Talk:The Day We Fight Back - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wnt (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 9 February 2014 (→Reddit announcement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:21, 9 February 2014 by Wnt (talk | contribs) (→Reddit announcement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

United States: Government Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

A fact from The Day We Fight Back appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2014 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2014/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Day We Fight Back.

Misplaced Pages

Possible additions

Hack of MIT to announce TDWFB

An interesting screenshot of the hack is here. The hack was to a sub-domain, per Hacker News

From the Daily Dot

Ironically, this is the first major online protest against those spy programs, though there have been three major physical protests. Each of those were tied to symbolic dates— Restore the Fourth (a nod to the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees privacy, held on the Fourth of July), 1984 Day on Aug. 4, and on the 12th anniversary of the Patriot Act, which provided the legal basis for many of the NSA's current practices. Feb. 11 is no different: It's one of several proposed days to honor Aaron Swartz...

"If Aaron were alive he'd be on the front lines, fighting back against these practices that undermine our ability to engage with each other as genuinely free human beings," said David Segal of Demand Progress.

"To be clear, pushing back against agencies like the NSA and the U.K.'s is a far more difficult task than calling lawmakers en masse to argue against a single bill, as was the case with SOPA."

Segal et al Reddit AMA

At his Reddit "Ask Me Anything" about TDWFB, David Segal said: "We need our legislators to hear from people who love the Internet that we won’t stand by and let it be turned into a giant tool for mass surveillance"

Charges dropped against Swartz

From Creative Commons cofounder Lawrence Lessig: Swartz was "driven to the edge by what a decent society would only call bullying." Dot. The pardon and response to Swartz' apparent suicide might have a place in the article alongside mention of his charges. petrarchan47 t c 01:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

MIT hack-- undue?

I'm inclined to think we're focusing too much on one hacker, who is not affiliated with any of the organizations involved, who claims to support The Day We Fight Back, but might just as easily be attempting to discredit them.

Absent any genuine reliable sources about who the hacker was or what his motives were, it's not notable on this article. At the end of the day, what are we reporting: that some anonymous guy on the internet posted a message claiming he supports TDWFB? Not Notable here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I think the "history" section essentially been used as filler as there isn't that much to say about the protest itself at this stage. benmoore 09:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The hack occurred at most a day after the event was announced, and contributed a significant fraction of the total news buzz around it - and the only thing it is is news buzz - so it seems quite relevant. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

More undue concerns

I have concerns about the notability of most (not all) of the article:

Background: The references to Swartz in the reliable sources are mostly in passing; we don't need a whole section about a subject that's only of tangential relevance. A few sentences would be totally sufficient.
Founding participants: This section could be written in a single sentence. Bullet points might be a clearer way to structure it, but there's no reason for multiple sentences on each entity. All of these organizations have their own articles that can be read for more details.
Response to Obama's NSA speech: This section has no reliable secondary sources, and as such, should probably be deleted on notability grounds. Not to mention that the cited primary source (EFF) actually says the report card was created by EFF, not by TDWFB. As such I'm deleting it.

Honestly I think this article, while narrowly passing the WP:GNG threshold, probably merits 2-3 paragraphs total. At least, based on its current sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made some bold changes accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's surely nothing in WP:UNDUE that says that an entire article should be restricted to some arbitrary length. Try WP:Misplaced Pages is not paper. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested either of these things. Please consider my arguments in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Swartz material

According to , Aaron Swartz's brother Noah Swartz is "actively organizing" TDWFB. There's scarcely an article that talks about this event without mentioning him. The relevance isn't tangential. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If Noah is actively organizing the event then that should be in the article. But extensive information about Aaron's death that's unrelated to TDWFB shouldn't be included. The fact that Aaron's death is mentioned in most sources means that it should be mentioned here, not written up extensively. As the section is currently written it gives disproportionate attention to Swartz as compared to the reliable sources. It reads as promotion for Demand Progress and detracts from the focus on TDWFB. I'm not saying that's your intention, but that's how it reads. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I left out the details of the alleged suicide, which are indeed irrelevant, but if you read practically any source about this event, it jumps back and forth between Swartz and the event. I'll admit that this perplexes me --- so far, I have not seen a word actually suggesting that the NSA spotted Swartz's mass download or had something to do with his prosecution, and so it's hard to see why the event is so tightly linked to it, or why his relatives didn't have a "Share A Paper" day instead. But we have to go with what the sources think is relevant, and hope that the reason why becomes apparent at some point. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't have to go with what the news sources think is relevant. We are not a newspaper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That policy link is always misused whenever it is cited, but I have to say, I've never seen it misused in this way before. No, NOTNEWS is not an reason to remove background concepts that all the sources think are relevant. It is a call to treat those sources the same way as we would treat any other sources. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You can interpret it any way you want, but there's no requirement that we must cover material in equal breadth or proportionality as news sources. And the material I removed wasn't "background concepts." These were multiple sentences and quotes detailing the events surrounding Swartz's death that do not shed light on the subject of this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And NOTNEWS doesn't say anything about newspapers being treated equally (or unequally) from other sources. A relevant quote: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I understand your argument is that all of this Swartz material should be included simply because it's mentioned in the TDWFB news articles. That directly contradicts the quoted policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That sentence immediately follows a sentence about WP:Notability, which applies to articles, not sentences. It immediately precedes the explanation that "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Now to be sure, it's a stupid, badly abusable policy that invites everyone to apply their own interpretation of what is 'routine', but what should be clear is that it's not unreasonable for us to cover the same kind of background our sources do when they cover the same topic. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not unreasonable, but you still need to justify it and overcome the counterarguments. You yourself wrote that the inclusion of this material in the cited sources "perplexes" you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It matters very little whether editors understand why TDWFB is being used to also honor the life of Aaron Swartz, rather that is it the case and is well documented. (Ohai again, Dr F) petrarchan47 t c 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I never proposed removing all reference to Swartz. If we have reliable sourcing saying that TDWFB is being used by the organizers to honor Swartz's death, then by all means, it belongs in the article. And a short bit of background (a sentence or two) summarizing the Swartz story is appropriate too. But a five-sentence standalone paragraph that's purely background, plus a blockquote that doesn't even refer to TDWFB? Totally undue and a distraction from the subject of the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Founding participants

HectorMoffet restored this entire section saying it could be cut down but should not be deleted entirely. In fact I had simply consolidated it into the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree on undue weight to the founding participants section. It looks promotional. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's get some clarity: I think there were something like 100 organizations signed on to this. How were the specific organizations selected chosen to be described in more detail? Wnt (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how they were selected, but it likely had something to do with their perceived prominence. Certainly listing all 100 or so in this article would be inappropriate, even if reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to list 100 people who competed in an Olympic event in an article about the event? This may not be the "Parade of Nations", but the same general idea applies. (I'm not even saying necessarily that I necessarily want to list them at this time, pending better source coverage, but it's not inappropriate to do so) Wnt (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it would be appropriate, and as far as I know we don't do that. Here's an example. In some cases long lists like this are kept in separate list pages. I'm not a list expert but I believe there's a guideline for this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Background / Connection with death of Aaron Swartz

I removed a fair amount of material from the "Background" section that was more about Aaron Swartz and of limited relevance to the protest, moved the bit about the announcement of the protest to the lead section (since it seems of sufficient notability), and re-named the section to "Connection with death of Aaron Swartz." In response Ross Hill re-added the extra Swartz material and changed the heading back to "Background" with the comment: "This section is more than just the connection with his death. It also talks about the announcement of the day we fight back."

This doesn't make sense to me. The section is currently solely about the Swartz connection. The bit about the announcement isn't there anymore. And the comment doesn't address why all of this Swartz material should be re-added. It's already covered in other articles and really adds nothing to this one, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary is accurate. What you don't seem to be appreciating is that when we look up the sources about this event, they all seem to focus on things tied into Swartz. As I said somewhere above, that's more than a little mysterious to me (I don't know whether it is the journalists or the organizers who pushed everything in this direction) but the result is a lot of references to him. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You already made this point in the other thread; we don't need to discuss it in two different places. But what remains of this thread is that Ross Hill wrote this section should be called "Background" rather than "Connection with death of Aaron Swartz" because it is about more than the connection with Swartz. In fact that's not true. Every sentence is about Swartz. Hence the appropriateness of the heading change. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Will wikipedia participate in The Day We Fight Back?

One bit of info missing from this page is a statement on whether or not Misplaced Pages will be participating. It would be nice if we could. Is anyone working on that? How can an editor help - is there some place official to suggest participation or vote for it something like that? Steevithak (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Reddit announcement

I removed primary source material about the Reddit announcement with the summary: " rm non-notable, unreliably sourced blockquote including spam link". HectorMoffet reverted with the summary: "rv inappropriate deletion".

Hector, your edit summary was insufficient. Please explain why my edit was inappropriate. I'll re-state my main concern: We're block-quoting a primary source when other content, citing secondary sources, already covers the same subject matter ; and the block quote just happens to include a URL that automagically creates an in-body external link to the subject's website. This appears to violate a veritable alphabet soup of policies and guidelines, not least of which are the ones against spam links and links in the bodies of articles.. It's the URL I'm most bothered by; it appears promotional to me (even if that's not your intention). If you find a way to remove the URL then I'll let the rest of the alphabet soup slide. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't say that there isn't a better way to present that data - I chose a blockquote simply because it was the easiest way to make it clear who considered themselves to be "friends of Aaron", the relationship with Aaron previously having been treated here as a contentious issue, as well as their self-descriptions. The problem is, you removed it with a summary "rm non-notable, unreliably sourced blockquote including spam link", which seems to oppose any reference to this key announcement. As the original announcement of the event, it is notable, and it is reliably sourced as a statement by its authors. The denigration of the link as spam is particularly perplexing, because that's the "official site" in the external links, and unquestionably appropriate to point people reading the article to. I somewhat disliked having that in the blockquote (along with some other things) simply on the basis of redundancy, but your response to it didn't make sense to me. If doing some careful digesting of the quote's contents can satisfy you, then perhaps we could agree on a version after all. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories: