| Revision as of 03:53, 18 April 2013 editAlf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers28,976 edits {{Talk header}}← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:04, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive 4) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 16 April 2013 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = List of Misplaced Pages controversies }} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{wpbs|1= |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{WP Internet culture|class=list}} |
|
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
{{WebsiteNotice|class=list}} |
|
|
|
| date2 = 16 April 2013 |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=list}} |
|
|
|
| result2 = '''Keep''' |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages reliability|class=list}} |
|
|
|
| page2 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
| date = 23 April 2013 |
|
|
| result = '''No Consensus''' to endorse the close, but a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary |
|
|
| link = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_16 |
|
|
| caption = DRV |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Fram controversy|Fram controversy|30 June 2019}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = ] |
|
|
| title = Sexism on Misplaced Pages Is Not the Work of 'A Single Misguided Editor' |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/sexism-on-wikipedia-is-not-the-work-of-a-single-misguided-editor/275405/ |
|
|
| date = 30 April 2013 |
|
|
| quote = According to a Misplaced Pages article entitled "List of Misplaced Pages Controversies," "When the 'American men novelists' category was first created, its only entries were Orson Scott Card and P. D. Cacek (who is female)." |
|
|
| accessdate = 30 April 2013 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1 = Misplaced Pages |
|
|
|from_oldid1 = 549865557 |
|
|
|to1 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff1 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid1 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from2 = Misplaced Pages biography controversy |
|
== Issues == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = 545866481 |
|
|
|to2 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff2 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from3 = Essjay controversy |
|
So many issues with this article, where do I even begin. Let's see, I guess i'll start from the simplest and go toward the more complicated. |
|
|
|
|from_oldid3 = 547438676 |
|
|
|to3 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff3 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid3 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from4 = Scott Kildall |
|
1. There are several statements in the article that are not properly referenced and, since they are statements making an opinion about something on behalf of an outside group, they especially need to be referenced. I have tagged those with citation needed tags. |
|
|
|
|from_oldid4 = 513907742 |
|
|
|to4 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff4 = prev |
|
|
|to_oldid4 = 550500485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from5 = Conflict of interest editing on Misplaced Pages |
|
2. The references. Referencing another Misplaced Pages article, even if it is the About page, isn't really useful for anything. Nor is saying "See also" to another Misplaced Pages page in the references. Just include the relevant references that are used on those other pages. There are also several uses of primary sources, which in an article like this that is giving opinions, should really be avoided as much as possible. There are also sources of questionable reliability for this subject (Daily Mail) or of known non-neutrality for the subject (Violet Blue) that's being presented as a neutral source. Then there are the unreliable sources (Misplaced Pages Review). |
|
|
|
|from_oldid5 = 549642938 |
|
|
|to5 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff5 = 550753000 |
|
|
|to_oldid5 = 550752924 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from6 = Rambot |
|
3. In turn, these references of questionable reliability are being used to prop up non-neutral language. In fact, quite obviously POV language. The most explicitly obvious POV being in the line "Misplaced Pages administrator and community liaison Oliver Keyes wrote a blog post ridiculing Roth for his approach, but supplied no viable alternative", where the reference for this is the blog post itself, clearly showing that the writing is meant to be POV without any attached reference. There are a number of other such examples throughout the article. |
|
|
|
|from_oldid6 = 716428299 |
|
|
|to6 = List of Misplaced Pages controversies |
|
|
|to_diff6 = 716429654 |
|
|
|to_oldid6 = 716434913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
4. In total, it adds up to an article that can be easily viewed as having been constructed to be POV from the get-go, using shoddy references and POV language to push the reader toward a certain viewpoint. |
|
|
|
{{Copying within Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
Though I do note that a lot of this language can be attributed to IP 174.141.213's edits. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
:I can only speak to your point number 2, since it complains about my use of a wikilinked article after the phrase "see also" in the references. This footnote falls under ]. It's not supporting anything, it's merely explanatory. I would have used the <nowiki>{{further}}</nowiki> template, which I assume you would have had no problem with, but it seemed to overwhelm the single bullet point. Also, it seemed like overkill to list the referenced article in the see-alsos for the whole article, since it really only applies to that section. Do you have a better solution than this? It's certainly not an instance of a WP article cited to assert a fact. You only say it's "not useful." How so? It seems obviously useful to me.— ] (]) 14:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
::I went ahead and took it out of the footnotes since it was bothering you.— ] (]) 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
:::Your edits were perfectly fine, I just question the editing neutrality of others that have edited the article. As for the See also thing, I feel that we should try and keep inter-Misplaced Pages articles out of reference lists. It causes a self-referential issue. Even for information that is just explanatory, I feel it would just be best to include an actual reference and have the Misplaced Pages article link be included in the article text itself. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:See section below for another response. I definitely agree with you about that line about "definitive proof."— ] (]) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Anonymity of editors) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Anonymity of editors","appear":{"revid":411081495,"parentid":387743991,"timestamp":"2011-01-31T02:14:08Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":506634272,"parentid":506631871,"timestamp":"2012-08-09T22:32:14Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
Seren, can you be a bit more specific about which parts of this article are POV? Your complaints are a bit too vague (except for some of number 2).<span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:The article has been significantly expanded from what it was before. Giving it a cursory read, it looks like most of my concerns have already been fixed. I'll have to check through the references still, but it's looking good right now. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WR found definitive proof... == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed this: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
''Misplaced Pages Review'' found definitive proof that Jordan made false claims about his academic qualifications and professional experiences on his Misplaced Pages user page.{{citation needed|date=April 2013}} |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
since it doesn't seem to be sourceable and does seem to need a source. Thoughts?— ] (]) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Pretty much all Misplaced Pages Review info and references in the article should be removed, since the information doesn't appear to be corroborated by independent news sources. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You might source something along those lines to the following passage from an independent news source: "Misplaced Pages's success has led to many sites focused on its foibles. One such site, the "Misplaced Pages Review", was the locus of much investigation into the "EssJay" scandal in which a highly ranked administrator falsified academic degrees and lied to the New Yorker", which appears in a column in ], . At this point I would normally engage in a little self-deprecating humor regarding the author of that column. But I've learned from past experience that such jokes are very dangerous to make on Misplaced Pages due to the peril of being taken out of context. -- ] (]) 12:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Redisgn == |
|
And with , the IP has clearly revealed their non-neutral intent in wording. Please keep an eye out for any of their future edits to this article and revert them if they are of the same kind of non-neutral wording. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Hat}} |
|
:Do note that the IP's ISP (or they themselves) seems to be continually switching the last two digits of their number. So leaving talk page warnings is pretty much useless, as you'd be leaving them on a different one every time. I do note that they have been ], fairly recently too. No idea how many other times they might have been because of the switching address. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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. |
|
::it is metropcs, which has dynamic (as fuck) IP's. there is no way of knowing which previous user of that IP made the edits that got that IP blocked. ] (]) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*:what was not neutral about those two edits? the word "copious"? please identify what was not neutral about the edits so that in the future i can avoid using whatever has upset you. ] (]) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. |
|
== Notability template == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
|
I removed it in line with the template documentation, since I am "certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues." Matters were not helped by the fact that the editor who added the template did not start a discussion about the issue here on the talk page. I hope that, in the future, editors templating this article will start sections here clarifying exactly what problems they think need to be addressed.— ] (]) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
== Add target of Virgil Griffith list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:I think you'll be on safe ground if you deal only with issues that were dealt with by more than one RS. That's the definition of a controversy, imho. I think that this article is a good resource, but it bothers me that you have "controversies" consisting of one negative press clip. ] (]) 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert of short description == |
|
::* The definition of a controversy given by the OED is "''Disputation on a matter of opinion; the contending of opponents one with another on a subject of dispute; discussion in which opposite views are advanced and maintained by opponents.''" In other words, there have to be at least two contending schools of thought. Many of the entries are not controversies. For example, the ] was a hoax. Everyone seems to agree that it was a deliberate deception which should have been caught and corrected. So, where's the controversy? Genuine controversies tend not to be isolated incidents as, by their nature, they take some time to debate and resolve. For example, some educators support the use of Misplaced Pages and some oppose it. This is a complex matter which is taking time to work out. Incidents of scholarly use and abuse are material in that debate; they are not the actual controversy. ] (]) 07:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It seems that the use of Controversy in this instance has precedence across . ] (]) 09:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::* Our article ] starts by defining the concept: "''Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.''". This seems to confirm my point. The examples which follow in your link likewise confirm the point. ] is about free-speech vs Moslem taboo. ] is about the religious vs scientific views of the origin of species. The incidents presented here do not have this character; they just seem to be one-sided mud-slinging, contrary to ]. ] (]) 11:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: And ] is about what? And ] is about what? All of it is about someone taking exception to some isolated thing that someone has said or done. Which is exactly what the list is doing, it is pointing to things that wikipedia has said or done. It is the instances where wikipedia is used by people either inside wikipedia or external to wikipedia have used wikipedia to advance a POV/COI, or where internal wikipedia policies have resulted in unforeseen consequences in the outside world. When fly-by vandalism can result in some national football team gets called Sand Monkeys in otherwise respected news sources, when someone gets labelled as an assassin, when people are credited with having done something they didn't do, and when false factoids get published externally as truths then that those are not isolated instances. That my friend is your prolonged dispute, that it is affects isolated individuals and isolated external articles does not mitigated the fact that the vandalism, POV/COI and the rest is a continuous pollution of the external world. ] (]) 13:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Your first example, ], is detritus from last year's electioneering, contrary to ]. One can find plenty of junk like that in Misplaced Pages, hence ], but when you start ranting about "continuous pollution" then you well demonstrate what's going on here. ] (]) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: IOW it is wikipedia controversy. Is it not educational to provide authors and journalists a list of times when their fellow scribblers had been caught out by vandalism in WP articles? ] (]) 15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: It's not a controversy just because you want to make it one. Other organs such as '']'' are notorious for their errors. Do we have a list of the errors made by that or other news media? As everyone makes errors, wouldn't compilations of them tend to be indiscriminate? And don't we all agree that errors are bad and best avoided? Still not seeing the controversy. ] (]) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: The Gruniad doesn't fills its pages with statements, presented as facts, that X is an assassin whilst simultaneously denying any responsibility for such statements. Comparing the unwittingly publishing of errors by those and having legal responsibility for such errors, with the deliberate insertions of falsehoods by those hiding behind immunity, is a rather controversial position to take, and one that most people would feel to be quite bizarre. ] (]) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
There does seem some definitional confusion, and a lot of lumping different kinds of things together. It would be more useful if it was split into related lists. One would be ] (which, oddly, is currently a cross-namespace redirect to ]) - that's quite a few items here. Another would be something like "List of people who were reported in national media as editing Misplaced Pages for their own benefit" (or something in that direction) - that's quite a few items here. Clear those out, and the remaining items would be easier to evaluate, to maybe split the list further, or else provide a workable definition of "controversy" for the purposes of the list. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I think that what perhaps may be happening is that some of us are conflating a controversy ''within'' Misplaced Pages that gets outside coverage to genuine controversies that people outside Misplaced Pages would care about. BP is a good example of the latter. Most of this article is a list of the former, and really doesn't belong as an article anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Trust me, people outside Misplaced Pages don't give a damn about internal intrigue. You can distinguish easily the latter from the former by the number of media outlets that talk about it. ] (]) 15:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::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 == |
|
:You also have things that aren't really Wiki ''controversies.'' For instance, the French intelligence pressuring an editor to remove an article. Was that even on the English Misplaced Pages? And if it was, how is that a controversy? There is a grab-bag of stuff like this, while genuine controversies get either short shrift or too much detail. ] (]) 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::The French Intelligence one should definitely be in the COI editing article, not here, since it's far more related to that. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not sure it even belongs there, unless some French spy became an editor. ] (]) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:I agree with Rd232. I would also note that the "List of people who were reported in national media as editing Misplaced Pages for their own benefit" is pretty much the ] article, which covers much of the information that is in this article already. I do agree that this article should be split up, because many of these are not controversies. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 April 2013 (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}
