| Revision as of 05:21, 1 April 2023 editHerostratus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,196 edits →surprised yet pleased this page exists: my 2c← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:04, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,832 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive 4) (bot |
| (45 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
{{Old XfD multi |
| Line 12: |
Line 13: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Fram controversy|Fram controversy|30 June 2019}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Fram controversy|Fram controversy|30 June 2019}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
|
{{WP Internet culture|class=List|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=low}} |
|
{{WebsiteNotice|class=List|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=list|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 80: |
Line 81: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Redisgn == |
|
== Redisgn == |
|
|
{{Hat}} |
|
|
|
|
In early 2023, Misplaced Pages redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason. |
|
In early 2023, Misplaced Pages redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. |
|
I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Reply from User:FizzleDrunk) first of all, Misplaced Pages has an option built into preferences to revert back its 2010 user interface. Second of all, I have never seen any controversy surrounding the change in design. Third of all, the point you are attempting to make is being done so in a rude and bad faith manner. Fourth of all you should not be complaining about others reading comprehension when you both do not know how to format the talk page and have misspelled “redesign” in your header. Fifth of all, you will not get an IP ban for making such an edit. You will likely have your edit reverted alongside a justification for why. |
|
== If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy. == |
|
|
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Add target of Virgil Griffith list == |
|
@] Even if many of the reports are, so to say, misguided, off-base or exaggerated, the fact that the 'Recession' edit dispute did get a lot of critical comments about it makes it meet the definition of controversy, which did get mentioned by several reliable sources as well. <span style="color:#7f4bad">'''— V<small>ORTEX</small>'''</span><sup><u><small>]</small></u></sup> <small>(])</small> 13:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:AFAICT, what sources say is that editing got heated so the article was protected for a while. That's extremely common and not a "controversy". ]] 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. Your opening text ({{tq|After U.S. President Joe Biden rejected claims that the current situation in the United States was a recession, which contradicted the generally accepted definition}}) seems a bit loaded. |
|
|
::But they also mention a fair amount of debate surrounding the incident, though, even if it ''is'' trivial in terms of Misplaced Pages. As for the opening sentence, I probably could've phrased that better. I don't live in America, and I have never heard anything about the recession thing until now, and I was just parroting off the ''Washington Post'' article (which was stupid). <span style="color:#7f4bad">'''— V<small>ORTEX</small>'''</span><sup><u><small>]</small></u></sup> <small>(])</small> 14:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. ]] 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Someone else added it to the page. <span style="color:#7f4bad">'''— V<small>ORTEX</small>'''</span><sup><u><small>]</small></u></sup> <small>(])</small> 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bruce McMahan == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose this is added to the page. The article's creation, alleged PR-scrubbing, and deletion were notable at the time, and still are. Note that WP:BLP no longer applies, as he died in 2017. |
|
| ⚫ |
] (]) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Relevant external links: |
|
|
|
|
|
▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2006/09/26/daddys-girl/ |
|
|
|
|
|
▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2007/06/12/daddys-dog/ |
|
|
|
|
|
▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/10/07/memo-to-bruce-mcmahan-daughter-seducer-updated/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Relevant internal links: |
|
|
|
|
|
▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_84 |
|
|
|
|
|
▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644 |
|
|
|
|
|
It's worth noting that (from what I can tell) the original Wiki article was created around the time of the first VV article's publication, and soon gained an AfD nom (which resulted in the nomination being withdrawn), followed by another AfD nom again just one month later (resulting in "keep"). From what I can gather, the article was allegedly scrubbed by a PR firm (speculated to be with at least indirect assistance from Jimbo, at threat of legal action), and made into a puff piece, removing all mentions of his incestuous relationship with his daughter. A third AfD nom in 2009 ended up finally deleting it, because at that point it resembled nothing but self-promotion. |
|
|
|
|
|
It really wasn't until 2010 (when Ortega's article came out) that the wider internet became aware. ] (]) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, this is a copy of the WP page shortly before it was deleted: |
|
|
|
|
|
https://web.archive.org/web/20090320125845/http://en.wikipedia.org/Bruce_McMahan ] (]) 19:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Only if we have an article ]. ] (]) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hardy har har. Did you ever consider that there are things occurring in this world that you may not be aware of? ] (]) 03:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So the ''Village Voice'' seems to have been the one that broke the initial story and did all the follow up reporting including the back-and-forth about the subjec'ts Misplaced Pages page. Their involvement in this is pretty central to any potential listing here, so are there any ''other'' publications that went into any details about a Misplaced Pages controversy surrounding this individuals Misplaced Pages page? A single source making a couple of mentions of a Misplaced Pages page being deleted under circumstances that ended up being fortuitous for the subject doesn't suggest much of a controversy surrounding anything involving Misplaced Pages itself, especially when the source entangled itself into the story so much that it's not really independent of any resulting controversy. Can you provide any independent sources that covered this, or that shows that "the wider internet became aware" of any such Misplaced Pages controversy? To be clear, I'm asking about sources showing that this is specifically a "Misplaced Pages controversy" and not just sources that discuss the controversy about the article's subject, which is potentially related but not sufficient to list here as that's not a Misplaced Pages controversy. - ] (]) 03:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if I have anything that might satisfy your conditions. From my research, it seems when the story was first reported in the Village Voice, it sort of made the rounds in some small newspapers and internet blogs. It wasn't until 2010, when Tony Ortega mentioned the Misplaced Pages aspect in his piece, that it seems others began to cover that angle (and by others, I again mean a few small papers and blogs). |
|
|
|
|
|
Without deep digging, the best evidence outside Misplaced Pages that it caused a stir is a bevy of highly-upvoted Reddit posts, of which all take the position that Misplaced Pages deliberately covered it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
The funny thing is that (while I'm not sure this fits the definition for the page, as the internal debates did not seem to make a wide splash in the press) the place where the issue seemed to make the biggest splash is Misplaced Pages itself. Being a deleted article, the talk page for it is unavailable for viewing, but from what I've gathered, it was flaming (in the sense of a flame war). Actually, one of the links I posted goes to an Admin Noticeboard post from 2010 in which Jimbo himself felt the need to step in and address issues to do with libel. ] (]) 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:If independent reliable sources don't say that this is a Misplaced Pages controversy, it's not suitable for inclusion in the article. That is the metric that is used because Misplaced Pages cannot and should not be determining what is and is not controversial on Misplaced Pages; we must rely on reliable sources, anything short of that is ]. - ] (]) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hence my "sarcastic" response which you didn't seem to get. I quick google tells you all you need to know for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Nobody knows or cares about this alleged "controversy and that's reflected in nobody writing about it. We only cover what appears in ]. ] (]) 19:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Re|Aoidh}} How big does it have to be? What about this? |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/daddys-little-obfuscator-6309456 |
|
|
|
|
|
At the time, the paper was owned by the same group as the Village Voice (so IDK if it fits your criteria), but it does talk about what was happening on Misplaced Pages in regards to edit warring on the article, as well as arguments on the talk page. It also claims Misplaced Pages general counsel Brad Patrick actually reached out to them to discuss any potential legal liability from having certain court records on the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Re|DeCausa}} I understood your response; I just chose not to engage with you any further than acknowledgement. Being an ass isn't conducive to the conversation. Notice how I'm having a conversation with Aoidh, because even if things don't go my way, he took the time to engage with me in a helpful, non-dismissive manner. Try it sometime. ] (]) 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Regarding your lack of understanding and knowledge of Misplaced Pages, calling another editor an "ass" is something you could get blocked for. See ]. I suggest you spend more time reading Misplaced Pages policy before launching whatever personal crusade you're on (with forum-shopping thrown in). ] (]) 22:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I believe Misplaced Pages also has policies aimed toward passive aggression, incivility, and assuming good faith. I don't know where you are getting "personal crusade" and "forum-shopping", but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from such claims. I'm only here because I wanted to help the page. That's why I used the talk page, instead of single-handedly adding a section about it. I wanted a conversation. ] (]) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The two papers being owned by the same larger company doesn't concern me, unless there's a more specific thing that can be shown that causes that to be a concern but ''prima facie'' that's not the issue with the source. The issue I have is that this ''Broward-Palm Beach New Times'' source is very clearly an opinion piece based on its wording, and per ] is questionable as a source, at best. For one it's not attributed to any author as far as I can tell, but only says "As told to Edmund Newton". Given the lengths it goes to in describing ''Broward-Palm Beach New Times'''s involvement in this event I can't say this is independent of any controversy that might exist; if anything they seem to be competing with ''Village Voice'' with how involved in the situation they are. What I was hoping for was a reliable source that discussed a Misplaced Pages controversy from a disinterested third-party viewpoint; an opinion piece unhappy with their representation in a now-deleted Misplaced Pages article is a far cry from meeting that standard. For an example look at the November 2008 entry that involves ''The New York Times'', the references for that section are not ''The New York Times'' themselves but uninvolved third-party reliable sources reporting on it from a disinterested perspective. The June 2009 entry that involves ''Wired'' has sources that aren't ''Wired''. The sources in these two examples aren't themselves part of the controversy. That's the kind of source I was hoping to discuss, because without that kind of source I don't think this event rises to the level of something that can be included. - ] (]) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. ] (]) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::{{re|Aoidh}} Understood. I'll bring the topic back up if I feel I've found sources which can fulfill those criteria. Thanks again for you help! :) |
|
|
] (]) 17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert of short description == |
|
== Coloured backgrounds == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{U|Babysharkboss2}}, You reverted a recent edit adding a descriptive and disambiguating short description with the edirt summary ]. Could you clarify what yo mean by this please, as WP:SDNONE is not of itself a reason to remove a suitable short discription. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 14:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Why is September 2005 highlighted in red and April 2013 highlighted in yellow? ] (]) 09:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== surprised yet pleased this page exists == |
|
|
|
::That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that ] actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Misplaced Pages, rather than about controversial topics covered by Misplaced Pages. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What hidden tab? |
|
⚫ |
::::] (]) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That makes more sense, but was not obvious, as short descriptions are commonly edited with the gadget which does not show the comment. Anyway, that explains some of the confusion. Back to the point. I suggested that the short description added was better than none, so should stay. It is now a matter of finding consensus for the page. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · ] ] |
|
|
:::::::Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. ] (]) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The text is still useful in annotated links, also just because visual editor still has shortcomings does not mean things should not be done by those who can do them. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 05:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The title is sufficiently explanatory, and an additional explanation would not be helpful. The proposal was also overlong. ] (] / ]) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq| overlong}} what does overlong mean? ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Too long. See ]. ] (] / ]) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Not'' "too long" ''Read'' ]. · · · ] ]: 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Clearly we differ on this point. If you see a link to the article in a 'see also' section, you are left wondering whether it is about "Controversies about Misplaced Pages, its communities, and the Wikimedia Foundation", or controversies covered by articles in Misplaced Pages. In my opinion the short description clarifies that point. · · · ] ]: 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::A short description is part of the content of an article, if it can be improved, it should be improved. It is a service to the readers and a convenience to the editors. · · · ] ]: 05:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too long == |
|
Title says it all. I've noticed through firsthand interactions, that Misplaced Pages moderators seem to have a vested interest in preserving bad information or removing challenges or warnings to the veracity to poor sources. For keepers of information there are a lot that try to distort it or color it with personal bias, so I'm honestly surprised this page exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is very long. The best split would seem to be by decade. Would that be OK? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
If they add a page about how Misplaced Pages editors are widely perceived to have poor social skills and a god complex, justice will truly be done. ] (]) 00:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It exists because some editors made it, and it doesn't meet our criteria for deletion. That's how the system works. What did you expect. --] (]) 05:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
