Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:25:17 + (GMT), wikien-l-Andreas Kolbe wrote: and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she met Cruise. I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that, Jada says. But, she adds, In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. And a religion always stops being weird when you have a good friend who's in it. Personally, I find all religions to be superstitious nonsense, regardless of whether any friends or family of mine are in them. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:25:17 + (GMT), wikien-l-Andreas Kolbe wrote: and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she met Cruise. I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that, Jada says. But, she adds, In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. And a religion always stops being weird when you have a good friend who's in it. Personally, I find all religions to be superstitious nonsense, regardless of whether any friends or family of mine are in them. Yes. And, with the organized ones, a brilliant, insidious - and very effective - form of social engineering. It's misguided to pursue ideological purity of any kind religious or otherwise. Real sanity lies in embracing what we find useful in all kinds of approaches, without having to swear unwavering allegiance to any of them. Marc ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles. While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;) Oops! :-) Tough old bird. Indeed. Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for. Human interest rather than encyclopedic? Carcharoth ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for. Human interest rather than encyclopedic? Yes. Though I wouldn't want to get rid of the human interest. I watched that interview with the royal flush quote, her sitting, with her shopping, on the steps of her house, talking to the assembled reporters. It was hilarious. But we need to recognise that our present system and demographics are biased towards adding spice to our articles, rather than meat. All spice and no meat is no good. Andreas talking to the assembled ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On 2/4/11 6:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I do not permit any of my students to cite your encyclopedia as any kind of reliable source when they write papers for me. Wikipedia is too much a playground for social activists of whatever editorial bent wherein the lowest common denominator gets to negotiate reality for the readers. No thanks. I run into these kinds of reactions fairly frequently, but honestly I don't see how they're in tune with reality. There at least seems to be a bit of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment going on (and among academics, some turf-defending and credentialism). I certainly encourage my students to read Wikipedia, though I also encourage them to follow up the sources and consult alternative sources. There are indeed social activists of whatever editorial bent, but that's true of academic presses as well! A well-developed Wikipedia article in my experience is less likely than an academic book to completely ignore a large number of sources; academics are much more willing to decide field X is crap and ignore it entirely, e.g. if you look at how economists treat critical theorists and vice versa (and how economists treat economists from rival camps). Consider, say, our article [[History of U.S. foreign policy]]. It could be better, certainly could be more detailed (though some sections point to more detailed separate articles), but it's not bad overall imo. It covers some opposing views, both in terms of historiographic disputes and political disputes. Now compare it to a recently published Princeton University Press book on the history of U.S. foreign policy, Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz. The book is of course more detailed than our article, and includes some excellent material that we should cover. But if you were to ask which one is influenced more by social activists and which one more neutrally covers conflicting views of U.S. history and foreign policy, we beat the book by a large margin! And it's hardly an isolated example, if you look at the list of recent publications by academic presses, there is a whole lot of social activism going on. Not that that's even necessarily bad; academic presses don't serve the same role as an encyclopedia. But it's strange to criticize Wikipedia from that standpoint! -Mark ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: From: Mark delir...@hackish.org On 2/4/11 6:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I do not permit any of my students to cite your encyclopedia as any kind of reliable source when they write papers for me. Wikipedia is too much a playground for social activists of whatever editorial bent wherein the lowest common denominator gets to negotiate reality for the readers. No thanks. I run into these kinds of reactions fairly frequently, but honestly I don't see how they're in tune with reality. There at least seems to be a bit of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment going on (and among academics, some turf-defending and credentialism). I certainly encourage my students to read Wikipedia, though I also encourage them to follow up the sources and consult alternative sources. There are indeed social activists of whatever editorial bent, but that's true of academic presses as well! A well-developed Wikipedia article in my experience is less likely than an academic book to completely ignore a large number of sources; academics are much more willing to decide field X is crap and ignore it entirely, e.g. if you look at how economists treat critical theorists and vice versa (and how economists treat economists from rival camps). Consider, say, our article [[History of U.S. foreign policy]]. It could be better, certainly could be more detailed (though some sections point to more detailed separate articles), but it's not bad overall imo. It covers some opposing views, both in terms of historiographic disputes and political disputes. Now compare it to a recently published Princeton University Press book on the history of U.S. foreign policy, Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz. The book is of course more detailed than our article, and includes some excellent material that we should cover. But if you were to ask which one is influenced more by social activists and which one more neutrally covers conflicting views of U.S. history and foreign policy, we beat the book by a large margin! And it's hardly an isolated example, if you look at the list of recent publications by academic presses, there is a whole lot of social activism going on. Not that that's even necessarily bad; academic presses don't serve the same role as an encyclopedia. But it's strange to criticize Wikipedia from that standpoint! -Mark Of course academic books engage in social activism, and represent a spectrum of opinions. But compiling an authoritative reference work is quite a different job from writing a book with a provocative thesis that stirs debate, as Immerman has done. Publishers of general-purpose and specialised encyclopedias realise that, and so do the scholars writing for them, who are accountable to the work's editors. We don't have any similar accountability. Perhaps that is another way scholars and universities could become involved, besides personal editing involvement and setting their students Wikipedia projects: by reviewing the material we have in their area of expertise, providing a quality rating similar to those of our own quality rating processes, and providing improvement suggestions that the community can then follow up on. Andreas ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject. OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat Jimbo recently added into the lead Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings - stating This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawatdiff=411493466oldid=40 5705319 The citations he provided for the popular press were from Brisbane Courier-Mail and The London Courier-Standard. Now, neither could be deemed expert sources. If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a cult leader in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is often said or what is reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said? I guess I'm unsure. The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns [[anti-cult]] writings. Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what anti-cult people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcementoldid=411950776#Momento) Again, what the critics say isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead. The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude everyone says he's a cultist. That may be true, and the most important thing readers need to know - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure. Scott ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat Jimbo recently added into the lead Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings - stating This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawatdiff=411493466oldid=40 5705319 The citations he provided for the popular press were from Brisbane Courier-Mail and The London Courier-Standard. Now, neither could be deemed expert sources. If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a cult leader in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is often said or what is reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said? I guess I'm unsure. The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns [[anti-cult]] writings. Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what anti-cult people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcementoldid=411950776#Momento) Again, what the critics say isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead. The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude everyone says he's a cultist. That may be true, and the most important thing readers need to know - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure. As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is famous for doing exorcisms on air: http://www.boblarson.org/ Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or form an encyclopedic source though. Here is another example. The article on New Village Leadership Academy sources the following statement to this website: http://www.radaronline.com/ Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source? This is the statement concerned that we have in our article: ---o0o--- Cales stated: Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted.[24] ---o0o--- Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a Scientologist. Here is a quote: ---o0o--- Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she met Cruise. I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that, Jada says. But, she adds, In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the greatest men I know. http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-sets-the-record-straight ---o0o--- Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other non-Scientologists. Andreas ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
I think we also need to take into account what the subject is and type of information. I wouldn't trust one of our fleet street tabloids for a WWII bomber found on the moon story, and I was somewhat cynical about the following week's WWII bomber mysteriously disappears from the Moon headline, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage, so has signed for yyy FC or died is probably usable. As for the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway? WereSpielChequers. On 4 February 2011 13:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat Jimbo recently added into the lead Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings - stating This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawatdiff=411493466oldid=40 5705319 The citations he provided for the popular press were from Brisbane Courier-Mail and The London Courier-Standard. Now, neither could be deemed expert sources. If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a cult leader in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is often said or what is reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said? I guess I'm unsure. The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns [[anti-cult]] writings. Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what anti-cult people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcementoldid=411950776#Momento) Again, what the critics say isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead. The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude everyone says he's a cultist. That may be true, and the most important thing readers need to know - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure. As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is famous for doing exorcisms on air: http://www.boblarson.org/ Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or form an encyclopedic source though. Here is another example. The article on New Village Leadership Academy sources the following statement to this website: http://www.radaronline.com/ Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source? This is the statement concerned that we have in our article: ---o0o--- Cales stated: Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted.[24] ---o0o--- Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a Scientologist. Here is a quote: ---o0o--- Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she met Cruise. I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that, Jada says. But, she adds, In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the greatest men I know. http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-sets-the-record-straight ---o0o--- Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other non-Scientologists. Andreas ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject. OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat Jimbo recently added into the lead Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings - stating This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawatdiff=411493466oldid=40 5705319 The citations he provided for the popular press were from Brisbane Courier-Mail and The London Courier-Standard. Now, neither could be deemed expert sources. If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a cult leader in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is often said or what is reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said? I guess I'm unsure. The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns [[anti-cult]] writings. Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what anti-cult people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcementoldid=411950776#Momento) Again, what the critics say isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead. The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude everyone says he's a cultist. That may be true, and the most important thing readers need to know - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure. Scott Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC). with a link to single-party state an artificial construct for which there is little published authority. We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden. By the way, I know of what I speak. I lived in Denver and was well acquainted with the Divine Light Mission, friends even with several of them their leaders. A cult. 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
I think we also need to take into account what the subject is and type of information. I wouldn't trust one of our fleet street tabloids for a WWII bomber found on the moon story, and I was somewhat cynical about the following week's WWII bomber mysteriously disappears from the Moon headline, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage, so has signed for yyy FC or died is probably usable. As for the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway? Yes, I use Chinese controlled media and government sites all the time as references for information that is not politically sensitive. The problem is that it takes real expertise to know what is, and in that gray area, a bogus assertion by the government may pass as reliable. 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
Note that the statement about Pinkett-Smith I quoted in the previous post was not sourced to radaronline.com, but to the West Australian, a Perth newspaper. What is sourced to radaronline.com http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/08/exclusive-will-jada-new-school-head-practiced-scientology in the [[New Village Leadership Academy]] article is the statement that the school principal, Piano Foster, has Scientology associations. Radar in turn sources this to what it calls an official Scientology list. In fact, this is a private website, truthaboutscientology.com, which since a recent AE thread is no longer considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. The site says the woman once did a Scientology course (Basic Study Manual). Sorry for the mix-up. Here are some other uses of radaronline.com: - Used in the [[Rachel Uchitel]] BLP to state that she was photographed entering Tiger Woods's room. - Used in [[Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew]] to state that On August 31, RadarOnline reported that Rachel Uchitel, who had been living at a sober living facility in Malibu, California, left the facility with Dr. Pinsky's permission in order to visit the World Trade Center site, where her fiance, James Andrew O'Grady, was killed during the September 11, 2001 attacks. - Used in [[Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 9)]] to state that During rehearsal on September 28, Lacey Schwimmer severely strained her hip flexors and abductors. Her injuries required 3 weeks of physical therapy. She continued to dance on the show during her treatments. - Used in the [[Brian Gazer]] BLP, along with primary court sources, to provide a detailed financial breakdown of Gazer's divorce settlement. - Used in [[Suleman octuplets]] as a source for stating that the octuplets' grandmother has complained that her daughter does not contribute toward housing or food costs. - Used in the [[Brittany CoxXx]] BLP to state that 'Borat's producers first contacted [Stonie's Manager, David Forest] in June 2005, he tells Radar. They wanted to find someone who would look 13 or 14 but was actually of legal age and would do frontal nudity, he recalls. Cortez immediately sprang to mind, he says, because he's a small-framed boy but has a large organ. How large? About eight inches, and thick.' We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see little evidence that we adhere to it. Andreas --- On Fri, 4/2/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership}) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 13:25 --- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat Jimbo recently added into the lead Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings - stating This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawatdiff=411493466oldid=40 5705319 The citations he provided for the popular press were from Brisbane Courier-Mail and The London Courier-Standard. Now, neither could be deemed expert sources. If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a cult leader in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is often said or what is reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said? I guess I'm unsure. The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns [[anti-cult]] writings. Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what anti-cult people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcementoldid=411950776#Momento) Again, what the critics say isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead. The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude everyone says he's a cultist. That may be true, and the most important thing readers need to know - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm
Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see little evidence that we adhere to it. Andreas After such examples are found they still need to be edited. The editing community varies in its tolerance, experience, and compliance. What in one context might slip though will not in another. BLP is an area of focus and for good reason; it is productive of nasty publicity and potential liability. 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see little evidence that we adhere to it. Andreas After such examples are found they still need to be edited. The editing community varies in its tolerance, experience, and compliance. What in one context might slip though will not in another. BLP is an area of focus and for good reason; it is productive of nasty publicity and potential liability. These are not isolated cases. The presence of this type of material is systemic, arguably within present policy, and, it seems to me, supported by community consensus. The Sun is used as a source in several thousand articles on Wikipedia, including many BLPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchns0=1redirs=1advanced=1search=thesunlimit=500offset=0 We might consider generating a list of sources like radaronline and The Sun, identifying them as unwelcome, and creating a noticeboard where editors can apply for exceptions in the few cases where a source like that has something of encyclopedic value to say. I am fairly convinced though that a proposal like that would result in 2 MB of arguments and in the end come to nothing. For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way. Andreas ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way. Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there. Carcharoth ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchredirs=1search=t hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22fulltext=Searchns0=1title=Special%3ASearch advanced=1fulltext=Advanced+search 'Nuff said. Scott -Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 04 February 2011 16:13 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership}) On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way. Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there. Carcharoth ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
You need to put that in context. Namely, is The Sun used in non-BLP articles as well? And the real question is how much do BLPs rely on newspaper sources in general, as opposed to (say) references to published biographies? Carcharoth On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchredirs=1search=t hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22fulltext=Searchns0=1title=Special%3ASearch advanced=1fulltext=Advanced+search 'Nuff said. Scott -Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 04 February 2011 16:13 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership}) On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way. Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there. Carcharoth ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way. Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there. Even parts of Wikipedia where other sources do exist frequently restrict themselves to aggregating news. There are no end of scholarly sources on [[Doris Lessing]], say. Our article on her cites (news and web sources listed left, book sources indented): NobelPrize.org The Guardian BBC News Toronto Star The Times Bloomberg The New York Times http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi The New York Times BBC News Online - A book by Harper Collins biography.jrank.org - A book by Broadview Press Newsweek Voices of America dorislessing.org Huffington Post BBC Radio rslit.org The New York Times Daily Mail Herald Sun The Telegraph CBS News New York Daily News BBC News Online dorislessing.org The New York Times dorislessing.org - Worldcon Guest of Honor Speeches otago.ac.nz hrc.utexas.edu/press/releases/2007/lessing.html lib.utulsa.edu/speccoll/collections/lessingdoris/index.htm gencat.cat/pic/cat/index.htm That's 32 media/web references (some of them with multiple citations), and 3 book references (each cited once). We've been doing this for ten years. We have always said, articles will develop eventually. But by now, some articles are actually degrading again, and on the whole we have failed to attract great numbers of competent experts with real-life credentials. There are some promising signs that this is changing, and I am glad of it. But we should remember that the image we project through the quality and seriousness of our articles has a lot to do with what sort of editors we attract. There are virtuous circles as well as vicious circles. Another scholar for example who I asked for advice a while back volunteered the information that ---o0o--- I do not permit any of my students to cite your encyclopedia as any kind of reliable source when they write papers for me. Wikipedia is too much a playground for social activists of whatever editorial bent wherein the lowest common denominator gets to negotiate reality for the readers. No thanks. ---o0o--- Reactions like that are our loss, and perpetuate the problems we have. Our efforts at outreach could be coupled with efforts to make Wikipedia a more reputable publication. Charles Matthews mentioned at a recent meet-up a BLP where editors were all focused on whether the subject was gay or not, while no one had any interest in adding information explaining what made the person notable. This seems rather typical. Our beloved media gossip, complete with divorce details from thesmokinggun.com http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchredirs=0search=thesmokinggun+divorcefulltext=Searchns0=1 may be keeping those editors away who we most need to turn articles like Doris Lessing's into something worthy of an actual encyclopedia. In other words, the more tabloid sources we cite, the more editors we attract who like tabloids, while turning off those potential contributors who don't read tabloids. Andreas ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: snip That's 32 media/web references (some of them with multiple citations), and 3 book references (each cited once). I would suggest finding out who added those book references and seeing if they still have the books, and then building on the article from there. It would help if it was easy to find who added a particular reference. Incidentally, NobelPrize.org would be one of the more biographical sources. The Nobel Foundation gets each recipient to write a biography, and they are published in a regular series of books. Here is an example: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.html This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. The Nobel Foundation lectures are also fascinating, though less useful for Wikipedia articles. Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles. As always, you need to look in detail at the sources to really see what is going on. Carcharoth ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles. While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;) Tough old bird. Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for. Andreas ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchredirs=1search=t hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22fulltext=Searchns0=1title=Special%3ASearch advanced=1fulltext=Advanced+search 'Nuff said. Scott Said but not done. We need to take a good look at this, and similar uses of dubious sources. 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
In other words, the more tabloid sources we cite, the more editors we attract who like tabloids, while turning off those potential contributors who don't read tabloids. Andreas We are already nastier then we need to be or ought to be to ordinary people who try to edit. We are not going in the direction you suggest, but you might try Citizendium or Knowino. 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles. While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;) Tough old bird. Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for. Andreas So? Hardly the only article that could use major improvement. To some people that would be an opportunity. 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote: Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC). with a link to single-party state an artificial construct for which there is little published authority. We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden. It's easy for someone who is a little too anal-retentive at following rules to cause trouble, because the fact that he *is* following rules makes it so much easier for him to push his demands. And if you rules-lawyer, it's still easy to get away with it. The reason is that having the rules on your side gives you one *heck* of an edge in any dispute. It's occasionally possible for common sense to triumph over rules, but only in the very obvious cases will this happen--if the person following the rules isn't demanding something so outrageous that anyone can see how bad it is instantly, it'll work. ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote: Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC). with a link to single-party state an artificial construct for which there is little published authority. We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden. If we are serious about letting the sources dictate the content, and not the sources justify the content we want, then this comparison does not work. To have China described as a totalitarian dictatorship is in my mind not neutral, because it is simply to apply populist boo words to something we don't like. However, be that as it may, it would be reasonable to apply such a label if it were attributed to a leading Sinologist or some Professor of International Politics, who is an authority on comparative governmental systems, it would not be appropriate if it were attributed to wehatecommmies.com, freechina.org, or Fox News. To take Jimbo's and Prem Rawat, that's exactly what he did. He used two evangelical anti-cult exorcists, and a couple of tabloids, and the circumvention of popular press and anti-cult attribution, to negatively label the subject in the most prominent weighted way possible. (And I notice the edit remains in the article - probably because it appeals to the house POV). Now, the chap may be a cultist - but my question would be: how are serious specialist scholars, working in the field, assessing him? And should that not be given more weight than eccentric critics and non-critical journalists? The sources here are chaff and, even if not excluded, should be weighted as such. Scott ___ 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote: Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC). with a link to single-party state an artificial construct for which there is little published authority. We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden. If we are serious about letting the sources dictate the content, and not the sources justify the content we want, then this comparison does not work. To have China described as a totalitarian dictatorship is in my mind not neutral, because it is simply to apply populist boo words to something we don't like. However, be that as it may, it would be reasonable to apply such a label if it were attributed to a leading Sinologist or some Professor of International Politics, who is an authority on comparative governmental systems, it would not be appropriate if it were attributed to wehatecommmies.com, freechina.org, or Fox News. To take Jimbo's and Prem Rawat, that's exactly what he did. He used two evangelical anti-cult exorcists, and a couple of tabloids, and the circumvention of popular press and anti-cult attribution, to negatively label the subject in the most prominent weighted way possible. (And I notice the edit remains in the article - probably because it appeals to the house POV). Now, the chap may be a cultist - but my question would be: how are serious specialist scholars, working in the field, assessing him? And should that not be given more weight than eccentric critics and non-critical journalists? The sources here are chaff and, even if not excluded, should be weighted as such. Scott You've certainly framed the issue, but there are four lights. http://videosift.com/video/How-many-lights-do-you-see-Captain-Great-Picard-Moment 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] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
You've certainly framed the issue, but there are four lights.
http://videosift.com/video/How-many-lights-do-you-see-Captain-Great-Picard-
Moment
Fred
Hm, yes but {{citation needed}}.
Otherwise it just comes down to my reality is better than yours and either
brute force, or attrition posing as consensus.
Scott
___
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
