Talk:Olivia Blake

Streets Ahead role

I fail to understand why my edits on this keep getting reverted? I have quoted output from the government’s FOI portal - which has been incorrectly labelled as unreliable(!). Plus a reputable local paper. Reviewed jointly Blake’s role is clear. PJPWv2 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@PJPWv2: first, thank you for starting this discussion and thank you for your edits made with the aim of improving Wikipedia. Please undo your change to the main page for the time being because it is considered impolite or aggressive on Wikipedia to keep reinstating newly-added material that is contested, until consensus in favour of its inclusion has been established (see e.g. WP:BRD).

The first source is a website which claims to have an email that Olivia Blake('s team) wrote. I don't know what the site's editorial and fact-checking policies are (they would need to be extremely stringent) but putting that aside, an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. The second source does not mention Blake by name. Please read WP:SYNTH—it is not appropriate to draw conclusions from two unrelated sources, one saying "Blake was involved with X" and one saying "X was criticised".

Were this content due weight then we could discuss some other issues with it, such as its loaded use of the term "controversial" (a weasel word in this context), the original research and non-neutral claim "neither Blake (as original deputy leader) nor the ongoing leader (Julie Dore) publicly acknowledged the critical findings from a report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, nor did they apologise" (not verified by any source) etc. but I don't want this to turn into an exponentially branching number of arguments. So let's stick to my main point: it is inappropriate to connect criticism of "Streets Ahead" to Olivia Blake with the sources that have been presented.

I can think of reasons why you would believe that it is significant to list a criticised project with which a politician was associated, maybe as part of holding an elected official accountable. The issue is that Wikipedia (like any encyclopedia) is a tertiary source. We do not aim to right great wrongs or to hold anybody accountable to anything. We merely aim to describe what authoritative secondary sources deem significant and necessary. It is the newspapers' job to draw connections between Blake and "Streets Ahead", if they deem it true that she is responsible for some mistake or unsuccessful project, and our job just to report what they determine.

The issue with allowing our editors to draw their own connections between projects and politicians is that you can use this to throw mud at any elected figure you dislike in a very malicious way. For instance, I could overwhelm the article on Andy Burnham with almost any mistake made by any part of the Manchester government in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. I could also overwhelm the article on Boris Johnson with almost any mistake made by any part of the Manchester government in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. And the same for almost anyone in the Tory cabinet, any Manchester-based MPs etc. Maybe you think any or all of these are appropriate. But what if I only do it for one specific politician and ignore all the rest, because I secretly just want to dirty their name for a reason fully unrelated to COVID-19?

I am not accusing you of doing any of this, but explaining what many users come to this site to do, with the hopes that you can understand why the outcome would be undesirable. A great many very determined people come here with extreme contempt for whichever politician you find most pleasant, and the aim to destroy their reputation through any means necessary. This is one good reason why we say that it is not our editors' job to determine what is significant. It is only our job to reflect what has been reported as significant. And Yorkshire Post determined that it was not significant to mention Olivia Blake by name in their discussion of the topic, so we can determine that it is not significant for Wikipedia to do so either.

To prevent us going in circles, I suggest that you summarise back to me in a couple of sentences the reason why you think that I have been removing this content, and I can either reaffirm that or explain where you are misunderstanding. You can then explain to me why you disagree with that reasoning, if you still do. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the website holding that email. It’s the mechanism through which information requested via the Freedom of Information act is commonly published - see https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/. The email cited as a source was released by Sheffield Council following a request in relation to the Streets Ahead contract.

As to your point about using Wikipedia to attack a politician, this is not what I intend to do. However, Blake’s entry at present ignores the controversies which occurred at the council whilst she was deputy leader. Had she merely been a councillor then it would not be appropriate to link them, but as deputy leader she moves from being associated to being jointly culpable. For example, her entry talks about her reforming outsourcing in relation to Capita, but ignores the aggressive manner in which opponents to environmental vandalism under a multi billion pound outsourcing contract were handled. If the edits I have been attempting to make are removed then no reference to the huge controversies which occurred while Blake was deputy will exist - which would not be presenting a fair or comprehensive view of her leadership to someone unfamiliar with Sheffield’s plight. Furthermore, she is now MP to one of the areas worst hit by the council’s actions so it remains relevant in her current role of MP for Hallam.

There is a raft of additional FoIs, council meeting minutes and other publications available to support the above and Blake’s general involvement in Streets Ahead and the persecution of protesters. Others are free to edit the paragraph I added to cite these - or when I’ve more time I will do it. PJPWv2 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi PJPWv2, I'm afraid you are not responding to the thrust of my points. You have not provided information about the editorial standards of What Do They Know (which the ICO link doesn't mention — how do I know that the website is not fabricating FOI claims?) but more importantly, you'll notice when you re-read my above post that the reliability of that website is actually not key to my argument that emails are not secondary sources that are needed to show due weight. Any FOIs are primary sources, not secondary (and a tertiary source like an encyclopedia is based on secondary sources).

You'll also notice that I explicitly said that I was not accusing you of acting malicious in any way, and again my argument is not reliant on you acting in bad faith.

As you haven't engaged with the main arguments that I made, I ask you to re-read my above post. I have found it a helpful communicative tool if you repeat back to me my main argument, because I believe you don't really understand what my opinion is and I would like to help you understand it, so that you can properly engage with it. — Bilorv (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Let’s deal with your first point - What Do They Know. This is an oft cited service which is well recognised by the ICO. There’s been zero suggestion that it is editing or selectively displaying information - not have any complaints alleging such been submitted regarding it. It is used extensively by FOI campaigners and public bodies alike as it represents a well known, easily accessible and reliable service through which to invoke and respond to FOI requests. The site operates a complaints process and, as a charity, has trustees for escalations should this be necessary. Having to state all of this to use an undisputed email disclosed under FOI to a well known website with appropriate governance and rights of appeal in place feels a little cumbersome, does it not? There is greater rigour in how that site is ran than how many newspapers (cited without question) are ran, with no editorial slant being applied. PJPWv2 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really can't see where on the ICO page you pointed to What Do They Know is linked to. But remember that in my first comment I said an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. You say that There's been zero suggestion that it is [...] selectively displaying information but this is the problem—that's what makes it a primary source, not a secondary source (which has editorial oversight). Only secondary sources show significance. I feel like you're digging really deep into something that was just a throwaway comment and ignoring the other four and three-quarters of the five-paragraph reply I wrote, and it would be more helpful to engage in the policies WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:V, which are how we on Wikipedia decide what information to include.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I rephrased my stance. I personally agree that the website contains true information. I personally agree that the information you are trying to add is true. I personally agree that the information is relevant to Olivia Blake. These are three different things to the following statements, which are the reason I argue for removal of the content. It has not been demonstrated to the degree needed for a professional-standard encyclopedia that What Do They Know has a reputation for high-quality editorial fact-checking. It has not been demonstrated that the information is so significant to the topic "Olivia Blake" that it should be selected for inclusion in the article over dozens or hundreds of other topics which are omitted. It has not been shown that reliable secondary sources (such as newspapers, books or academic writings) exist that discuss this information in relation to Blake's role as an elected official. — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You say that this all feels a little cumbersome, does it not?. Yes, it does. But I am afraid that there is a steep learning curve to understanding the guidelines and policies we have on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this introduction to Wikipedia is an unpleasant one. We can just remove the content and spend our time more wisely—you could take a look at Wikipedia:Task Center, which has some suggested areas which are better for beginners. I notice you describe yourself as a Cyber security and governance person, with an interest in digital identity. Maybe there are academic papers, (non-vanity press) books or high-quality news articles that you have read recently that you could try incorporating information from. But for now, you have been disrupting this article by repeatedly adding material that doesn't meet our editorial standards.

And I'll answer one question that you haven't asked—I've seen this article that looks much worse, why is this guy focusing on this thing that seems harmless? The answer is because there aren't that many experienced editors and we can't all be in six million places at once. Some articles have content much worse than anything you would try to add, and we should be improving those articles. Show me something worse in quality and I can try to improve it. Or you can try to improve it yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You’re not very good at sticking to the point being discussed here. I’ve highlighted the veracity of the source which you’ve failed to acknowledge and gone back into another long winded and patronising lecture, before reverting the edit again (I believe you described your behaviour as edit warring, previously?). PJPWv2 (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@PJPWv2: I have said this since my first post: the fact that the website contains true information is not a reason that the information need be repeated on Wikipedia. I'll quote again: an email is not a reliable source of the calibre appropriate for an encyclopedia; even if it were then it would be a primary source and due weight is only demonstrated by secondary sources. This is my response, which you have not addressed yet.

Please observe that the edit you have repeatedly reinstated has immediately apparent typographical errors—e.g. it ends with:

The council was later forced to apologise, although neither Blake (as original deputy leader) nor the ongoing leader (Julie Dore) publicly acknowledged the critical findings from a report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, nor did they apologise<ref>{{Cite web|title=Sheffield Council misled public and acted with ‘lack of honesty’ over tree-felling scandal, damning investigation finds|url=https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/sheffield-council-misled-public-and-acted-lack-honesty-over-tree-felling-scandal-damning-investigation-finds-3002854%7Caccess-date

and notice that WP:BRD puts the onus on the person introducing a change to establish consensus for it (I am not the user introducing the change). — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled across this by accident. Oh my, please respect WP:BRD if you all can. @PJPWv2 your behavior also constitutes edit-warring, and generally speaking it is good practice to leave off newly added and newly disputed content until a resolution can be found on the talk page. Edit: "Had she merely been a councillor then it would not be appropriate to link them, but as deputy leader she moves from being associated to being jointly culpable" - says who though? --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)