Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't credible. If he was told that he wasn't a reliable source in WP's terms, that is a different kettle of fish. How's he supposed to know the difference? Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had preference. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
On 10 September 2012 17:04, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't credible. If he was told that he wasn't a reliable source in WP's terms, that is a different kettle of fish. How's he supposed to know the difference? Oh, I don't know, they keep saying he should get a Nobel Prize as a novelist, so perhaps his command of the English language is above average. There is a nuance. Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had preference. The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the existing secondary sources zapped from the article as simply worthless, and we couldn't accept that. Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his biographer might have had to have waited until the biography was published, in which case we would have cited it without trouble. Via what appears to be an OTRS mail Roth was given what appears to be the wrong advice, phrased in terms of secondary sources. As WP:ABOUTSELFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF tells us, Roth simply had to get his view published; which he did. The caveat in the article by 20 August was actually enough to cast great doubt on the other story about his inspiration, at least for any attentive reader. It is traditional to hang all sorts of other considerations on these incidents, but from the point of view of getting the case study straight, it isn't that helpful. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had preference. The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the existing secondary sources zapped from the article as simply worthless, and we couldn't accept that. Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his biographer might have had to have waited until the biography was published, in which case we would have cited it without trouble. Via what appears to be an OTRS mail Roth was given what appears to be the wrong advice, phrased in terms of secondary sources. Let me get this straight: He was given the wrong advice about secondary sources... and it's his fault? This is definitely Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia's policy *as practiced* failed him, and failed us. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if there is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list become unfit to drive? Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this moment..to dismiss him as an elderly man googling underscores why there may be intergenerational unease on this enterprise. Show respect.This comment that Roth is an elderly man googling is spiteful and not a valid point. On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its end. Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists? I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? Carcharoth Roth is an elderly man googling, see http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/09/internet-stain-philip-roth-wikipedia-entry/56646/ Our current content seems appropriate. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if there is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list become unfit to drive? Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this moment..to dismiss him as an elderly man googling underscores why there may be intergenerational unease on this enterprise. Show respect.This comment that Roth is an elderly man googling is spiteful and not a valid point. I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of spending decades on line they wrote books and produced documentaries; they are Noobies here regardless of their accomplishments elsewhere; crying babies squalling and throwing their rattles. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
Wow high and mighty much? I haven't had chance to look into this; but I bet I know what I will find. Someone being a bit of a jerk to him, which has led to having to take this approach. Which is about rebutting Wikipedia rather than the source which we cited. Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an attitude problem HERE. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if there is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list become unfit to drive? Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this moment..to dismiss him as an elderly man googling underscores why there may be intergenerational unease on this enterprise. Show respect.This comment that Roth is an elderly man googling is spiteful and not a valid point. I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of spending decades on line they wrote books and produced documentaries; they are Noobies here regardless of their accomplishments elsewhere; crying babies squalling and throwing their rattles. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
On 8 September 2012 14:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of spending decades on line they wrote books and produced documentaries; they are Noobies here regardless of their accomplishments elsewhere; crying babies squalling and throwing their rattles. The content he was trying to dictate was a statement about what his inspirations had been. I think it is reasonable for him to expect us to take his word for that. The only problem was that we needed him to put his word on the matter somewhere we could cite. Once he did that, we changed the article and cited the new source. I've only read the BBC article, so I don't know all the details. I expect there was a failure of communication at some point - either us not telling him what he needed to do in a clear, consise and respectful way, or him not being willing to listen and respect our policies. Without looking into the details, I don't know it was in this case, but there have been previous cases in both categories. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
No it doesn't. I'll give you good odds on me being right. Because I see the same thing week after week. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I haven't had chance to look into this; That statement invalidates this statement: Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an attitude problem HERE. -d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: No it doesn't. I'll give you good odds on me being right. Because I see the same thing week after week. You mean leading author almost synonymous with rare interview assumes his word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has a percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. Really, nothing on the record? (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of situation do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, even if dealing with someone famous.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
We've had a problem with courtesy for a long time; the entire internet has. We're one of the few organizations that has made a concerted and determined effort to address it, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html Fred No it doesn't. I'll give you good odds on me being right. Because I see the same thing week after week. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I haven't had chance to look into this; That statement invalidates this statement: Rather than whining about him we need to see the problem; it's an attitude problem HERE. -d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Roth is an elderly man googling
It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they are the authority on their own opinions. We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work. Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze over the most important bit. I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS there is sure to be at least one. I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources. So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the source, or another source appearing to rebut it. This is much more palatable than your word isn't a reliable source. If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning the reliability of him/her as a person. Tom Morton On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: No it doesn't. I'll give you good odds on me being right. Because I see the same thing week after week. You mean leading author almost synonymous with rare interview assumes his word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has a percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. Really, nothing on the record? (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of situation do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, even if dealing with someone famous.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
