Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 6 January 2007

Regarding the use of sources, I'm a bit concerned that insufficient guidance might come out of the case, or that the waters might end up being even murkier than they were. Admins who find themselves from time to time trying to mediate content disputes and to act as a voice of reason could do with a bit more certainty about the application of Misplaced Pages policy in this area. Maybe it means that people like me have to involve ourselves more in relevant policy pages, but my own sense of things was that attempts to construct an interpretation from primary sources would be original research. For example, it is acceptable to use movie X as a source for the fact that the hero of movie X dies in the end (if that is an uncontroversial fact and not something that is reasonably open to interpretation and debate). However, it is not acceptable to use movie X, movie Y, and movie Z as primary sources for the claim (whether stated implicitly in some way or merely insinuated) that director A (who directed them all) is obsessed with death, based on the fact that lots of people die in all these movies. If we want to offer that interpretation, we have to find a body of film criticism in which the claim is made, and we must attribute it to the critics concerned.

It seems to me that the above kind of distinction is not very difficult to understand, or for good-faith contributors to apply. In this case, it would severely limit, if not entirely curtail, the use that could be made of Smart's Usenet's posts as sources. To make any generalisation about their content, it would be necessary to find (and properly attribute) a sufficiently weighty and reliable secondary source.

Metamagician3000 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Would there be general consensus, however, that the Usenet posts might be referenced as one source to merely document the existence and general character of "The Great Flame War?" (I'm thinking of one or two brief sentences - that's all.) I agree that trying to wring detailed information out of the Usenet posts would be folly. But I do believe that simply using them to cite their own existence is rather trivial. There's definitely a fine line we must not cross but I'm sure that good editors can manage to stay on the right side of that line.

I am also not in agreement that disallowing any mention of the Usenet posts themselves would kill the article as there are other references that are sufficient to acknowledge the existence and general character of these incidents. That, of course, is not a good reason to disallow the use of the Usenet posts but I do not fear for the article's existence without them. --ElKevbo 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on all counts above. Newsgroup posts should be allowed as a primary source on the grounds to document that the Great Flame War existed, but should not be allowed as a primary source to claim that Smart is an addicted newsgroup flamer (which doesn't even matter because there is plenty of other material about his contentiousness). Therefore, we can have a sentence or three saying "there was a big flame war on usenet, smart was one of the participants. Blah blah blah a little more exposition, blah blah blah. It's been commented on by various industry sources and has become somethng of a meme." and cite the newsgroups as well as the commentary from gamespy et al, but it prevents and BLP claims of defamation because it does not allow editors to say "Smart is this...." ⇒ SWATJester 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly people, I'm the sort of person who is more likely to know something about Ninian Smart than Derek Smart, and I'm not familiar with the Usenet posts you're all talking about. But from what has been said of them over time, I'd say any use should be very limited, and it may not be necessary or appropriate to use them at all. Rather than stray into the grey areas of original research, I'd rather you say, "Smart is notorious within the gaming community for his contentious role in a lengthy and intense flamewar on Usenet", and then cite an appropriate secondary source for that claim. You can add, "This has become something of an internet meme" adding another secondary source "and has been commented on by Foo magazine and Snark magazine" (with appropriate citations). The whole thing can be very brief - just a few sentences - as both of you suggest, to avoid undue weight, and it should not be given undue weight when it is referred to in the lead. All that said, I'm not trying to rule on this or something. Perhaps the community as a whole needs to look at it. I'm just adding my two cents' worth for whatever value it has, having been briefly involved as a neutral party a few months ago. Metamagician3000 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And there is the real issue, IMHO: undue weight. I think it is valid to say that Smart is notable primarily because of his interactions with fans and critics on Usenet and message boards. However, despite its length and volume, it's not the kind of thing that is widely documented in traditional (i.e. reliable and verifiable) media sources. Hence the dilemma unsuccessfully resolved by some editors: how to mention this prominent phenomenon with due weight despite the relative lack of sources. Of course, we all know that the Misplaced Pages Way is to only write what we can reference. But I hope that you can appreciate how this has presented some well-meaning editors with a perceived dilemma. I also understand (but do not sympathize) with editors who are ardent supporters of Smart (or Smart himself) who want to water down or completely eliminate all mentions of these events that portray Smart in a negative light.

I think the answer is pretty clear as (so far) we've all agreed on the general solution (to this particular issue; other issues still remain in this case). I'm just trying to explain the situation to help you see it through others' eyes. --ElKevbo 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nod nod, okay. I don't know about the other issues. This was the only one that I was sort of (briefly) involved in. But I wonder what Supreme Commander and the other pro-Smart editors think about what we're discussing here. Surely they can't deny the notoriety we are talking about, as long as it is described concisely. I think they'd have a point if they distinguished, as I do on the project page, between notability and notoriety, but they can't deny that he is notorious in some (evidently quite wide) circles for the reasons we've described and that there are uncontroversially reliable sources in support of this claim. If we could all reach agreement on all of that, you'd think it would take out some of the heat ... At this stage, I'd rather believe that everyone can be reasonable about it and that our honoured and highly-qualified arbitrators won't necessarily have to shoot someone. I've often been disappointed in the past, of course, but I'd love to see the pro-Smart editors say something reasonable in response to all this, knowing that the arbitrators can see their reaction. Metamagician3000 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Smart is actually very simple to predict. Truth/falsehood and right/wrong are defined by his own subjective point of view. For example, look at this exchange on the very subject that you're wondering about. One of Mr. Smart's apparent anon accounts insults me for saying the same thing that he ends up saying himself. That is that Mr. Smart is well known for his abrasive behavior. The difference had to do with point of view. That point of view simply being that almost anything that I say is wrong, anything that Mr. Smart says is correct. This was a very common occurrence in the flame war (not just with me but anyone that Mr. Smart felt was in the anti-Derek camp). I believe that Mr. Smart is psychologically incapable of empathy or objective thinking. One of the things that facinated me about the flame war was figuring this out. I read some books on certain personality formations and believe that I finally do understand it. Regards, Bill Huffman 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all of this also underlines the issue of what constitutes undue weight: does a public figure where 99% of the news about him is negative have a right to claim undue weight when the same proportion is mentioned in wikipedia? Lets arbitrarily state that Smart is 80% criticism, 20% praise (in articles about him). Wouldn't it be undue weight then, to not have anything OTHER than 80% criticism, 20% praise in the article? By that standard, keeping it 50-50 would be undue weight to the praise. I think that is something the pro-Smart editors fail to see, yet they also have a decent point in saying that certain things against Smart, while critical are just not necessary for the article. It's a toughie, to be sure, that's why I filed the RfAr ⇒ SWATJester 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should reply on your talk page - this is interesting but could take up a lot of room here. You're asking reasonable questions. Metamagician3000 09:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)