Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:19, 7 June 2014 editIan.thomson (talk \| contribs)58,562 edits →The Exclusion of a Participant by WikiConference USA 2014 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:28, 7 June 2014 edit undoTarc (talk \| contribs)24,217 edits →The Exclusion of a Participant by WikiConference USA 2014: - sourcing is still sub-parNext edit →
Line 94:		Line 94:
	:::Alf, unless you're making a completely arbitrary difference between guideline and policy (which seems odd in this case,) I certainly do have justifiable reasons for removing the content - see my last post. This would be a ridiculously long list if we included every possible controversy that had received one sentence of coverage in a reliable source. See ]//], as I've previously linked (not to mention the ] issues involved in including a one sentence one week old piece...) Even from the inclusion criteria included at the beginning of this list - "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - the material doesn't qualify for inclusion on the list, until/unless more significant coverage emerges. There are plenty of times when it's perfectly okay to remove reliably sourced information from an article as you should be well aware, and this is one of them. ] (]) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)		:::Alf, unless you're making a completely arbitrary difference between guideline and policy (which seems odd in this case,) I certainly do have justifiable reasons for removing the content - see my last post. This would be a ridiculously long list if we included every possible controversy that had received one sentence of coverage in a reliable source. See ]//], as I've previously linked (not to mention the ] issues involved in including a one sentence one week old piece...) Even from the inclusion criteria included at the beginning of this list - "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - the material doesn't qualify for inclusion on the list, until/unless more significant coverage emerges. There are plenty of times when it's perfectly okay to remove reliably sourced information from an article as you should be well aware, and this is one of them. ] (]) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
	::::LISTN is a red herring. It's a notability guideline and has nothing to do with what's included on a list. There is nothing in that guideline that has to do with whether or not an item should be included on a list. LSC is more on point. As it says, one question to be asked is "{{xt\|Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?}}" Now, the NYMag article singled out this incident as a concrete example of the bitter controversies Misplaced Pages generates. Thus, according to a reliable source, the answer to that question is "yes." Furthermore, obviously there are times when it's OK to remove sourced material from a list. This may or may not be one of them, and that's what we're discussing. However, there are never times when it's OK to edit-war over it, which you were doing. That's not OK, and as an administrator, you ought to know better. Now, as to your argument that this list would be ridiculously long if we included items like the one under discussion. That's a valid argument, but is it sound? I don't believe you. Give me a few examples of things that would be included on this list but are not currently included. I don't think there are enough to make the list ridiculously long. In fact, I think there are zero to few of them. Please, find three such items and I will concede the truth of your premise and therefore the soundness of your argument.— ] (]) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)		::::LISTN is a red herring. It's a notability guideline and has nothing to do with what's included on a list. There is nothing in that guideline that has to do with whether or not an item should be included on a list. LSC is more on point. As it says, one question to be asked is "{{xt\|Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?}}" Now, the NYMag article singled out this incident as a concrete example of the bitter controversies Misplaced Pages generates. Thus, according to a reliable source, the answer to that question is "yes." Furthermore, obviously there are times when it's OK to remove sourced material from a list. This may or may not be one of them, and that's what we're discussing. However, there are never times when it's OK to edit-war over it, which you were doing. That's not OK, and as an administrator, you ought to know better. Now, as to your argument that this list would be ridiculously long if we included items like the one under discussion. That's a valid argument, but is it sound? I don't believe you. Give me a few examples of things that would be included on this list but are not currently included. I don't think there are enough to make the list ridiculously long. In fact, I think there are zero to few of them. Please, find three such items and I will concede the truth of your premise and therefore the soundness of your argument.— ] (]) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

			:The banning was a blatant act of gutless cowardice, no one but the most dyed-in-the-wool Wiki-Slurper can see that. But there are still standards to meet here for sourcing; an NY Mag entry that doesn't mention the subject by name, and even that only references the problematic O'Dwyer ref. Give it more time to see if other outlets pick it up. ] (]) 01:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:28, 7 June 2014

Template:Copied multi

This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the CC BY-SA and/or GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. Please see Misplaced Pages:Merge and Misplaced Pages:How to break up a page for details of when such copying and pasting is acceptable and when it is not, and how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries. You can also read the "copying within Misplaced Pages" guideline for an overview of the issues involved.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Misplaced Pages controversies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Misplaced Pages High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliability

This article is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion review on 23 April 2013. The result of the discussion was No Consensus to endorse the close, but a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary..

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Amanda Filipacchi (30 April 2013). "Sexism on Misplaced Pages Is Not the Work of 'A Single Misguided Editor'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 30 April 2013. 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)."

Misogyny at Misplaced Pages and WMF

Murphy, Dan (2013). "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 1 August 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Alleged "outing"

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Misplaced Pages, decide to waive Misplaced Pages's strict "outing" policy when he asked other editors to post their suspicions about Edward Snowden's activities on Misplaced Pages to Wales' talk page.

Sources do not indicate Wales had decided to "waive" any policies; in fact, he was quoted as:

"I do not seek, and have not sought, any exception of any kind, not at any point"

which seems to indicate precisely the opposite. Hopefully this is a net improvement, though. GregorB (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul

The Rand Paul affair of October 2013 is not really a Misplaced Pages controversy. GregorB (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning?

Sure the controversy over the Chelsea Manning article needs to be here - the move to Bradley Manning and back again, as well as the aftermath with editors receiving topic bans. St Anselm (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Exclusion of a Participant by WikiConference USA 2014

My apologies, I'm not sure what is appropriate for this page, since it's my first edit here. It seems like the incident involving the exclusion of Greg Kohs at WikiConference USA 2014 is noteworthy enough to include on this list, but it has been reverted. Could someone please tell me what criteria this incident doesn't meet for inclusion in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllm (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil: I'm going to drop you an email shortly. But to answer your direct query here: on a list of this nature, we generally don't include entries unless they have been referenced by multiple reliable sources. Your addition wasn't referenced by multiple reliable sources; I'd go as far as to state that it wasn't referenced by one reliable source, given that the PR piece you referenced is from an outlet that (a) isn't incredibly well-respected, even among the PR trade press, (b) the entry at O'Dwyers had to have misspellings including "Widipedia" and "Wikipendia" corrected multiple times before they fixed them as well as multiple other factual errors, (c) the article was editorial in nature, coming from a source fairly well known to not like us. Even though the list criteria aren't well-defined here, from the lede, "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - preventing a banned WP critic who had posed an active disruption before the event from attending from attending clearly doesn't meet that standard, especially when it's only covered in O'Dwyer. Moreover, since the post essentially alleges wrongdoing using only the shakiest of sources on the part of conference organizers - even though they aren't explicitly named - I'd also suggest that including this content in the article represents a WP:BLP issue until it receives more substantial (and more accurate, one would hope) coverage from somewhere other than O'Dwyer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I think what happened is noteworthy, but it does have to wait for the news media out there to catch up to it. Publications like the Daily Dot and others usually have their ear closer to the ground on things to do with the Misplaced Pages and such, so we'll keep an eye out. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The O'Dwyer article was inane, and I agree that more sources are required. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
New York (magazine) just mentioned it here, so we now have our RS. I will readd it. Cla68 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If we mentioned everything in this article that received a tangential one sentence mention in a RS about Misplaced Pages that was vaguely controversial, this would be an awfully long article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sleepy and retract my last edit summary (been a while since I've looked at the guideline,) but the point still stands. Come back when it's received more than a sentence in an RS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop ordering us around. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I found a RS so, it should not be removed unless a consensus is established here for its removal. WP doesn't belong to you. It belongs to all of us. Cla68 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And it smacks of self-censorship and cover up - Alison 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Alison: you know that suggesting that removing an item in a list potentially this long that is currently only supported by one sentence in a RS represents censorship is hyperbole, which isn't something terribly useful here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A modified version of criteria #1 as found here is pretty clearly a roughly appropriate criteria for inclusion here and a single sentence found in a RS clearly doesn't meet that. Can you imagine how long this list would be if we included every WP related "controversy" every that received a SINGLE sentence in any RS? Please point me to any guideline or policy that suggests that absolute consensus needs to be established before content sourced to a single sentence in a RS is removed... especially when, currently, the balance of this talk page favors removal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The NYmag article (which only gives a couple of lines to the Kohs incident) gets its info about Kohs from O'Dwyer's. So citing that really isn't any different than citing O'Dwyer's piece a second time. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For clarity: I was talking about the NYM piece only, I don't consider the O'Dwyer's piece an RS. Since NYM does meet the relevant RS guidelines, it's okay to use NYM as a source, even if they got it from O'Dwyer's - we grant them the assumption of good faith that they've factchecked, etc. But, since it's still a single bloody sentence in one RS, there's no way it's an incident worth including in this list, unless significant further coverage develops. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The NYmag piece only gives it one sentence as an alleged event, so there's still a WP:DUE issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. That policy is about opposing points of view being represented in proportion to their representation in RS. It is completely beside the point here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

... Stating that Ktr's edit summary violated BLP is more or less just looking for a reason to use BLP to smack him. I agree his argument doesn't speak directly to whether or not Kohs should be included, but it's hardly an egregious BLP violation. If we included every single Misplaced Pages-related thing on this list that received one sentence of coverage in one reliable source, the list would look positively ridiculous. Re: everything else, see my post below. Kevin Gorman (talk)

I am all for equal representation and whatnot here, but what concerns me is that we're reporting on something that goes with the event's Friendly space policy. There was a legitimate reason to remove Greg from the conference (people were not going to go if he was there), and there is nothing controversial about it if you go along those lines. He was not removed for his paid editing work, and would have been accepted if he wasn't banned for the above reason. Each organization has a right to implement a Friendly space policy and enforce it as they see fit. If you are banned for a legitimate concern, then that is not so much a scandal as the active attempt at including people who would not feel comfortable with that person around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Everybody stop edit-warring. Gorman, you're an administrator, so you're supposed to know better. Furthermore, the incident is mentioned in a New York Magazine blog, so it's reliably sourced and is thus inclusable. The balance of the talk page doesn't "favor removal." Furthermore, your edit summaries seem to indicate that you think that items on a list need to be notable. They specifically do not need to be notable. They just need to be sourceable, to fall within the scope of the list, and to meet the selection criteria. This incident does all three. the NYMag mention is a source, the scope of the list includes this: " hostile interactions between Misplaced Pages editors and public figures," and we're discussing now whether it meets the selection criteria, which are essentially up to the editors on the page, not the MOS. Finally, this edit summary by Ktr101 is barely believable: "this is not a controversy. greg legitimately made people feel uncomfortable and there was a reason he was banned." First of all, it's a BLP violation. Second of all, whether or not "there was a reason he was banned" is irrelevant. The only thing that determines whether it is a controversy is that reliable sources identify it as controversial. The actor's rationale for the action is beyond immaterial. The NYMag source uses this incident as a primary concrete example of the claim that "Over the years there have been power struggles, schisms, defections, accusations of abuse, censorship, libel, and just plain-old bickering." See, the source identifies it as controversial? That's how we decide what goes in articles, not whether some people think they have a rational reason for the controversial things they do. Ktr101, you are violating BLP right and left. You should stop it. Not only that, but your arguments are completely beside the point, as explained above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware there was an edit conflict, but just in case you don't see it, my comment was that the NYmag piece is merely repeating O'Dwyer's regarding Kohs. And if we are going to cite the NYmag, we should follow their wording, "allegedly," instead of taking the O'Dwyer's claims at face value. Ian.thomson (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Ian is correct that if we were to include this based on the NYM piece, we should include a disclaiming word such as NYM used one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ian.thomson: The fact that the NYMag piece cites the PR piece is not the same as citing the PR piece. NYMag is a reliable source, so when it choses to cite an unreliable source we may rely on their judgment that the incident is controversial. That is the only question at stake here: Do reliable sources see it as controversial? Your last edit summary indicates that you too think that list entries need to be independently notable. They do not. You should revert yourself for shame as there is an ongoing discussion and you're removing sourced material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I love the number of people who are trying to get Kohs included as a controversy on an article with a scope this large who are not bothering to make any policy-based comment on this talk page (or frequently, any comment at all.) Here's my argument: this is a list with a major scope that could include thousands of items, which would make it nearly useless - thus, we need to limit the scope of items included in this list. I would suggest that a modified version of the first criteria included here would be a good starting point - not necessarily requiring enough RS coverage to establish independent notability, but at a bare minimum requiring more than one RS - or at least substantial coverage in one good RS (and one line is not substantial.) And, on top of that, anything on this list should almost certainly be described as a controversy - otherwise, we're injecting our own opinion. Also.. that whole WP:RECENTISM thing.. yeah. I'd encourage anyone in favor of including Kohs as it currently stands to respond to this post with something other than "AHHH! CENSORSHIP!" Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, "for shame," really? Such judgmental language. And what about my other comment? That if we are going to leave it in there per just the NYmag piece, we should, as even NYmag does, treat it as a one sentence alleged incident? Unless we're also going to include a bit the effect that Sumana Harihareswara of the Wikimedia foundation noted that "For many people in the Misplaced Pages movement, free speech is, as John Scalzi put it, the ability to be a dick in every possible circumstance." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the qualifier, by all means put it in as it's in the source. You still haven't explained why you think it's OK to remove sourced material that a number of editors think meets the inclusion criteria. And as for your piping of WP:CIVIL to "judgmental language," why don't you just knock it off and say what you mean, whatever that is? If you won't revert yourself for unqualified shame, consider reverting yourself because you're perpetuating an edit-war when there's ongoing discussion, something which many competent editors of Misplaced Pages would be ashamed of doing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it this way: treating an editor you disagree with about policy like a misbehaving child by telling them to revert themselves instead of being a grown up and doing it yourself) makes it look like you have some kind of m:Dick-ish superiority complex (which would be an indication you need to leave this alone for cooler heads). Also, it's WP:BRD, not "WP:Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss." In other words, material is added, reverted (removed), discussed, and then added back in after the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Including sourced material that's on-topic is not a "bold" edit, so your invocation of the essay BRD is off-point. If anything, removing sourced on-topic material is being bold. That's why you ought to revert yourself, because your reversion of the edit supported edit-warriors who were ignoring the very essay you now invoke to support your removal of sourced material. Plus, your ridiculous piped easter eggs are uninterpretable. Why don't you say what you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding content isn't a bold edit? What? Where is BRD does begin to make that sort of qualification? That sheer misinterpretation of both the letter and the spirit of BRD is nothing but Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering, further evidence of you don't have the right attitude for this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah hahahahaha.....00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How is that not m:Dick-ish? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. Do you have an argument to make beyond calling me names? I already agreed with your only substantive point, which is that the material should use the same qualifier as the source it comes from. Have you bothered to reply to a single argument I've made? By the way, did you notice this sentence from the metapedian non-policy you keep waving at me like a stick? The one that says "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say."?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There have been plenty of points made, which you hypocritically either ignore, insult, or wikilawyer around. And all my posts have focused on behavior and attitude, per "Focus on behaviour, not on individuals. Say what you want and why you want it. Say why you think the other person's behaviour is counter-productive." I have assumed that you were acting in good faith, but with a inclustionist bent, while you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that those with the slightlest exclusionist tendencies could be anything but idiots who shouldn't be anywhere near the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Kevin Gorman: You have no policy based reason for removal, *and* you're edit-warring, and you're ignoring substantive arguments. The NYMag source gives it as a prominent example of Misplaced Pages's "power struggles, schisms, defections, accusations of abuse, censorship, libel, and just plain-old bickering." How is that not saying it's controversial? Or are you, I hate to imagine, suggesting that sources must actually use the word "controversy" before an item can be included on this list?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Alf, unless you're making a completely arbitrary difference between guideline and policy (which seems odd in this case,) I certainly do have justifiable reasons for removing the content - see my last post. This would be a ridiculously long list if we included every possible controversy that had received one sentence of coverage in a reliable source. See WP:LISTN//WP:LSC, as I've previously linked (not to mention the WP:RECENTISM issues involved in including a one sentence one week old piece...) Even from the inclusion criteria included at the beginning of this list - "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - the material doesn't qualify for inclusion on the list, until/unless more significant coverage emerges. There are plenty of times when it's perfectly okay to remove reliably sourced information from an article as you should be well aware, and this is one of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

LISTN is a red herring. It's a notability guideline and has nothing to do with what's included on a list. There is nothing in that guideline that has to do with whether or not an item should be included on a list. LSC is more on point. As it says, one question to be asked is "Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" Now, the NYMag article singled out this incident as a concrete example of the bitter controversies Misplaced Pages generates. Thus, according to a reliable source, the answer to that question is "yes." Furthermore, obviously there are times when it's OK to remove sourced material from a list. This may or may not be one of them, and that's what we're discussing. However, there are never times when it's OK to edit-war over it, which you were doing. That's not OK, and as an administrator, you ought to know better. Now, as to your argument that this list would be ridiculously long if we included items like the one under discussion. That's a valid argument, but is it sound? I don't believe you. Give me a few examples of things that would be included on this list but are not currently included. I don't think there are enough to make the list ridiculously long. In fact, I think there are zero to few of them. Please, find three such items and I will concede the truth of your premise and therefore the soundness of your argument.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The banning was a blatant act of gutless cowardice, no one but the most dyed-in-the-wool Wiki-Slurper can see that. But there are still standards to meet here for sourcing; an NY Mag entry that doesn't mention the subject by name, and even that only references the problematic O'Dwyer ref. Give it more time to see if other outlets pick it up. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories: