Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:29, 12 February 2009

	Larry Sanger has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 19, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Misplaced Pages Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Larry Sanger (talk · contribs) / Sanger, Larry This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Citizendium comparison

The goal is to find a contrast for the statement "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, "approved" articles." about Citizendium. This has nothing (directly) to do with consensus versus truth; it's merely a matter of process. Citizendium has formal peer review and Misplaced Pages does not. Misplaced Pages's disclaimers make this very clear, and if you can't cite them as references then I'm not sure what you can cite about Misplaced Pages's formal organization. Rvcx (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to restore sourced information. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. This is the "exact quotes" from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The comparison between Citizendium and Misplaced Pages is about process, not philosophy. Citizendium's process involves formal peer review by established authorities; Misplaced Pages's does not. This is not a value judgement about which is better, and stating these verifiable facts does not mandate a discussion of theoretical consequences of these differences in process (which I think is very badly described by the "truth versus consensus" distinction, anyway). If you want to add a separate section on consensus versus truth then feel free to try, but don't try to shoehorn it into a statement of verifiable fact in order to promote Misplaced Pages's "philosophy". 129.67.151.47 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to restore the sourced information. Me thinks we should use reliable sources instead of less than reliable sources such as a disclaimer from Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

CZ has a formal review process, not consensus.[REDACTED] has a difference kind of review process. Misplaced Pages process is anyone who has internet access. Consensus is made by anyone. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Whether or not Misplaced Pages "seeks consensus, not truth" is just not relevant and reads as completely out of place in this article. The statement about Citizendium is that it has formal peer review. The relevant fact about Misplaced Pages is that it does not. If you're going to argue for "consensus not truth" then please explain how that is more relevant than the text I have proposed. Rvcx (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As for sources, Misplaced Pages's disclaimer is a primary source on Misplaced Pages's editing procedure. Note that the parallel Citizendium reference is to that project's official policy. If you have additional references for the (obvious and non-contentious) fact that Misplaced Pages does not have formal review then feel free to add them. Rvcx (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't use Misplaced Pages's disclaimer as a reliable source when we have better sources currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change. Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth is widely known among Wikipedians and outside viewers. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted from user talk: inaccurate & POV claim about Misplaced Pages vs Citizendium

Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth

I noticed your edit to Larry Sanger. Misplaced Pages does not respect truth or facts or sourced material. Editors can delete anything they want from an article by just saying "no consensus". To prove this point, take a look at the history of this article. Editors are deleting sourced material without any logical objection. According to your edit summary at Larry Sanger, Misplaced Pages is flawed. Maybe you are right!. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, let it be known that I won't comment your behaviour in this issue so far - I've already expressed my opinion about that - I will only reply to what you are saying in this specific post.

You say: " Misplaced Pages does not respect truth or facts or sourced material. Editors can delete anything they want from an article by just saying "no consensus" "

No, editors won't just say "no consensus" - they will argue on the talk page or in edit summaries, either that it isn't really "truth or facts", or that the "sourced material" isn't adequately sourced. If many argue so, then there is in fact no consensus. This is, as far as I can see, the case in the conflict that you cited, too, as people are in disagreement e.g. about the interpetation of specific Misplaced Pages policies regarding pseudoscience. And this shows the flaw in your regarding of consensus and truth as alternatives. In this situation as elsewhere, people aren't seeking consensus as opposed to truth, they are seeking consensus about the truth, i.e. they are seeking the truth through consensus.

Again - discussion and consensus are a means to establish what the truth is. They are not an alternative to truth as you present it. Eating pizza is not an alternative to digesting carbohydrates.

Since you're a side in the dispute you linked to, you're naturally assuming that your position is identical to "THE truth" (as opposed to consensus, i.e. to the position of the majority who disagree with you). However the fact is that there is no way for other people to know that. "The truth" is that you can't get "The Truth" pre-cooked anywhere in the world. You always get opinions about the truth, and you always need to decide which of these opinions is true. When people have different opinions, there are two possible ways to establish "the real truth". They may discuss and reach consensus about it. Or they may ask a person with authority to tell them what is true. It is a matter of personal opinion which way of "cooking" is best, but putting the question in the way you're doing it (Consensus or Truth?) is like saying that "The United States is based on democracy, not on good government" or "Jim is a nigger, not a human". It is inherently and totally non-neutral, because it implies that democracy can never be a good form of government, that black people can't also be humans, and that the truth can never be established by means of discussion/consensus.

But even this is not the whole story, your wording is not only inherently non-neutral, but also doubly misleading, because it also suggests that Misplaced Pages determines the truth by consensus, (as opposed to Citizendium, which determines it by expert authority). While Citizendium does indeed set out to determine truth by expert authority as opposed to external reliable sources, Misplaced Pages is not merely the opposite of Citizendium. Contrary to Stephen Colbert's ramblings, Wikipedians do not determine by consensus the truth itself, they determine by consensus what has been claimed about the truth by reliable sources (hence the real principle WP:Verifiability, not truth, as opposed to the mock principle - *WP:Consensus, not truth). There is still room for discussion, because just as people have different opinions about what is true, so they have different opinions about which source is reliable, which sourced fact is relevant for the article, and how to interpret various more specific policies. This is, again, precisely the case in the conflict that you linked to.

But note that even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be any evidence about Misplaced Pages's general principles, but rather of their violation that may occur in practice. Your wording misleadingly suggests that it is presenting the official principle of Misplaced Pages. And indeed, since the article describes the official principles of Citizendium, it would be both natural and fair for it to contrast them with the official principles of Misplaced Pages, not with their violations. The source for the official principles of Misplaced Pages can only be Misplaced Pages's policy pages and not Stephen Colbert's or Oliver Kamm's highly unqualified impressions, or your own (or, for that matter, my own) original research based on our personal experience with Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, one could easily say that Misplaced Pages's "real", practical principle is, say, "the most obstinate and least employed person wins", and I don't want to imagine what the "real" practical principle of Citizendium could turn out to be in the long run.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This post is completely irrelevant and shows that you haven't understood or even read anything of what I've written above.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here are the exact quotes from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is both unreliable and demonstrably wrong, as argued in detail above.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Read this comment. I made a proposal on a talk page and another editor wants me to show him how could there possibly be consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First, that's not true, you're misrepresenting the context (it was your own fault that you mis-placed your proposal in the sequence where people were discussing whether there was consensus or not; your opponents on that talk page are discussing the merits of the proposals of your side, rather than vetoing them by misciting WP:Consensus, as you claim). Second, even if it were true - as I pointed out above, your original research about specific editors' (mis-)behaviour can't be a source for Misplaced Pages's policy. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All in all, your replies above show that you've decided to play deaf and the only way in which I could force you to stop this game is by edit warring and looking for allies. Since I don't have the time to do this, you win. As I said, this is a typical Misplaced Pages situation, and shows a major flaw in the project. And again as I said, it's ironic that you are convincingly proving your Citizendium-ist point (that Misplaced Pages sucks) simply by personally making it suck. I won't read any of your further posts, because I want to spare my nerves. I will, however, post this exchange on the article talk page, in the hope that my argument may eventually be read and taken into account by others.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate, but not relevant to the recent edits in question. There is no need to dive into philosophical differences (all of which are exceedingly hard to verify, anyway). We can restrict ourselves in this article to differences in process, which *are* verifiable. 129.67.151.47 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth according to the reliable sources. I think we should not use Misplaced Pages's disclaimer when we have more reliable sources presented. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with 91.148.159.4: QuackGuru doesn't even seem to be reading what others have written. Rvcx (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained before, we can't use Misplaced Pages's disclaimer as a reliable source when we have better sourcing available. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and Citizendium do not try to provide truth. On Misplaced Pages, we seek consensus. On Citizendium, they don't seek consensus like Misplaced Pages does. On CZ, they have gentle expert review. QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus, not truth" relevant?

In comparing Misplaced Pages with Citizendium, the statement is that "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, "approved" articles." A discussion of consensus versus truth seems out of place here---shouldn't be just contrast this Citizendium process with Misplaced Pages's process which does not involve approval by experts and does not produce "stable" articles? Misplaced Pages primarily disclaimer makes these points very clearly, although I'm sure there is a mountain of reliable sources for such assertions. Rvcx (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm here following an RfC link, and 2: Don't bite the new guy (me). First I think that much of the content you're asking for comments on belongs on either a Citizendium or Misplaced Pages article (not a WP:BLP), or better yet, a "How Wiki is different from Citz". Since this is a BIO, I'm not sure it's really the best place for these comparisons. Second. the statements made in that section: ex: "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, "approved" articles. Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth.", are really opinion rather than fact. I read the references, and although they come from respectable news sources, they seem to be OP-ED pieces rather than news reporting. Especially when you say "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus not truth", that's a very tough thing to get through. It's very subjective. Misplaced Pages does have Policy and guidelines which state that controversial statements must be backed by "verifiable" sources. If the statements made are direct quotes from Sangler, then that's one thing, but if it's said as conclusion that's been reached by someone else, it doesn't belong (in my opinion). I think you'll see this link (WP:OR) by more experienced wikipedians than I. As always, that's just my humble opinion. Ched (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

perhaps: Misplaced Pages attempts to provide truth through consensus and verifiability vs. Citizendum attempts to present truth through expert opinion? ... Ched (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article as a whole, I completely agree with Ched's point: the point we've been arguing isn't about biography, and it's not even about Larry Sanger. The entry for Citizendium addresses the differences between it and Misplaced Pages; unless particular points are directly related to Larry Sanger's life/personality/role it's silly to try to summarize that content here. The section of founding Citizendium is directly relevant to Sanger; the section on an abstract comparison of the two projects was not, so I've removed it. Rvcx (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus not truth" come from? It's Verifiability, not truth, which only means, really, that even if you know something to be true, you cannot include it unless there are reliable sources to verify it. There is no valid reason to remove this section from the biography. His notability is tied in to these two projects and a comparison of them directly relates to him, as he played a major role in developing both. The RFC, however, is out of place. لennavecia 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your confusion over "consensus not truth"---this was the phrase that got my editing the article. But In truth the previous section covers Sanger's motivations for creating Citizendium as an alternative to Misplaced Pages perfectly well; I don't see any major points of the "Misplaced Pages vs. Citizendium" section that haven't already been addressed. An actual comparison of the two projects (as they are now) is definitely related and interesting, but it's a big topic, it's about far more than just Sanger, and it's controversial enough to need good editing. The nonsense back-and-forth here over "consensus not truth" is just proof that this content is much better maintained on the Citizendium page. It makes sense to restrict Sanger's bio to historical data only, which includes his motivations and direct quotations from him, but not inferences about abstract philosophies of two projects gleaned from newspaper op-eds. Rvcx (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then that's a problem you have with Misplaced Pages, but the article is written within policy. If there are unnecessary redundancies, that's something we can work out. And there isn't a "nonsense back-and-forth here over 'consensus not truth'". The article quoted misrepresents our policies in its wording, but that is not a reason to remove the entire section from this article. It's directly related to Sanger. لennavecia 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since I'm here anyway, I'm going to claim right of wp:bold and offer my edit. I defend the edit with wp:syn, and wp:npov. Please assume good faith. Ched (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) That's my best shot, short of getting real "wordy" or verbose. Ched (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored sourced information. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-15. Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. This is the "exact quotes" from the source. There were some other changes to the section that I think did not improve the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It wasn't clear to me that it was an "exact quote" from the format (other than the quote from Sanger himself). I didn't remove and sources, and simply tried to offer a more WP:NPOV to text that appeared to me to be WP:SYN. I suppose I'll learn as I go along. Ched (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are from an author at The Times. When it is referenced and directly relevant it can't possibly be SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my second edit was "Lol", but I'll try 1 last time to offer an improvement. Ched (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm told they are quotes, but when I put quotation marks on the statements, it's reverted with an edit summary of "They are not quotes" "these are not quotes". While I'm familiar with all the Jimbo/Larry stuff, and have read a lot of both sides - I guess it requires more in-depth study for me to edit successfully on this particular topic. "it was an 'exact quote'" ... and "these are not quotes" ... more of a conundrum than I can sort through at the moment. I am really at a loss here, I don't understand what the RFC was intended for. Ched (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Ched (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole second half of this article is a mess; it outlines Sanger's motivations for creating Citziendium in several redundant ways of varying quality. The last sub-section (the one under RfC) is the poorest presentation of the redundant information: is puts forwards Sanger's motivations---as well as personal interpretations of Misplaced Pages---as fact about both of the projects. I don't see this as a NPOV issue (I see certain aspects of the current presentation as negatively misrepresenting both projects), it's just a matter of article quality.

The sentence "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth." is the most egregious example; almost every word is wrong. The fact that "Misplaced Pages seeks" anything is completely unverifiable. Misplaced Pages is a project and thus does not "seek" anything. Its leaders may have certain goals, and these may or may not overlap with those of the editor community, but you can't ascribe these motivations to the project itself without giving some kind of definition of what entity the term "Misplaced Pages" is meant to represent. Obviously "consensus" is incorrect: the project leaders seek verifiability (among other things). One might contend that the result of Misplaced Pages process is consensus and not truth, but that's highly contentious and far from established fact. I have no idea what definition we're using for "truth", but it seems ridiculous to think that any community member wouldn't be seeking truth for some reasonable definition, or that Citizendium and Misplaced Pages differ in this respect. It is simply that Misplaced Pages is based on the notion of approximating some kind of truth via verifiability and wide consensus, and Citizendium is based on approximating it with peer review and consensus of domain experts. And of course "and not" is wrong as well, because it is possible to seek more than one thing at the same time.

QuackGuru has decided, however, that this page must remain exactly as is, which substantially de-motivates me to do a complete rewrite of the relevant sections. Rvcx (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that "the quotes are from the Times" is more than a bit misleading. There are two possible sources listed for the maybe-quote "consensus not truth". The first is a paraphrase of a sentence written by a Oliver Kamm, a columnist and not a journalist, in an opinion piece, not a news story. His column did appear in the Times, however. The rest of the (mis)quoted sentence is "...and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." That's not news reporting.

The other possible source for the "quote" is given as the Telegraph, another British paper. But it's not the Telegraph writer who is being quoted---we've used the Telegraph as a source for a quote from Steven Colbert. Also not news reporting.

QuackGuru seems to believe that any text which appears in a newspaper is a reliable source. I'm looking forward to future edits based on Dave Barry and Garfield.

These issues have been brought up by other editors in the past, and the fact that every attempt to address them has been consistently reverted is a real embarrassment for Misplaced Pages. Rvcx (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has stated the issue much better than I could have. The only thing I could possibly add at this time is a confession that I feel that I've been suckered in, and made a fool of. Ched (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'm back. I'm apparently knee-deep anyway, so I may as well get in over my head. OK, I see now about not linking to policy in the articles - it was a newbie mistake, and I didn't realize that it shouldn't be done. I had assumed that it would be perfectly fine to link to relevant policy in an article, sorry. Next: I'm still not clear on what are quotes and what aren't, if the comparisons are quotes from some (outside[REDACTED] source, independent editor, or whatever we want to call an op-ed piece in a newspaper), then shouldn't they have quote marks on them? If they are a conclusion drawn by reading the (outside wikipedia) articles, doesn't that constitute wp:syn? Regarding the individual statement directly from the article and section: "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth." This is NOT what[REDACTED] policy says. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth...", and the complete sentence goes on to clarify the meaning of this. It seems to me that pulling half sentences out of policy AND misquoting them at that, is not the way to add quality to an article.

I understand that[REDACTED] has its shortcomings, and I see a great deal of value in Citizendium. The web is a big place, and there's room for both. I don't have a problem with pointing out the faults that[REDACTED] has (if we see them, maybe we can fix them), but I don't understand attempts to run-down one site in order to make another look better. The whole comparison section below the Sanger quote just looks like it's so POV against[REDACTED] that I'm not sure what to do here. I can accept that I'm not qualified to edit this article, but surely there is a better alternative to what's on the page now. And I do honestly want to express my thanks to Jennavecia for taking the time to explain why my edits were not accepted. I truly pray that any of my efforts here have not contributed to any ill feelings or frustration. I think I'll stop right here, and see what comes of it. - Ched (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the only text that didn't survive the re-organization was the "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, approved articles. Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth." I was actually planning on incorporating this, but following the references I couldn't find the statement about Citizendium to be anything more than WP:SYN: the word "stable" never even appears in the Citizendium policy cited. The phrase "consensus not truth" may be catchy, but it doesn't seem at all relevant to Larry Sanger (I don't see any quotes from him making this comparison), and more importantly the consensus is that "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth" is simply false. Rvcx (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx claims: I was actually planning on incorporating this,..." but Rvcx has repeatedly tried to delete the text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The text as written is blatantly wrong, meaning that it is not verifiable. Given how attached you are to this bizarre mis-statement, I was expecting to include a sentence along the lines of "Others have argued that Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth", which is verifiable (but of questionable relevance, since these opinions are not attributable to Sanger). Rvcx (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was previously explained the text is relevant and sourced. If you think the word "stable" is unsourced you could of just removed the word stable and not delete the entire sentence. The consensus and not truth part is sourced and relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

None of it is verifiable based on the reference given. It is entirely WP:SYN. Rvcx (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellence work on a difficult topic. My compliments on a job well done. Both sides are represented in a fair and balanced evenly distributed manner. — Ched (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a job well done. Removing sections and mixing up section is not a job well done. "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth" is referenced. Rvcx claims it is false. When the text it referenced it is verified. See WP:V. Misplaced Pages does not decide truth. Misplaced Pages seeks verifiable and not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions I suppose. "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth" is absolutely false. Please read the WP:V section a little closer. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If we are to use policy and guidelines properly, we must understand the entire sentence, not just bits and pieces.

Now, if you are saying that someone else said "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth", may I ask why you removed my quote marks from the text when I tried to clarify this?

If you think it is misquoting then why would you add quotes to misquoted text. If there was any misquoting it was adding quotes to text there were not quotes. It was misleading to add quotes when the text was not quoting anyone. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to quote Misplaced Pages policy. I am writing text according to reliable references presented.

The text in the article were not quotes. It was rewritten. Why are you asking about the quotes you added when it was previously explained to you they were not quotes.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here are the exact text from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to Misplaced Pages twice in the lead is overlinking. Mentioning he is editor-in-chief of Citizendium twice in the lead is redundant. This was a job poorly done. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We mention his role in Misplaced Pages twice in the lead, and now hadn't mentioned his present role in Citizendium anywhere in the lead. Rvcx (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the overlinking and redudancy in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be slightly more honest to describe this as reverting other people's edits. Including restoring numerous grammar and language problems. Rvcx (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sanger's criticisms of Misplaced Pages led him to conclude that another encyclopedia project would be worthwhile" is drawing our own conclusion as to why he started another project. The text is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the editorializing. We can't draw our own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Read what you just wrote. It makes absolutely no conclusions; it paraphrases Sanger's statement that another online encyclopedia would be worthwhile. Not that Sanger should be the one to create it. Sanger's full quote followed immediately after: "If we can create a more reliable and 💕...then we should". This quote actually goes farther than the summary in that it uses "we", which one could argue suggests that Sanger saw a role for himself in such a project.

Citizendium v. Misplaced Pages

If anyone thinks it is notable we can create a new article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable at all. Certainly not warranting its own article. لennavecia 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If an editor has the time it can be worked on in a sandbox. There are potentially a lot of sources that cover this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this guy would ever dream of trying to rival wikipedia. How he thinks he can recruit "experts" on all fields of knowledge to check the work beats me. In the end it will create a huge backlog of articles to check and "confirm reliability" - if people want a "reliable" web encyclopedia why not use Britannica. I just think people should be concentrating on making this encyclopedia better not starting others. He has a point though about professionalism and the image that[REDACTED] has been created by kids. Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the bulk of Dr. Blofeld's comment; however, I do appreciate Sanger's "dream" of trying a different approach. Nupedia was once just a dream too, but through brilliant css and various markup language (and editors contributions) -[REDACTED] has moved to the top of search results in so many search terms. I do agree with the perception (of non-editors) that[REDACTED] is written by vandals, children, or ill-informed people. I just started editing, and it has been a real eye-opener for me. There do seem to be a lot of battleground and bureaucratic tactics that go in to the end result; but, I've actually found the end result to be a very informative resource to start a research project.

Getting back to the Sanger article at hand. I've noticed that multiple editors have come and gone in an effort to improve the quality of this particular BLP. It appears to me that a minority of editors are able to impose their will through reverts and sarcastic comments in an effort to maintain a particular bias against wikipedia. Going beyond the obvious "bite the hand that feeds you" mindset, it's almost as if the article wants to throw a "Here's what people are saying is wrong with wikipedia" article in the face of the readers. I completely understand that a Sanger article may extol the virtues of Citizendium (and that's fine), but there are so many out of context quotes, and para-phrases, and essays posted here that it (the article) seems to lose focus on the effort to provide a biography of an individual. First: I would think that a whole Citizendium v. Misplaced Pages section would have to come across as comparing apples to oranges crab-apples. Second: If one were to attempt such a comparison, it would belong in a Citizendium or Misplaced Pages article, NOT a BLP. Note: I have no problem with Sanger personal reflections, they pertain to him, and DO belong - I object to the parts of OP-ED pieces that mis-quote actual Misplaced Pages policy, (in a poor man's attempt to gather notability) being presented in a fact-like manner to mislead the reader into believing skewed or false information. At best, I think (after reading policy and guidelines) that the bulk of the bottom half of this article (including the links to essays and presentations) would belong over at the criticisms of[REDACTED] article, and removed from here. Ched (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no attempt to quote Misplaced Pages policy. It would be inappropriate to try to quote Misplaced Pages policy in this case when we have more reliable sources available. It is better to report what reliable sources present. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists

For future reference: WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists is a good guideline for possible changes should they be attempted soon. — Ched (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The same as the select writing section the bullted text is easier to read. When it is difficult to find or read the comparison section the bulleted text is better for this particluar case. The C versus W section was removed again against conensus. It was attempted to be removed in the past too without consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back QuackGuru. I have to leave shortly to attend our City Council meeting, but will be glad to discuss this point further when I return. But before I go let me mention. 1.) the C vs. W section was not removed: It was reformatted to a preferred MOS. As far as consensus, I will have to debate that. Your personal preferences do not constitute consensus. There have been several editors who have come and gone in an effort to work with you, and explain the line of reasoning. I will try to work with you as well. — Ched (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained my line of reasoning. It was explained before the text is relevant. When it is difficult to read it is sometimes better to have bullted text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The reformat makes it difficult to find the text. Relevant text was deleted against consensus. The text was restored. The text was restored again. The text was restored yet again. The deleted text is relevant. When the text was reformatted sourced text was deleted again. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The text was restored by SDJ.
• The text was restored by Jennavecia.
• The text was restored by SqueakBox.
• The text was restored by QuackGuru.
• There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - reposting)

(copied from above for continuity)

I am not trying to quote Misplaced Pages policy. I am writing text according to reliable references presented. The text in the article were not quotes. It was rewritten. Why are you asking about the quotes you added when it was previously explained to you they were not quotes. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds"

• . The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece
• . Retrieved on 7 January 2009. "Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." Here are the exact text from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to Misplaced Pages twice in the lead is overlinking. Mentioning he is editor-in-chief of Citizendium twice in the lead is redundant. This was a job poorly done. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sanger's criticisms of Misplaced Pages led him to conclude that another encyclopedia project would be worthwhile" is drawing our own conclusion as to why he started another project. The text is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK ... Now I think I understand the confusion here. When I say quote - I was referring to quoting the article text - not quoting in the sense that Larry Sanger said "bla bla bla". What I was trying to get across was ... John Doe of the NY Times wrote "x is equal to y".

If you try to present the whole "consensus not truth" argument because a writer in an editorial wrote that - then that statement (especially in this case because it is wrong) ... should be in quotes and attributed to the person and newspaper who wrote that.

As far as the overlinking and such, well, let's everyone look at it and we'll see if we can make it better. Rivx put a lot of time and research into keeping all the material that was here, organizing it, referencing it, and formatting it. I think he/she did a great job myself. Nothing has to be declared final, or complete - there's always room for improvement, and I think it's only fair to acknowledge a person's efforts. As such, I will say I appreciate you coming here and presenting your side of things in a calm and intelligent manner. I GREATLY appreciate that QuackGuru. — Ched (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, there is consensus to keep the sourced text.

Ched claimed "When I say quote - I was referring to quoting the article text" but the text in the article was not quoting the article and was not misquoting because the text were not quotes. If an editor disagrees what reliable sources present we should keep in mind the text is verifiable, not truth. We don't seek truth and Misplaced Pages. We seek verifiable. See WP:V.

Ched wrote: "As far as the overlinking and such, well, let's everyone look at it and we'll see if we can make it better." The way to make it better is to remove the overlinking.

Claiming that Sanger's criticisms conlcuded him to start another Enclopedia is a not a greatt job. It is inappropriate and no reason has been given to keep it in the article.

On something simple as overlinking and redundancy in the lead I don't see any reason not to fix it. The article has been turned upside down and a lot of strange edits made. It was not organizing to me. According to Ched: "Nothing has to be declared final, or complete..." That means there is no consensus for the substantial changes. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, First let me ask you, what do you believe has been deleted from the article? And, what do you think is over-linked?

I have some suggestions for the lead, and if we agree - we can change it. ;). — Ched (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ched wrote: "Ok, First let me ask you, what do you believe has been deleted from the article? And, what do you think is over-linked?"

I have previously explained what is overlinked in the lead. I previously provided links what was deleted from the article.

In any event, I restored the text that was deleted and organized the article. I hope you like the great work. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru - I STRONGLY urge you to revert your last edit. You have effectively restored an earlier version of article. This kind of action could possibly lead to problems. I am more than happy to work with you if you want to work on this article, but this kind of action is not the way to go about working with other editors to improve things. Getting angry and simply reverting the article is not the way to work productively. I'm sure you can add a lot of great edits and valuable insight. Please reconsider your actions. — Ched (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The work I did was organizing the article. This version is somewhat different than an older version. The previous substanbtial changes were not appropriate. The text was deleted against consensus. * The text was restored by SDJ. The text was restored by Jennavecia. The text was restored by SqueakBox. The text was restored by QuackGuru. There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. There is consensus to keep the consensus tidbit and no specific objection has been made to the improvements. My edits were very productive. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely you realize that when another editor looks at this diff, they most likely see it as vandalism. Changing around a few words won't mask what you are doing. This version clearly had the items you claim to be restoring in the Citizendium and Criticism of Misplaced Pages sections. I ask you one last time to please restore the original version, and let us move forward from there. Edit wars benefit no one. If we work together we can both become better editors. I implore you not to take this path, please turn back while you still can. — Ched (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I included text from both versions. The way I organized the article was productive and a great improvement over all previous versions. No specific objection was been made to the current version. I fixed the overlinking and redudancy in the lead. The current organization of sections is easier to read. The text was restored by SDJ. The text was restored by Jennavecia. The text was restored by SqueakBox. The text was restored by QuackGuru. There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. As previously explained, the text is relevant and has consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many editors at this article have had difficulties with various versions. I'll need to disengage myself for a short time here. Thinking about one's actions is free, I'm going to indulge myself. I suggest you may wish to do the same. — Ched (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have difficulties when sourced text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O Requesting Third Opinion

The primary diff is here

• The disagreement is around how the Citizendium v Misplaced Pages is presented. Via a bulleted list, or paragraph form.
• Included is the information that should be presented, and how it should be displayed as showing NPOV
• Secondary disagreement is around reverting and trying to work out a compromise on the talk page (unsuccessful)

Brought to WP:3O by — Ched (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC) User talk:QuackGuru notified — Ched (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since a page was pulled out of history, and used to overwrite the existing page, I'm not really sure how much was lost. I am guessing the page was pulled from around January 10 or January 16. Since edits were quickly made to it, even judging file size makes it difficult to pinpoint the specific edits that were lost. I'd ask the person who is providing the 3O to also please note that I originally came to this page on an RfC, and attempted to compromise and assist with the article. (Jan. 15 and 16). Each edit was reverted, which is fine. I am still at a loss on the reasoning behind the quotes / not quotes. I also feel the material that is presented (as it is in it's current state) is very POV. Below the Sanger quote in the section Citizendium v. Misplaced Pages. My reasoning is that the bulleted list is presented as factual rather than observations and opinions from editorial pieces. Specifically, the second line, second comparison. As it is listed now: "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus and not truth" This is factually wrong. From WP:V we find the entire sentence to be: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

• Comment I don't mind people pointing out Misplaced Pages faults (it helps us improve). Personally I think that bulleted list belongs in the Misplaced Pages criticisms, article rather than a BLP - but I'm not even pressing that point. In fact, when User:Rivx incorporated all the information into paragraph form, I complimented his work, and was happy to accept it at that. In the paragraph form (before the QuackGuru edits) at least it was clear that they were observations from other sources. — Ched (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ched stated: "I am still at a loss on the reasoning behind the quotes / not quotes." The text in the article were not quotes and I do not understand why anyone would ever think the text were quotes. It was previously explained to Ched the text was not quotes.

Ched claims: "In fact, when User:Rivx incorporated all the information into paragraph form, I complimented his work, and was happy to accept it at that." But the edits made by Rvcx deleted source text.

Deleting sourced text was not incorporting all the information. All the information was not incorporated when some of the sourced text was deleted. Rvcx was previously notified about the controversial edits.

The part about the consensus and not truth was restored by various editors. It is inappropriate to request a third opinion about the consensus and not truth part when there has been discussion by more than a few editors on it. A third opinion is for when there is only two editors involved.

On Misplaced Pages, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The text in the article accurately reflects the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your links in the first part point to edits on the 15th prior to the RfC which prompted me to attempt to edit this page. I am asking for a third opinion about the edits on the 30th. I am familiar with the timesonline.co.uk article. Could you please show me what sourced information was deleted from the edits on the 30th. As I've read through this talk page, I've seen at least 4 editors attempt to change the information - 3 have not responded since debating you at length, and Rivx made a AGF attempt on the 30th to improve the article. I posted a link to policy which supported his/her edits. Please show what information from this version was missing that required you to do a wholesale change to a page from history. — Ched (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand you think edits like this are good faith attempts at improvements but editors disagree with the controversial editing.

I have previously explained the organization of the article was better before and I already explained the consensus and not truth part was deleted. There were multiple problems with strange mixing of sections and misplacing of information. I cleaned up the lead and removed overlinking. Wikilinking to Misplaced Pages twice in the lead is overlinking. Mentioning he is editor-in-chief of Citizendium twice in the lead is redundant. "Sanger's criticisms of Misplaced Pages led him to conclude that another encyclopedia project would be worthwhile" is drawing our own conclusion as to why he started Citizendium. We cannot claim to know why he started another project. There are quotes in the article from Sanger that explains his views. The current version is easier to read and the sections are well organized.

Jennavecia stated: "Where did "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus not truth" come from? It's Verifiability, not truth, which only means, really, that even if you know something to be true, you cannot include it unless there are reliable sources to verify it. There is no valid reason to remove this section from the biography. His notability is tied in to these two projects and a comparison of them directly relates to him, as he played a major role in developing both. The RFC, however, is out of place."

I agree a comparison directly relates to Larry Sanger and plays a major role in his notability. QuackGuru (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of my initial problem was a statement you made on 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC) on this talk page that "This is the "exact quotes" from the source.". At that point, I put quote marks around the "consensus not truth" statement in the article - you promptly reverted my edit saying that they weren't quotes. Now - moving on, you make the point: "Jennavecia stated: "Where did "Misplaced Pages seeks consensus not truth" come from? It's Verifiability, not truth" - you do realize that this is making my point exactly.

You state that you are making the article better, I disagree with your last decision to pull an article out of history and replace the current article. May I ask, did you read WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists before you reverted all those edits yesterday? I admit, you have a very good ability to copy and paste text, But I don't believe that is the best way to improve the quality of an article, and serve the community.

I would imagine quite a few editors would have simply reverted your reverts from yesterday, and tagged you with a notice. I have not reverted you (yet), and hope you will still reconsider undoing your last revert. and - Again I ask you, exactly what information was "missing" from the edits on Jan 30th. — Ched (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The bulleted text reads easier. The reformatting it into a paragraph become difficult to even find the comparison. I previously explained what information was missing from the article. I do not understand why you continue to ask me the same questions when I have replied and explained before. QuackGuru (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

organizational break 1

I hope you accept that I am attempting to make this article better. As Jimbo once said himself when it comes to BLPs (and I paraphrase rather than dig up the exact quote) We must get it right. It's not just because the information you propose is a defamation of Misplaced Pages, but because I believe that your last revert is a step in the wrong direction. It's pulled piecemeal from articles that are editorial in nature, and presented as a factual representation of the comparison. — Ched (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No specfic objection has been made to the recent improvements. QuackGuru (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I object— Ched (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not improvements. — Ched (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. — Ched (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel like a fool for being sucked in again. Several previous editors have argued with QuackGuru ad nauseum and the result was only ever an edit war as QuackGuru defended the existing article exactly as it is. When I first came to this article I thought "consensus not truth" was false. I tried deleting it. I tried rewriting it. I tried simply removing the entire section since I considered it redundant, but other editors liked some of the quotes from that section, even though they are largely just restatements of things Sanger is quoted as saying elsewhere in the article. So finally I re-organized the entire article to preserve every single quote. At this point, I don't think it's worth engaging QuackGuru. His opinion has been noted. Rvcx (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversial edits disorganized the entire article and deleted sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried (without success) to get the general ideas across to QuackGuru, but have not been able to reach an understanding. I agree whole heartedly with your efforts Rvcx, and given Sanger's place in Misplaced Pages - I believe this to be an important article to get right. I admit to being very frustrated at this point, but I will work to my best abilities to make this a better article. I wish that some of the negative items were not in the article, but I can't in clear conscience simply delete them because they are accurate and sourced. At least the last version you've worked on explained that they were the opinions of the respective editors. I got the impression that QuackGuru took my remark of thanks on your work as a slam at him somehow. It honestly wasn't meant that way - I simply appreciated your efforts. — Ched (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice to meet you by the way - wish it was under less trying circumstances. — Ched (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a complete mess. Some editors may not want to get involved when the article has been messed up like this. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

regroup and refresh

Time to take another break and regroup, and refresh. I thank ALL editors here, I think we all have the same goal in mind - the best quality article we can make it. — Ched (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This was not a copyedit and was not minor. I don't think adding the extra wording is necessary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been drastically shortened and the article is very disorganized again. References in the lead are missing, the co-founder of Misplaced Pages is missing from the lead, and sourced text restored by different editors has been deleted again. The article is hard to follow and extremely disorganized. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had until now refrained from doing major rewrites of text, instead just reorganizing to put redundant information together. But in the keeping with WP:BB I'm now trying to actually clean up the writing.

All the information from the old lead is available in the main article. What is appropriate in a lead is certainly debatable, but for a biographical article it makes sense to focus on who the person is, what they're notable for, and what they're doing now. One could argue that Sanger is also notable as a "Misplaced Pages critic", but that strikes me as pushing a particular POV. The TOC already includes a section for "criticism of Misplaced Pages", so such content is readily accessible.

The fact that Sanger is co-founder of[REDACTED] is well-established, but it seems silly to bend over backwards to put this particular wording in the lead; the wording I use matches that in the lead for Jimmy Wales.Rvcx (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article previously went through a WP:GA review. The lead was too short before and was expanded in order to reach WP:GA status.

Nobody is bending over backwards to put co-founder in the lead. It was already in the lead. The silly part is bending over backwards to remove co-founder from the lead. Larry Sanger is most notable as co-founder of Misplaced Pages and has consensus to be in the lead. Drastically shortening the lead and moving information to different sections was very strange. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Agreed that Sanger is mostable for being the co-founder of Misplaced Pages, so that should be in the lead. What else belongs in the lead and how long it should be, I will defer to others. --Tom 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)ps, in regards to Wales bio, even QG probably couldn't get co-founder into the lead, and that is saying something :) --Tom 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru (is it ok if I call you QG?). I have an idea, if you look at this link you'll see that I have been working on the article Study skills. It was up for deletion a week or so ago. Maybe if you and I took a break from this article and worked together a little bit to save and improve the article, we could get to understand each other's editing styles a little better. If you'd do that for me, I will promise not to make any more edits to this article without letting you know first. Could we do that and let things kind of calm down a little bit for a couple days? — Ched (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- A note on the Rvcx comment, Given the line of work that both Larry and Jimbo have been in, it's reasonable to suggest that both of them choose their words very carefully, especially the written word. I would be totally shocked if anyone could find that Larry ever said "Consensus not truth". That said, I would hate to ever sit across the debate table from either one of them. Although I have come to have a new appreciation for Tendentious Editing lately ;) — Ched (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion. I see that there are now at least 4 editors involved in this discussion. As such, it falls outside of the scope of WP:Third opinion and I have, as a result, removed your request. If needed, please seek other avenues of WP:dispute resolution. Thanks! (EhJJ) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb. 13, post page protection

this is an interesting edit. I'm curious about the questioning - It would appear that Sanger is indeed a critic of Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure of the reasoning behind such an edit. — Ched (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. The controversial text is a WP:BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales stated Misplaced Pages should not be used as a primary source but we don't describe Wales as a critic. "Misplaced Pages Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation". The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 12, 2006. Retrieved 2009-02-12. {{cite news}}: Text "quote" ignored (help) QuackGuru (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the WP:BLP violation from the lead. It is an improvement to remove the BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV improvements

• The text was restored by SDJ.
• The text was restored by Jennavecia.
• The text was restored by SqueakBox.
• The text was restored by QuackGuru.
• There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. Most editors want to include the text. QuackGuru (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Misplaced Pages seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The text in the article accurately reflects the source presented.

There is clear consensus to include the text. So I included it along with other improvements such as expanding the lead and the structure of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD improvements

The lead has been drastically shortened without an adequate explanation. Several references were deleted without any good reason from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

QG, please don't be defensive of my comments. I'm sure we both simply want the article to be better. The links to previous reverts and such aren't really relevant since consensus can change. Your link to drastically shortened seems to be an expansion of the article content rather than "drastically shortened". Is it not accepted that Sanger is critical of Misplaced Pages? I'm not really sure what content or references you're wanting to add to the article. It appears that your efforts are indeed an attempt to provide sourced information in a valuable manner. How can we do this so that we are working together rather than arguing minor points? — Ched (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving the lead is not a minor point (at least to me). The lead was too short before and was expanded to reach WP:GA status. QuackGuru (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

The structure of the article is very poor. For example, a criticism section in a BLP is inappropriate.

In 2007 Sanger examined the possibilities for education online. He explained, "Imagine that education were not delivered but organized and managed in a way that were fully digitized, decentralized, self-directed, asynchronous, and at-a-distance." He further stated, "There would be no bureaucracy to enforce anything beyond some very basic rules, and decision-making would be placed almost entirely in the hands of teachers and students."

Text about education online was incorrectly moved to a Citizendium section. QuackGuru (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder of Misplaced Pages is unsourced

Co-founder in the lead should be referenced. Misplaced Pages seeks WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the co-founder issue has been pretty well established both in sourced references and previous discussion here. I personally don't have an issue with how it's worded - the fact is that Sanger was very involved in the early development of Misplaced Pages, how it's worded isn't a big deal to me personally. However, I think that most editors and source would indicate the "co-founder" point to be the preferred text. — Ched (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way - the "Consensus not truth" thing is a total fabrication, you should be fully aware of WP:V and the fact that a statement like that is pure and simple pseudo-journalism. Yes, I'm aware of your recent redirect, and I would hope that you would not support a statement like "consensus not truth" due to the fact that it's a pure fabrication, and complete nonsense (see WP:SYN. — Ched (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Ched (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and not truuh is sourced and there is consensus to include it.

According to Misplaced Pages policy the text (co-founder) should be referenced. I don't see a reason to delete sources that reference "co-founder" in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - I agree. co-founder should be there - and references are always a plus. — Ched (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. References are a plus for the lead. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Article degradation

this edit degrades the quality of the article. I am compelled to escalate this issue and request advise from other editors. — Ched (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained the improvements and it is a plus to include references in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

this is a hack job, and an attempt to disgrace Misplaced Pages. I find it totally unacceptable, and I have every intension of finding a NPOV solution. I'll inform you of the AN or AN/I board I post to. — Ched (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• Mid-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors