Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:27, 2 March 2009

Larry Sanger

It was suggested that I talk to you personally, so here I am. I don't think the section on the Sanger article that compares the differences between Misplaced Pages and Citizendium is as good as it should be. I made an honest effort to improve the article, and accept that my edits were not acceptable. I'd like to ask a favor of you, could you please explain to me in the future why an edit of mine isn't acceptable with a little more detail. I'm new here, and I took the LOL comment in the edit summary as being laughed at without anyone explaining exactly why it wasn't acceptable. I don't mind being corrected in the least, but for me to learn from my mistakes - I need input on how to improve. Thank You. Ched (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need input on how to improve you came to the right place. What you think is bad work to the Larry Sanger article I think is good work. I have know idea why you think strange changes to the article is good work. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't underand this comment. It was not a job well done. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it was an improvement when the recent edits were very strange. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is well sourced and directly relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very strange edits have been made to the Larry Sanger bio. Text has been deleted againt consensus and different sections have been mixed together. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant information about education has been moved to an unrelated section. Most of the article has been messed up. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor falsely accused me of vandalism and tried to intimidate me. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx considers when other Wikipedians edit the article it is willful vandalism. This is weird. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

More strange editing to the Larry Sanger bio. I hope the Misplaced Pages community will have a look. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with dealing a cultic subject?

Hi,

I recently developed Hannes Vanaküla, based mostly on recent months' media coverage of the man. Unfortunately, as so often happens with cult circles, a follower of his has shown up, and is making disturbing assertions on the topic of WP:BLP. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with BLP issues on Misplaced Pages.

Could you take a look, and make suggestions on making sure that any legitimate concerns that might arise are covered? I know there is no point in dealing with the irrational concerns, but this kind of people are sometimes rather active in getting admins involved.

Thanks in advance. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, not truth

I crashed your sandbox. Mine have been crashed before, so I'm passing on the love... I see that you incorporated most of the paragraph I turned the bullet points into, so...good taste. However, the same phrase keeps popping up, this "While Misplaced Pages is perceived to promote consensus and not truth". Is this an argument that Sanger is making, or that unrelated journalists are making? Who is perceiving this? And can the points that differentiate Misplaced Pages from Citizendium still be made without this phrase? To be neutral, you're going to have to mention that Misplaced Pages's own policies state verifiability is the object of Misplaced Pages, not truth, then you're going to have to explain what the consensus applies to on Wiki. Because it is placed back to back with a statement about Citizendium experts, is it supposed to be contrasting the way Citizendium is run? Because as someone with experience in the FA process, consensus still does not trump serious problems in an FAC. What is this consensus supposed to refer to: general article changes? RfC? Article assessments like FA and GA? This phrase will cause problems because it is not clear and it is posed opposite a clause that it doesn't really address. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On Citizendium, experts have the final say for article content. On Misplaced Pages, we run by consensus and not truth for article content. These points are about how article content is generally reached. I rewording it based on your comment here. It is a journalist who is saying this. The phrase is clear to me but if you have a specific proposal along with a reference we can further improve the text. If we include information about verifiability it could possibly make it clearer. Or I could add a bit of context and you can review it to see if you think it is clearer. FYI, there is clear consensus to include the text and the article reached WP:GA status with the phrase in the article. The article went through two GA reviews. I would like a reference that verifies the part of your proposal that I am unable to verifiy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I read both of the sources cited for the statement. Sanger does not seem to be the subject of these sources, so my first question is how it can be included in an article about Sanger if it is not his opinion, nor one that seems to be made by these third-party sources comparing Citizendium and Misplaced Pages. However, if it should be left in, it should reflect what the sources have said. To make it clear that Sanger is not making the assertion about the consensus issue, then it should be rewritten to say, "Misplaced Pages has been criticized in the press for allowing consensus to dictate what factual information is included in articles". Again with the problem of contrast, if you're going to join the issue about expertise on Citizendium to it, for equality's sake, you should say what sources in the press have said about Citizendium instead of using Sanger's own words or Citizendium policies. It really is not an equitable treatment to say that Misplaced Pages has been criticized by others, yet Sanger speaks for himself. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages has been criticized in the press for allowing consensus to dictate what factual information is included in articles".

I could not verify your proposal with the source currently being used. I prefer we stay faithful to the source. The reference makes it clear who is saying it. But we can add a qualifier to the sentence such as While Misplaced Pages is perceived "in the press". If you think it is not equitable treatment with a few references we can replace them with other references if we are able to find other references. If we can't find other references to use then we can add qualifiers to the sentences you have concerns with. We can add a qualifier such as According to Citizendium or Citizendium states. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the statement "Misplaced Pages has been criticized in the press for allowing consensus to dictate what factual information is included in articles" is accurate to the sources used in the sandbox #99:

The American comic Stephen Colbert in his satirical show The Colbert Report coined the term “wikiality” to describe the content of Misplaced Pages. He described it as “truth by consensus” (rather than fact), after Misplaced Pages’s “approval-by-consensus” format. Colbert also praised the online encyclopaedia for following his philosophy of “truthiness” in which intuition and consensus are considered more reliable indicators of reality than fact

and #100

It is quite as conceivable that an early version of an entry in Misplaced Pages will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there. 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.

They are criticizing Misplaced Pages for its perceived value of consensus over factual information. This seemed self-evident to me. I just don't understand why they are being cited in an article about Larry Sanger when Sanger is not the subject. It's synthesis to incorporate criticisms to shore up an argument that Citizendium is better/different than Misplaced Pages in Larry Sanger's article. Sanger obviously has his opinions, which should be in his article. Opinions about Misplaced Pages that are unrelated to Sanger should be excluded from his article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Both references do not say they are criticizing Misplaced Pages about the consensus process. On Misplaced Pages we report what the sources say and not editorialize our personal opinion. The word criticizing or criticized or similar word is not being used in the block quotes. It is directly related to Sanger and therefore should be included. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sources are critical of Misplaced Pages. But neither source uses Larry Sanger's words as criticism. I have some experience using reliable sources. As it stands, the inclusion of the sentence when it is not related to Sanger or Citizendium, or either source's discussion of Citizendium or Misplaced Pages makes this WP:synth. It is an unrelated comment on how consensus on Misplaced Pages is perceived by the press. I don't understand how Jennavecia's comment means it is directly related to anything. A reliable source should make that connection, not another editor. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic and the sources on spinal manipulation do not make a connection to chiropractic but it is in the chiropractic article. I added several sources to chiropractic that never mention a word about chiropractic. See Chiropractic#Effectiveness. This is the same thing. Sanger compares Misplaced Pages to Citizendium. That what makes it directly related. Sanger played a major roles in both projects and has compared both projects. "Policy decisions are increasingly made by representatives and plebiscites, not "consensus." The notion of consensus as a way to settle policy became impractical even in Misplaced Pages's first year. The Citizendium community will settle policies by discussion and (where necessary) vote of the Editorial Council, the Constabulary, and many editor-led workgroups." QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

<reset indent> If Sanger criticizes consensus on Misplaced Pages, then that should certainly be in the article. Neither of the aforementioned sources use Sanger's critiques, however, so the use of these two sources to state Misplaced Pages has been criticized for valuing consensus over fact/truth are two writers' opinions of what goes on at Misplaced Pages. In Sanger's article, it is especially relevant to say what Sanger believes are the shortcomings of Misplaced Pages, not necessarily use the opinions of two unrelated writers. It appears as if someone took the structure of Citizendium, pointed out how it is different from Misplaced Pages, then Googled the perceived shortcomings of Misplaced Pages to justify the differences between the two. This would be appropriate in an article about the differences in Misplaced Pages, or the failures of Misplaced Pages, but not about Larry Sanger. Sanger changed Misplaced Pages's workings to Citizendium, for his reasons. Readers should have access to his reasons. It's clearly a hot button issue if it's taken up this much time and space on Sanger's talk page, yours, and God knows where else. Better to make sure it is a slam-dunk source, than leave it open to removal and reinterpretation due to poor writing. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are a slam-dunk because they are directly related. We do not remove information because of preceived poor writing. I prefer to improve on your proposal and not delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage of adding the extra words "in the press" to the sentence. The phrase contains more verbiage but conveys no more information. I don't see any disagreement among reliable sources that Misplaced Pages promotes consensus. Adding additional attribution seems unecessary. See WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting history

QuackGuru, do not forge signatures on your comments. This comment was not made in response to this one, despite your many repeated attempts to make it look like it was. If you wish to make a new comment in response to another editor, use a new signature. Such attempts to rewrite history are both impolite and disruptive. Rvcx (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)