Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
> On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder 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. > > > > That requires people be familiar with such things on an international > scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people > using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news > source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than > any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references. > > Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site > within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it. > > -- > geni > Totally. This sort of problem is well suited to the wiki editing style. Subsequent editors can look for better sources or hedge or even delete the material. References to blogs, which often contain information much to an editors liking, are a good example. Then there is state-controlled media, China's media and government websites being an interesting example. In China even bold cutting-edge journals are self-censored; But how can that be differentiated from any journal's blind spot. For example, peer review for an academic journal can, in practice, amount to exclusion of material that reflect an approach to the discipline the peer jury doesn't approve of rather than actual proof of reliability. Remember though that the entry point to this discussion was use of British tabloids for BLP purposes. There controversial material, a tabloid's stock in trade, may be removed if there is no reliable source. WP:BEANS There can be no exhaustive list of what might be an appropriate source for each type of subject. 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 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder 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_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=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/Enforcement&oldid=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 wrote: > From: wiki > 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_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=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/Enforcement&oldid=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 wrote: > --- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki wrote: >> From: wiki >> 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_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=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/Enforcement&oldid=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 > > > > > > > ___ >
Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
>> On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder 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_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=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/Enforcement&oldid=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 wrote: > From: Andreas Kolbe > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership}) > To: "English Wikipedia" > Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 13:25 > --- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki > wrote: > > From: wiki > > 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_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=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/Enforcement&oldid=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 kno
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
[WikiEN-l] Why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore
What we look like to a discouraged editor: http://ploum.net/post/222-why-i-don-t-contribute-to-wikipedia-anymore Note the blogs as reference issue. 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] Why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore
I especially liked this part: "It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we need some rules to organize our work. Third, we make the rules really complicated to fit every corner case. Fourth, we completely forget the goal of those rules and we apply them blindly for the sake of it. Fifth, we punish or kill those who don't follow the rules as strictly as we do." ___ 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:Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&advanced=1&search=thesun&limit=500&offset=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 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%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=t hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch &advanced=1&fulltext=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 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 wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=t > hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch > &advanced=1&fulltext=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 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 wrote: > Andreas Kolbe > 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:Search&redirs=0&search=thesmokinggun+divorce&fulltext=Search&ns0=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 wrote: > 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth wrote: > one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some > people take > a "percentage" approach to it. My view is that the amount > of weight > something has in an article is a function not just of the > *amount* of > text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it > uses). > > It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if > something is > sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less > "weight" > (in the sense of being taken seriously) than something > sourced to a > really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not > what > WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also, > the wording > used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and > wishy-washy way > (*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that > carries less > weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence. > Similarly, a > rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less > than a > single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up > and down on > the page and says "this is the real point of the article". > > In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the > weighting > of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come > back to the > tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more > than the > volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate, > non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as > a whole. > It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the > minutiae of > sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise > wording. It often > chokes the life out of the prose of an article. That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive. NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint. I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography. 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%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=t > hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch > &advanced=1&fulltext=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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
> > That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the > more > heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the > more > lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive. > > NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to > reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative > sources > in their restraint. > > I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning > more > weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not > reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given > equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an > authoritative > scholarly biography. > > Andreas No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight to give various 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})
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Carcharoth wrote: > Which incident are you both talking about? If Ken's user page makes it > obvious, just say that, but I can't immediately remember what you are > both talking about here. Spoiler warnings. And no, it's not on my userpage. ___ 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions. A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out. But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance. Let those who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will express their personal view. In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished, it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold: bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; and increasing our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside the current English speaking world, in the other . On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> >> That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the >> more >> heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the >> more >> lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive. >> >> NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to >> reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative >> sources >> in their restraint. >> >> I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning >> more >> weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not >> reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given >> equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an >> authoritative >> scholarly biography. >> >> Andreas > > No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means > use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight > to give various sources. > > Fred > -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
