|
|
|
The Review hits the airwaves....., thanks for coming chaps..... |
|
|
privatemusings |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 4,306
|
well as many good folk around here will know, I've recently posted a new conversation over at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' featuring Somey (and who knew that it's pronounced summy?), Wordbomb, Wikipedia Review and Moulton... thanks heaps for coming by guys - I hope the people who give it a listen find it interesting, and it helps promotes useful discussion etc.... it mightn't be the last of course... cheers, PM.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
I wonder if there's a way to get a big, booming reverb effect on the microphone input in this computer? That, or maybe a full-blown echo/delay, plus some bass roll-off.
Also, it would be really cool to have Prokoviev's The Montagues and Capulets playing in the background whenever I say anything longer than, say, 20 seconds or so...
Anyway, I thought it went OK, though I didn't get a chance to put in a plug for the OO/NOB proposal. I've been trying to tell myself that's not necessarily bad, since it's always better for them to think it was their idea (and after all, technically it was). Oh well, maybe next time.
|
|
|
|
Castle Rock |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined:
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051
|
Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards. QUOTE hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... And the powers that be respond as well on Privatemusing's talk page as well. QUOTE(Raul654 @ PM) In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage...
Was there ever a shred of evidence outside of IRC-based paranoia that it was in fact Lir? This post has been edited by Castle Rock:
|
|
|
|
Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Thu 3rd April 2008, 10:16pm) Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards. QUOTE hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... Bwahaha, Didn't Kohs bring this up? The irony detector has overloaded and blown up by this point. Oh and I see Raul the pathological liar has shown up has he? Probably just trying to harass and intimidate Privatemusings off the site.
|
|
|
|
Amarkov |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined:
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635
|
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Thu 3rd April 2008, 10:16pm) Thanks for putting this together Privatemusings. Very interesting. I saw this gem on one of the Noticeboards. QUOTE hopefully the page is fairly self-explanatory, but I thought I'd just make a note here if there are administrators interested in having a listen to some points and perspectives from editors who have been shown the door for various reasons from this project - then they can so at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' - thoughts and feedback most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This would be kindof like... allowing banned users to post, via ogg, no? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... And the powers that be respond as well on Privatemusing's talk page as well. I thought everyone had finally realized that it's idiotic to say "LOOK LOOK TEH FOUNDER IS A NAZI THEREFORE WR IS EVIL!" I guess I overestimated Wikipedian common sense, though...
|
|
|
|
UseOnceAndDestroy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined:
Member No.: 4,073
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Fri 4th April 2008, 6:19am) Oh and I see Raul the pathological liar has shown up has he? Probably just trying to harass and intimidate Privatemusings off the site.
Liar, for sure. " Raul": QUOTE Wikipedia Review noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation
"Explicitly"? Reward board: QUOTE The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task, similar to the German edition's de:Wikipedia:Auftragsarbeiten. The execution and details of the transaction are the responsibility of the participating parties, and the reward can be monetary, goods (books, cookies, etc.) or tit-for-tat editing (like improving another article). Please do not post offers of barnstars or other trivial rewards. (Use the Award Center for barnstar offers.)
Why does wikia/wikipedia generate liars?
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
The Rosalind Picard article is worth observing for its evolution. From a position of no knowledge of her, it first arrives with what looks like a typical CV style write up. Not sure who or why it puts up. It in passing mentions the petition. ID people then have a debate about the petition and the section wobbles around. Then, the main section which describes her career in neutral tones is simply chopped out as unsourced, leaving the hacked around, but sort of sourced, section on controversy. I think this is such a telling interchange: QUOTE Rosalind Picard & A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎
Could people please stop removing Picard from Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and removing the brief mention of the fact (and the fact that her 'dissent' is an opinion volunteered well outside her field of expertise). The first is a matter of unambiguous fact. The second is clearly notable, given its mention in the NY Times. Hrafn42 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn42: Please arrange to talk to me by telephone. Your edits are a gross and egregious violation of WP:BLP:DNH policy. You are not a subject-matter expert on the subject of this article, and your edits are doing harm. Please cease and desist. Moulton 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Moulton: I am under no obligation to "talk to [you] by telephone." If you have something to say, say it here. As I presume you are not a professional biographer of scientists, you are not a "subject-matter expert on the subject of this article" either. Far more likely you are an associate of Picard's and thus subject to WP:COI (as well as WP:NOR). Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the relevant clause of the WP:BLP:DNH...
An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
Moulton: The New York Times is not a tabloid! Picard's signing of this misleading, anti-scientific, creationist-inspired 'dissent' is a matter of public record within the mainstream media. It is neither "tabloid" nor "titillating". DNH is therefore completely irrelevant to these edits. Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Fri 4th April 2008, 4:41am) Why does wikia/wikipedia generate liars?
I think it's because they've taken their example from the Sole Flounder. Mr. Pellegrini (Raul654) looks like a complete buffoon... He stated: QUOTE "Wikipedia Review noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation, not the person doing the editing. Being paid to edit an article absolutely clear-cut conflict of interest, and if he says he didn't think it was, he's a fool or he's lying." The Wikipedia Reward Board states in several places: " The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task..." " This is purely a page for editors to offer rewards to other editors." The Reward Board had essentially the same provisions of cash directly to editors in the Summer of 2006 when I started Wikipedia Review, as well. So, we can obviously see that Mark Pellegrini is a loose cannon. He's decided that I am either a "fool" or a "liar" -- about something which he has completely botched in public. Indeed, he is himself being a fool or a liar, so there's quite some irony there. I don't want to have to contact my attorney friends in Delaware (where Pellegrini is in school, and where I lived for over 8 years). If the Wikipedia administrator community hasn't learned by now -- it's neither polite nor wise to call me a liar. User:Durova did it in the Spring of 2007, after Jimmy Wales unblocked my account, and the pressure I and others applied escalated into her eventual abandonment of the admin bit. I'd like to discuss this amicably in the medium where the damage was sown, but seeing as I am blocked from rebutting Raul654's aspersions where they have been cast, I hope someone will please reply publicly to him that he would be advised to redact or modify his statements, so that they are not defamatory claims backed up with utterly nothing but conjecture! (And if someone could again replace the "buttocks" picture with Mark's headshot, that would be quite satisfying, too.) Greg
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
Raul654 is emblematic of the appalling lack of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online journalism. On the one hand he admits that he doesn't know the circumstances of the situation, but that doesn't stop him from fronting a haphazard (and demonstrably erroneous) theory of mind regarding what the subject of the BLP does or doesn't want known. Haphazard and unverified theories of mind about what someone believes or wants have no place in encyclopedic articles. Had Raul654 bothered to look into it, he would have found that Picard herself made a pair of edits to forthrightly disclose the fact that she signed the petition in question. What she took exception to (as did James Tour and several other co-signers of the original 2001 version) was the suggestion that the statement they signed was either anti-evolution (as suggested by the headline in the NY Times) or a 'dissent from Darwin' as later spun out by the Discovery Institute. The unpopular point of view that I proposed is the one favored by rigorous scientists everywhere, namely that when examining any scientific theory, it is essential to adhere to the protocols of the Scientific Method. QUOTE(Rejected Edit to James Tour Biography @ as proposed by Moulton, 30 August 2007) Controversial Petition
In February 2006, the New York Times reported[1] that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers out of several hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's newly launched website promoting a controversial petition characterized as "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[2] Tour's field of organic chemistry is a branch of scientific research which establishes his credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution. Clearly the adversarial editors preferred the Discovery Institute's political point of view rather than the scientific point of view offered by the scientists themselves.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th April 2008, 2:01pm) I'd like to discuss this amicably in the medium where the damage was sown, but seeing as I am blocked from rebutting Raul654's aspersions where they have been cast, I hope someone will please reply publicly to him that he would be advised to redact or modify his statements, so that they are not defamatory claims backed up with utterly nothing but conjecture!
Ah, but anything we communicate would be acting for a banned user and would have to be deleted, and suggesting that he redact to avoid legal action would clearly be a legal threat, so it will take a Respected User (i.e. nobody who admits to being here) to get away without a ban. So, Wikipedia policy means he's screwed, then?
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
A delete from Calton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caltonwho doesn't seem to be a fan of this site 9('banned means, wait for it, banned'). Also now JzG and Phil Sandifer. [edit] Some of what's going on in the page right now is jaw dropping. Accusations of sockpuppetry, checkuser requests &c. Can someone illuminate me, why is it an obvious sockpuppet a/c? [edit] Snippets: QUOTE Lawrence, I happen to know that NonvocalScream is an OTRS volunteer and has provided the necessary identifying information to the Foundation. Your attack on Scream is egregious and completely unworthy. I suggest you apologise or redact that statement. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, I do believe this nomination is disruptive, since it's just going to generate absurd conflict over something no-one would have given a shit about otherwise, two days from now. Scream's editing history and OTRS status, and alleged Foundation connection also indicates he's a sock of someone established, given the newness of the account, so my calling him a sock is spot-on. My point is that we can't gauge who it is, for histories of sanction, biases, or problems, and thus something this inflammatory is suspect to many. Lawrence § t/e 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You are being a disruptive twit. Please stop or accept our 24 hour all expenses paid vacation to somewhere other than Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC) QUOTE Twit comment on me at MFD Is a direct personal attack. Continuing personal attacks could lead to your being blocked. Please stop. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phil_Sandifer" This post has been edited by Peter Damian:
|
|
|
|
BobbyBombastic |
|
gabba gabba hey
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,071
Joined:
From: BADCITY, Iowa
Member No.: 1,223
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 4th April 2008, 1:12am) I wonder if there's a way to get a big, booming reverb effect on the microphone input in this computer? That, or maybe a full-blown echo/delay, plus some bass roll-off.
I was sort of hoping that you would have wacky soundbytes to play, like a toilet flushing and a zany "wah, wah, waaaaah" or something. Which reminds me...there used to be a guy that ran a website that would get on teamspeak and disguise his voice so no one would know who he was. I wonder how long it will take for a person to do that on PM's show? I thought that this interview would have a good effect. It's easy to miss things like emotion and that sort of thing when communicating in text only and of course you have to trust that the other person is actually reading your words. It appears that some not only do not pay attention to what people type, but they don't listen to what they say either! As evidenced by Raul's refusing to listen to Wordbomb's explanation of the "spyware" (more like a web bug) that he sent slimvirgin. QUOTE(Raul) You said in the podcast that you are a "technical ignoramus". I am not - I'm rather knowledgabout about computers and how they work. Wordbomb claimed in the podcast that the spyware he sent Slimvirgin was no different than any commercially available cookie. This is a complete untruth. If he was sending someone a link to a file on a server on which he had access to webserver logs (the http access log at /var/log/httpd) there would be no need for any client-side script -- he could simply check the log. Now, let's say he attached it the files to the email instead (so that he was sending the files themselves instead of a link to them) -- most (all?) email clients provide a utility for the sender of an email to request a return reciept (see [http://www.mozilla.org/quality/mailnews/tests/sea-mn-basfunc-return-receipt.html this] for example). It's equivalent to sending certified mail. What he sent - a surreptitious program that dials home to a mother server when the email it is attached to is accessed - is spyware by any definition. I do not think Raul reads here, but someone please tell him to go back and listen to that again. He seems to have whipped himself into a frenzy and did not pay any attention to the explanation. If he chooses to disbelieve the explanation, that is one thing, but he out and out misrepresented it or misunderstood it. Raul made several very ignorant remarks on PM's talk page, including stating that: QUOTE(Raul) WR encouragese these acts and I consider all participants there to be either actively or tacitly guilty of fostering harrassment. I considered rebutting him on wiki, then I thought that it is so ridiculous that it is better for people to see how stupid he is for themselves and I shouldn't do him the favoring of convincing him not to be so stupid.
|
|
|
|
Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th April 2008, 1:01pm) Mr. Pellegrini (Raul654) looks like a complete buffoon... He stated: [snip/] The Wikipedia Reward Board states in several places: [snip/] Actually, I don't think Raul is lying, exactly... Wikipedia:Bounty board was and is precisely as he describes, and he may have mixed the two up (and since he for whatever reason doesn't trust you, there's no reason for him to bother clicking to check his facts)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 4th April 2008, 1:08pm) Actually, I don't think Raul is lying, exactly... Wikipedia:Bounty board was and is precisely as he describes, and he may have mixed the two up (and since he for whatever reason doesn't trust you, there's no reason for him to bother clicking to check his facts) Well, I never said he's exactly lying. He might just be exactly a buffoon. He said: QUOTE I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly... I don't see how that could be a "mix up" of the two policy pages. I do see how it evidences a buffoon. +++++++++++ ============= +++++++++++++ QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 4th April 2008, 1:14pm) Anyone recognise the tone/mannerisms?
I smell expensive wine, perfectly cooked filet mignon, and a hint of Russian massage parlor oil. Woah! What was that bright beam of high-intensity flashlight light that I just saw? Could it be??? Greg
|
|
|
|
jorge |
|
Postmaster
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 1,910
Joined:
Member No.: 29
|
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Fri 4th April 2008, 11:53am) I was sort of hoping that you would have wacky soundbytes to play, like a toilet flushing and a zany "wah, wah, waaaaah" or something. I'll work on that... there has to be a way to do it... As for the MfD, howzabout I throw out this hypothetical: What if it had been just me being interviewed, and Moulton, thekohser and Wordbomb hadn't been involved at all? Or maybe me and Kato, or The Joy, or Guy, or any one of the majority of WR members who aren't banned from WP? I don't even have an account, and given that the others wouldn't be "banned users" - does anyone here honestly think they wouldn't come up with some other bogus reason for deleting the episode page and the associated files? For an even more interesting example, what about Poetlister? She's (currently) banned on en.wikipedia, but an administrator on en.wikiquote - and like the people are saying, the audio files are hosted on Commons. Also, this is perilously close to the kind of logic that would force them to delete the article on the movie Shoot 'Em Up, because "banned user" ColScott makes an appearance on the DVD "making of" bonus featurette.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
I find this funny, from Filll: QUOTE Let's consider a real example (that recently came up). Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that they also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on their own website, for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person mentioned that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.
So in their biography on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for mentioning his wife was a coauthor of some of his books. He wants us to mention that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.
What do we do? Oh, you mean sort of like the co-founder of a huge web encyclopedia project contacts WP and threatens to go bat-feet insane if Wikipedia mentions the other co-founder as a co-founder? I dunno. What do we do, Filll?
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 4th April 2008, 11:50am) Also, this is perilously close to the kind of logic that would force them to delete the article on the movie Shoot 'Em Up, because "banned user" ColScott makes an appearance on the DVD "making of" bonus featurette.
My perverse nature indicates that perhaps they should do precisely that. Go all the way into Stalinist airbrushing, and start erasing the existence of everything that in any way relates to people they don't like. Thereupon, WP will finally become what Messrs. Sandifer and Pellegrini obviously want it to be; the North Korea of the internet. With themselves as top-ranked toadies to Dear Leader. Wish I had a few of "Raul's common sense bricks", for throwing at certain pointy heads. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) QUOTE Oh, you mean sort of like the co-founder of a huge web encyclopedia project contacts WP and threatens to go bat-feet insane if Wikipedia mentions the other co-founder as a co-founder?
Heh heh heh.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
More-o da Same-o: QUOTE(Raul654 @ 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) The discussion with all of these people tended to focus heavily on the reasons surrounding their initial bans (and highly biased descriptions thereof) while glancing over their numerous misdeeds since. Also (and these would have been good points to put towards Somey) [1] there was one cases on WR where Wikipedia Review ranted at length about one or two socks that were absolutely not his, and that these were clearly good users who had been swept up by overzealous admins. When I checkusered them later, it turned out they were sockpuppets belonging to Jon Awbrey (another banned user/wikipedia review participant) impersonating Wikipedia Review. And while it's conceivable he didn't know and thus wasn't lying, I thikn he was lying and I take anything they say with with a large grain of salt. Why would that be a good point to "put towards" me? I had nothing to do with that, and I didn't know it was going on. (Not that I would have cared!) QUOTE [2] It would have been nice of you to ask Somey about the real-world harassment that Wikipedia Review has spawned. Except that all the examples he cites happened before I even became a member... QUOTE in another case, user:Katefan0 (a very good editor and generally a very nice person) was outed as a worker for Congressional Quarterly, and had to quit because of possible bad-effects on her job. Never mind the conflict of interest, of course. And she "had to quit" Wikipedia, not her job. Let's just make that clear. QUOTE Of course, I expect Somey would give some idiotic answer along the lines of 'these are the acts of individual Wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site', but frankly, WR encourages these acts... Aren't all my answers idiotic? I thought that was the whole point... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Anyway, I'd probably mention that ALL of those things happened two years ago before I mentioned the fact that they're the acts of individual Wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site. "We" and/or "WR" don't encourage anything, except to the extent that any web forum encourages people to do whatever it is they do. And this, from User:Filll: QUOTE(Filll @ 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) It was interesting to hear how Moulton is now presenting his "case" to outsiders. Amazing how different it seems to be than the facts, and even statements he himself has made in writing, which can be discovered with a little bit of digging. Anyone interested can look at a little tiny bit of the problem by looking at his RfC, but this barely scratches the surface; I only put as much in his RfC as was necessary to deal with this problem, and did not put in everything I could have. Since others have no particular reason to doubt Moulton or investigate his situation, he can maintain this story to them and get some sort of hearing, but it does not square with reality. However, I would ask the rational person to listen carefully to even what Moulton claims in that interview; the evidence that something is wrong is presented right in the interview if you pay attention. Classic WP double-talk! Claim your opponent is wrong and doesn't "square with reality" without actually explaining why! Darkly hint that you've got more and/or secret information that you hasn't revealed! Tell everyone that it's "really obvious if you pay attention"! Yes or no, "Filll" - did you, or did you not, edit-war over articles on people who had signed the ID petition, in order to keep their BLP articles in a state in which the petition appeared to the reader to be the single most important event in their lives? And as for Filll's little "hypothetical," it's completely diversionary and irrelevant. However, in that case you'd give the person the option of having the article deleted completely, or else work within WP's strict, rigid confines to help shape its content. I think WP'ers would find that the vast majority of article subjects would end up not really objecting to the strict, rigid confines all that much, given the choice - except for people who are being targeted by WP attack editors like User:Filll, of course! The opt-out policy proposal is designed specifically for them.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
I rather doubt I was the first person to raise objections to BLPs on the grounds of accuracy or ethics. But at least two highly respected Wikipedians (NewYorkBrad and Doc_Glasgow) have recently acknowledged that the BLP problem is one of the most serious ethical problems facing the site. The two or three BLPs which I ventured to correct were among the very first that I dug into at Wikipedia. Eric Barbour commented just a few days ago that he thought those particular BLPs were among the most egregious examples of BLP abuse that he had ever seen on Wikipedia. Unlike Eric, I had no frame of reference to compare the biographies of Picard, Tour, etc, with any others to assess how bad they were compared to any other BLPs. There is little doubt in my mind that there is a real problem with BLPs in general, and those two or three in particular. I cannot fathom what Filll had in mind when he launched that RfC to examine the problem, but it's amusing to note that KillerChihuahua was hard pressed to come up with a valid reason for executing an indefinite block, and so she ended up concocting a haphazard ( and patently erroneous) theory of mind to the effect that I "had no interest in writing an encyclopedia." QUOTE(From my now-blanked and deleted User Page) My interest in writing encyclopedia articles in my areas of expertise dates back to 2004 when I co-authored an 8-page article entitled "Electronic (Virtual) Communities" in the Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Here's another: QUOTE(Filll) Where would it leave Wikipedia to be open to any edit by anyone who shows up and demands to write unsourced content with no references and no reliable sources, contrary to our existing sources? Where would that leave "ethics" and "standards for good journalism" and "encyclopedic content" ? Uh, exactly where it is now...? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Anyway, this rant of his about the guy with the co-author wife was a classic strawman argument, for which the "conclusions" were based on pure lies and gross distortions that didn't even have much to do with the example. It's one of the worst I've seen, in fact. Nobody here is insisting that WP abandon its BLP strictures in favor of including things that are "contrary to reliable sources" - AFAIK that's the polar opposite of what people here are suggesting. And of course, he's conveniently ignoring the OO/NOB proposal completely, which sort of goes back to why I was unhappy about not getting a chance to explain it. Then again, just about everyone who listens to that thing should be familiar with it, I'd imagine.
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
I presume PrivateMusings and the other moderate editors here are following this, and appreciate the opportunity and need for dialogue on the issues that divide us on the BLP problem (both in general and as revealed in the particular cases where I did battle with Filll and his allies on the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design).
I hope the moderate editors here, including Lar, Viridae, NewYorkBrad, Doc_Glasgow, SirFozzie, and Alison (who am I leaving out?), will lend their good offices to these questions, in search of a reasonable resolution of both the general problem and the kind of specific examples which I happened to stumble onto last Fall.
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 4th April 2008, 10:38pm) Anyway, this rant of his about the guy with the co-author wife was a classic strawman argument, for which the "conclusions" were based on pure lies and gross distortions that didn't even have much to do with the example. It's one of the worst I've seen, in fact.
Nobody here is insisting that WP abandon its BLP strictures in favor of including things that are "contrary to reliable sources" - AFAIK that's the polar opposite of what people here are suggesting. And of course, he's conveniently ignoring the OO/NOB proposal completely, which sort of goes back to why I was unhappy about not getting a chance to explain it. Then again, just about everyone who listens to that thing should be familiar with it, I'd imagine.
The likes of Filll are so involved with their own distorted view that I am sure that they really believe they are right. I suspect they assume that they are up against a clever argument which they can't quite put their finger on the sleight of hand, but they know it is in there - hence the comments like: "You only have to listen to here it": THEY can hear it, but they can't articulate it. It is much like they cannot hear the arguments from Moulton et. al. that the petition is not as they have described, therefore their whole raison d'etre for the conflict is null and void. Rather like a day or so ago, where the thread here on "outing" a Wikipedia user who already had publicly identified himself (I guess that is a bit like outing Tom Robinson for singing Glad to be Gay) is the worst ever attack in the world ever. Brains don't engage. Unfortunately, though we think that having these faux-pas lying around helps, most readers just seem to accept the BADSITEs theme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |