Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MER-C (talk | contribs) at 07:59, 22 December 2006 (JS: Reverted edits by Steve Gene Banks to last version by Tony Fox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• ]

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

User:SimonP

User:SimonP is profiled in TIME magazine - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570732,00.html. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow the link 'Power to the people' on the TIME site, and click it 14 times to get to SimonP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ancheta Wis (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

???The link I provided goes straight to the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I clicked on the link the first time, it took the clicks to find it and get there. But the 2nd time I clicked it after my post, then it went right to SimonP. What might have happened, I wonder. Ancheta Wis

Perhaps a link to the printable view will work. Doesn't show the photo though. --Ybbor 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah. Maybe the link only works once it's in your cache. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sixth most popular search term

According to the BBC, "Misplaced Pages" was the sixth most popular search term on Google during 2006. The article doesn't state whether any terms which would appear on the list have been censored. Warofdreams talk 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I often search with "-wikipedia" so I can find non-WP sources. I wonder if that is included in the total? :-) — RJH (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If only "-wikipedia scrapes" worked, too. But that would cut most search totals in half. - DavidWBrooks 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages arbitration claims Spartacus.schoolnet.com is "propagandistic" and can't be cited

In an unusual turn of events, Misplaced Pages arbitration dispute has ended up with a factual finding that the well known UK encyclopedia Spartacus is "propagandistic" and too unreliable to even cite in Misplaced Pages. Citing a policy governing "extremist" organizations, the Misplaced Pages arbitration panel has banned Spartacus from use as a reliable source.

“Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, () and (). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.”

As background, a group of complaining editors are attempting to ban me on a quickly mutating set of charges which now include being guilty of citing Spartacus. The group of complaining editors seem to be ready to strip references to Spartacus from Misplaced Pages. As the defending editor in the arbitration, I was surprised to see this happen. The nature of the arbitration, in other respects, has been quite unusual but I am surprised at the intense hostility directed at myself and now Spartacus. Upon hearing of the charges against Spartacus, John Simkin, of Spartacus, sent a message to the arbitration panel stating among other things:

“At the time I created the Spartacus Educational website, I was a history teacher (11-18 year olds) in England. I was also a prolific writer of history books for students. As I still held the copyright for my books, I decided to put them on the web free of charge. Students, from all over the world, were therefore being provided with free teaching materials. This is especially useful for students in the Third World who do not have the money to purchase textbooks or to those who study in countries where the authorities use the political system to control the information they receive. On average, we get 6 million page impressions a month. A survey carried out by the Fischer Family Trust showed that the Spartacus Educational website was used by more history students in the UK than any other website, including that of the BBC. As you can see, I am a very dangerous person.” RPJ 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the Spartacus site, and have in the past found it quite useful. However, it is not NPOV and also has not gone through any sort of peer review process. For an issue like the JFK assassination, where there is a vast body of reputable material, and also a great deal of controversy, I would not consider the site a sufficiently reliable resource. The wording of the ArbCom finding, which I endorsed, might be a bit strong but I do feel that the site is not a reliable enough reference to be relied upon so heavily in the JFK article. I wouldn't support a blanket ban on Spartacus, but it should be used sparingly and with care. I would place it alongside the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance page, where we have similar guidelines worked out after a long debate. - SimonP 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Simonp is incorrect about Spartacus. First, it is a very reputable publication and it is surprising to hear someone imply otherwise. Second there is no "heavy " reliance on Spartacus in the Kennedy article and that is easy to check by the percentage time it is cited. Third, there were "no long debates" on guidelines finding Spartacus unreliable. In fact, when I formally questioned you arbitrators on why you considered Spartacus "propagandistic" and cited the "extremist organization" policy, I was merely told to go read it.

I did go read additional parts of Spartacus and found it well written and easy to use and wrote a short memo on it to the arbitrators. Simonp didn't even reply. No one replied.

Here is what you concluded:

"4) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see .

"Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, () and (). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

Support:

1. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

RPJ 18:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And why have you brought this here? There is nobody here who can overrule an ArbCom decision. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New reference desk

Per discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive#Popular culture and law reference desks, we have a new popular culture reference desk. (The archiving system still needs to be configured for the new desk.) NeonMerlin 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell quotes Misplaced Pages in her ongoing feud with Donald Trump

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20005257,00.html User:Zoe|(talk) 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that article's impeccably well sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages community forums
• Misplaced Pages news
• To Village Pump (policy)
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot