, I am wiki-lawyering at this point [7]) -- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GNG [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LOWKEY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LOWKEY [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAPBOX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAPBOX [Ex A] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bradfitz-sunglasses.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bradfitz-sunglasses.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAMOUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAMOUS [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VNT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VNT [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IMPERFECT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IMPERFECT [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAWYER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAWYER
- visarga 5y ago
  > because someone somewhere ought to eventually correct it After what they did to this man, they should be that someone. Never had a lower opinion on Wikipedia than today.
- tylermenezes 5y ago
  I think it'd be more likely to be "The Nathaniel White Incident" vs a biography but yeah I broadly agree.

by mabbo 5y ago

akolbe 5y ago

I get where you're coming from. As of now the only press article about this is this little piece in the Tallahassee Democrat that may have led to the Wikipedia image being removed: https://tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/08/28/man-confused-robocop-killer-national-tv-sues-discovery-channel-defamation/3442125001/ https://tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/08/28/man-confused-r... Nobody else has written about it. I suspect though Mr. White might possibly prefer to go back to his private life and never hear about Wikipedia again. If Wikipedia ever covers this, it had perhaps best be in an article about Wikipedia controversies (which could be linked from the Nathaniel White article).

mojomark 5y ago
> Nobody else has written about it. > I suspect though Mr. White might possibly prefer to go back to his private life and never hear about Wikipedia again. Except that the image was used in a Discovery channel doc on the killer - which isn't an easily fixable Wiki. No idea if Discovery Channel nixed this episode, or clawed back any distributions of this content from consumers. The focus of the article was on Wikipedia errors, which is undoubtedly to blame for the onset of the issue (albeit now "corrected" with a.link to the Tallahassee article - further subtly perpetuating), but the primary issue of perpetuation appears to be the fault of Discovery Channel's journalistic negligence. 1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8358280/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8358280/
- akolbe 5y ago
  The oldest page I've found featuring the wrong picture is this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20201128204840/https://www.monstersandcritics.com/tv/copycat-killers-spotlights-robocop-2-serial-killer-nathaniel-white/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201128204840/https://www.monst... It's dated July 1, 2017, which would mean it precedes the presence of the image on Wikipedia by almost a year. I haven't seen the complete Reelz episode referred to on that page (see trailer at the bottom of the page), but it looks like it may feature (or may have featured) the wrong image as well. https://www.reelznow.com/video/9c2e55a5-0478-4e91-a338-983e7e3aebb0 https://www.reelznow.com/video/9c2e55a5-0478-4e91-a338-983e7... I don't have access to it so can't check. In Google, this Reelznow page is dated 16 June 2017. The broadcast date for the Discovery episode on the IMDb page you linked ("Episode aired May 3, 2018") seems to be wrong. According to the legal papers, the episode was broadcast August 13, 2018. See page no. 4: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2e/White_v._Discovery_Channel_et_al._-_Complaint.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2e/White... This is borne out by the Wikipedia page views: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2017-01-01&end=2020-09-04&pages=Nathaniel_White https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&pl... Big spike in August 2018, nothing in May 2018.
CRConrad 5y ago
> If Wikipedia ever covers this, it had perhaps best be in an article about Wikipedia controversies Well, judging from TFA and a The Register link posted in this discussion, I think I know of someone who knows how to write such articles... ;-)

ignoramous 5y ago

> Ask a newspaper to do a small article about it, interviewing him Per general notability guidelines, a brief article isn't likely to help a case for a separate wiki page [0]. Per low-key, may be there's a case to be made [1], though there's also concerns around advocacy [2]. > and taking a really nice photo of him- which can go on the wiki page. To get a photo on wikimedia you own, upload it any where (preferably flickr / straight up on commons.wikimedia) and release it under a wikimedia-compatible license [Ex A] > It doesn't make up for the problem, but it is something they can do, at no cost to anyone, and it would make a difference. Wikipedia has its warts, and the community is pretty open about what it means to have an article on there and why it may not be the best thing for anyone that's famous [3]. Wikipedia favours verifiability over truth [4], and is not bothered with incorrect information [5], because someone somewhere ought to eventually correct it [6]. (And of course, I am wiki-lawyering at this point [7]) -- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GNG [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LOWKEY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LOWKEY [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAPBOX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAPBOX [Ex A] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bradfitz-sunglasses.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bradfitz-sunglasses.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAMOUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAMOUS [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VNT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VNT [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IMPERFECT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IMPERFECT [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAWYER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAWYER

visarga 5y ago
> because someone somewhere ought to eventually correct it After what they did to this man, they should be that someone. Never had a lower opinion on Wikipedia than today.
tylermenezes 5y ago
I think it'd be more likely to be "The Nathaniel White Incident" vs a biography but yeah I broadly agree.