Revision as of 15:53, 16 April 2013 editSilver seren (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,749 edits →Issues: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:53, 16 April 2013 edit undoSilver seren (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,749 edits →WR found definitive proof...: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
since it doesn't seem to be sourceable and does seem to need a source. Thoughts?— ] (]) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | 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) |
Revision as of 15:53, 16 April 2013
Internet culture List‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
Websites: Computing List‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Issues
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Though I do note that a lot of this language can be attributed to IP 174.141.213's edits. Silverseren 07:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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 WP:EXPLNOTE. It's not supporting anything, it's merely explanatory. I would have used the {{further}} 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.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I went ahead and took it out of the footnotes since it was bothering you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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. Silverseren 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I went ahead and took it out of the footnotes since it was bothering you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- See section below for another response. I definitely agree with you about that line about "definitive proof."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
WR found definitive proof...
I removed this:
Misplaced Pages Review found definitive proof that Jordan made false claims about his academic qualifications and professional experiences on his Misplaced Pages user page.
since it doesn't seem to be sourceable and does seem to need a source. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 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. Silverseren 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- List-Class Internet culture articles
- Unknown-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- List-Class Websites articles
- Unknown-importance Websites articles
- List-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
- List-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles