The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Stephanie Adams - not as gay etc, (another one)
carbuncle
post Sat 27th August 2011, 2:33am
Post #1


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



Stephanie Adams was a 1992 Playboy Playmate. She later declared herself to be a lesbian and that caught people's attention, because that is exactly the kind of lesbian role model the world had been missing. Time passes and Adams marries a man and has a child. No longer gay, she says. (It's a trend.)

So, it seems that an editor named Fasttimes68, aside from editing Adams' BLP, has allegedly posted items on his blog calling Adams a "twat". Classy. Fasttimes68 counters that there has been obvious sockpuppetry and puffery from Adams' herself. Seems likely.

The article is now up for deletion where this charming exchange took place:
QUOTE
Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, let me get this right. You're saying that in its current form, the article is promotional, but you're suggesting reliably sourced negative criticism should be restored (in an NPOV manner) in order to punish COI? If I've got that right, well ... I'm unaware of any policy or guideline recommending "WP:RETRIBUTION"; please rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a COI issue. People who write AUTOBIOGRAPHies cherry pick their sources, resulting in uncritical and biased edits; it is only fair to restore in compensation, reliably sourced negative content, to balance the article in accordance with NPOV policy. Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged. The ultimate discouragement is if the autobiography "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors" (as recommended in the guideline). elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The guideline of course recommends no such thing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It would only reward conflict of interest if Stephanie Adams' counsel won after massive pressure. This sort of thing must be the type of thing the project should actively discourage. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that causing harm or stress to Stephanie Adams (or any BLP subject) is exactly what we're trying to avoid, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles shouldn't exist to punish or otherwise harm anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
At the same time Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sitting duck for COI and legal coercion. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC
(the editor who posted the original comment and signs as "elle vécut heureuse à jamais" is User:La goutte de pluie)

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Sat 27th August 2011, 2:36am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sat 27th August 2011, 3:17am
Post #2


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 26th August 2011, 7:33pm) *

Stephanie Adams was a 1992 Playboy Playmate. She later declared herself to be a lesbian and that caught people's attention, because that is exactly the kind of lesbian role model the world had been missing. Time passes and Adams marries a man and has a child. No longer gay, she says. (It's a trend.)

So, it seems that an editor named Fasttimes68, aside from editing Adams' BLP, has allegedly posted items on his blog calling Adams a "twat". Classy. Fasttimes68 counters that there has been obvious sockpuppetry and puffery from Adams' herself. Seems likely.

The article is now up for deletion where this charming exchange took place:
QUOTE
Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, let me get this right. You're saying that in its current form, the article is promotional, but you're suggesting reliably sourced negative criticism should be restored (in an NPOV manner) in order to punish COI? If I've got that right, well ... I'm unaware of any policy or guideline recommending "WP:RETRIBUTION"; please rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a COI issue. People who write AUTOBIOGRAPHies cherry pick their sources, resulting in uncritical and biased edits; it is only fair to restore in compensation, reliably sourced negative content, to balance the article in accordance with NPOV policy. Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged. The ultimate discouragement is if the autobiography "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors" (as recommended in the guideline). elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The guideline of course recommends no such thing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It would only reward conflict of interest if Stephanie Adams' counsel won after massive pressure. This sort of thing must be the type of thing the project should actively discourage. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that causing harm or stress to Stephanie Adams (or any BLP subject) is exactly what we're trying to avoid, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles shouldn't exist to punish or otherwise harm anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
At the same time Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sitting duck for COI and legal coercion. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC
(the editor who posted the original comment and signs as "elle vécut heureuse à jamais" is User:La goutte de pluie)


What? Doesn't little Raindrop thinks that on-again then off-again lesbian playmates deserve to live "happly ever after" too? That's cold. unhappy.gif

What about Anne Heche? Is she mentally ill forever? What about Arabic feminist activist Munchma Quchi? Suppose she marries and decides to change her silly name? wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Sat 27th August 2011, 4:17am
Post #3


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 27th August 2011, 2:33am) *

Stephanie Adams was a 1992 Playboy Playmate. She later declared herself to be a lesbian and that caught people's attention, because that is exactly the kind of lesbian role model the world had been missing. Time passes and Adams marries a man and has a child. No longer gay, she says. (It's a trend.)

So, it seems that an editor named Fasttimes68, aside from editing Adams' BLP, has allegedly posted items on his blog calling Adams a "twat". Classy. Fasttimes68 counters that there has been obvious sockpuppetry and puffery from Adams' herself. Seems likely.

The article is now up for deletion where this charming exchange took place:
QUOTE
Delete if the article is currently kept in its currently promotional state. Keep if reliably-sourced negative criticism is restored (in an NPOV manner) to punish conflict of interest. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, let me get this right. You're saying that in its current form, the article is promotional, but you're suggesting reliably sourced negative criticism should be restored (in an NPOV manner) in order to punish COI? If I've got that right, well ... I'm unaware of any policy or guideline recommending "WP:RETRIBUTION"; please rethink. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a COI issue. People who write AUTOBIOGRAPHies cherry pick their sources, resulting in uncritical and biased edits; it is only fair to restore in compensation, reliably sourced negative content, to balance the article in accordance with NPOV policy. Furthermore, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged. The ultimate discouragement is if the autobiography "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors" (as recommended in the guideline). elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The guideline of course recommends no such thing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It would only reward conflict of interest if Stephanie Adams' counsel won after massive pressure. This sort of thing must be the type of thing the project should actively discourage. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that causing harm or stress to Stephanie Adams (or any BLP subject) is exactly what we're trying to avoid, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles shouldn't exist to punish or otherwise harm anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
At the same time Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sitting duck for COI and legal coercion. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC
(the editor who posted the original comment and signs as "elle vécut heureuse à jamais" is User:La goutte de pluie)


This is insightful and witty. I can see why they want to ban you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Sat 27th August 2011, 10:24am
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This. This explains everything.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sat 27th August 2011, 10:27am
Post #5


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 11:24am) *

This. This explains everything.


All women are whores eh?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Sat 27th August 2011, 1:26pm
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 27th August 2011, 10:27am) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 11:24am) *

This. This explains everything.


All women are whores eh?


Um...no. I was talking about Stephanie Adams. She taught a course at the Learning Annex (according to a news source I read) about "How to Marry a Rich Man". And the news source linked to that comic.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Sun 28th August 2011, 11:09pm
Post #7


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 1:26pm) *

QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 27th August 2011, 10:27am) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 27th August 2011, 11:24am) *

This. This explains everything.


All women are whores eh?


Um...no. I was talking about Stephanie Adams. She taught a course at the Learning Annex (according to a news source I read) about "How to Marry a Rich Man". And the news source linked to that comic.

Maybe so, but you didn't link to whatever news source that was, you linked to the cartoon. You shouldn't be surprised if people interpret that as reflecting your opinions. Just out of curiosity, what reliable source that chose to link to that cartoon?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 29th August 2011, 2:08am
Post #8


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 28th August 2011, 7:09pm) *

Just out of curiosity, what reliable source that chose to link to that cartoon?


It was probably New York Press - Nov 30, 2004.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Mon 29th August 2011, 2:50am
Post #9


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 29th August 2011, 2:08am) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 28th August 2011, 7:09pm) *

Just out of curiosity, what reliable source that chose to link to that cartoon?


It was probably New York Press - Nov 30, 2004.

Strange that I can't find such an article on their website.

This looks like a typical self-promotional BLP gone seriously off-course with the introduction of some kind of internet feud. Only one of the parties appears to be getting the boot. Also, someone has deleted the history of her BLP, which was only supposed to be redirected. The whole thing smells bad.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 29th August 2011, 3:22am
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
(cur | prev) 23:06, 27 August 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) (752 bytes) (Undid revision 447050918 by Dismas (talk) see WP:Courtesy blanking.)
(cur | prev) 23:05, 27 August 2011 Dismas (talk | contribs) (26,932 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by HJ Mitchell (talk): Revert page blanking. (TW))
(cur | prev) 21:48, 27 August 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) (752 bytes) (blak)


laugh.gif Thanks a lot, you little chodes! Such great wiki-comedy! laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st 3 17, 12:35am