Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nuggetboy (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 9 January 2007 (Sorry, shoulda subst'd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

I would like to see you post proof of your claim that 99% of the news about Derek Smart is negative. This is yet another blanket statement that you folks make and with no basis in reality nor which pass any form of the WP:RS muster. If what you claim were true, well then, why should a source such as Usenet which fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL be the only place where you can find such posts? Where are the WP:RS articles? Surely if 99% news about Derek Smart were negative, you wouldn't need the Usenet to find them would you? Nope, you wouldn't. Further, it is already clear that the Usenet posts were about The Great Flame War. Since when are people at their best in any flame war? So, even if there was negativity toward him and his supporters on Usenet as a result of The Great Flame War, how does that have anything to do with a WP:BLP article about a public figure? Supreme_Cmdr 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no proper news articles which focus primarily on the negative aspects of Derek Smart because he's not notable or important enough for games media outlets to spend the time to generate the content on websites that may pass WP:RS regarding his negative nature. Every article which mentions negative things about Smart does so in passing or as part of the introduction. Most every article referenced in the derek smart wikipedia article mentions the controversy in the introduction and then goes on to the real reason for the article; the game review.

That is so funny, that I'm actually glad that you posted that, since it quite clearly shows the nature of what you folks are trying to pov push into the Wiki. OK, so he's not important enough (that is as laughable as saying that Bill Clinton is a has been) for the material to be generated. So, the Usenet posts - by individuals - is notable enough because why? As I have said before, none of you editors know anything about the gaming industry, nor Derek Smart's infamy, involvement or industry credibility. All you guys care about is that you and a few people don't like him, so you all jump on the bandwagon to taint his reputation without a single shred of WP:RS evidence to back it up. Which is exactly why WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:EL exist. Without them, all you folks would be doing on Wiki is exactly what you were doing on Usenet, in forums and elsewhere where it is OK to tear someone done with zero merit whatsoever, while commiting libel at every turn.

I also want to point out that will all the resources available to you folks, so far, even with the 99% claims and such, nobody has demonstrated any such evidence that every article written about him is negative. Not one. Go ahead, post them and lets debate them. If you're going to make claims, you might as well post material to back it up. Thats what is designed to do. But since you folks don't give a damn about Wiki rules or policies, you are free to behave with wanton disregard. Hence the reason why myself and others get trapped in 3RR violations when we remove the violating crap that you folks are injecting into the Wiki. Hence the reason you all want to band together to editors like me banned, blocked or whatever, so that you can use your collective and pov-pushing consensus to taint the page. It will never happen because for every one of us that you folks cause to be banned or blocked without merit, others will come along at some point in time, revert the whole thing, rewrite it or whatever and the cycle will restart. Supreme_Cmdr 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Smart's involvement in the flame war is important to the article because it is the primary source of his notability. The inability to cite that information may, in fact, reduce the notability of the subject. UseNET is the only impartial source of citation regarding this significant portion of the subject because the only cited information will be writings by Derek Smart himself. If we can't include information about Smart's controversial nature, the article should probably be nominated for deletion.--Jeff 05:12, 8 January 2007

(UTC)

Yet another example of what I'm saying. Smart was on the scene and a notable game developer BEFORE the flame wars even started. In fact - and I don't expect you to know this - the flame wars started because of his first game as he was very protective of it and foolishly engaged those who attacked his game. Once others took it personal, it just added fuel to an already raging fire. So, you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about. If you did, you would know this. Even Huffman knows this, since he was the #1 instigator of the flame war and single handedly essentially helped kill any/all game discussions on Usenet. A visit to Google proves this quite clearly with lots of gems about his obsessive exploits and online stalking of Smart. So, go do your homework instead of just jumping on the colletive schoolyard mentality and posting stuff with no basis in facts or reality. Supreme_Cmdr 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two questions about this statement. First, it is obvious that you do not want to use Usenet posts as citations to Smart's behavior on his Misplaced Pages article. Then why do you repeatedly use them here to cite the behavior of others? You can't have it both ways. I know that talk pages are different than articles, but don't you think your argument would hold more water if you stopped using Usenet posts yourself? Cardinal2 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, you say that Smart was a notable game developer before the flame wars began, yet on the next line you state that the flame wars began when his first game was released. How could one become a "notable game developer" before releasing a game? Is there an award or distinction in the gaming community that he received beforehand? If so, perhaps you should list it here, or include it inside the article after an admin releases it from protection. Cardinal2 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to immediately jump from "you can't use this source" to "delete the whole article." If ArbCom were to rule that UseNet sources can not be used at all then we'd take it from there and see how the article would shape up. I understand that this is purely speculation but I don't care for that line of speculation in this particular place where a binding decision along those lines could be made as I think it would be a very poor decision. --ElKevbo 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There already is such a policy. Wp:rs#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. Thatcher131 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on now, you seriously think they didn't know that? They do. They're just trying to ignore policy and do what the heck they like. Why? Because they can. Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From the page in question: "This page is considered a guideline on Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. (emphasis added)" --ElKevbo 15:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As Jeff mentioned on talk:Derek_Smart, the policy/guideline also explicitly mentions cases where self-published material (e.g., Usenet posts) may be used as a reliable source. The policy/guideline says as long as four criteria are met and lists the critiria which was discussed and consensus reached on talk:Derek_Smart#Citation_of_Usenet_archives that Derek's posts in the flame war meet those four criteria. P.S. Supreme_Cmdr, thanks for showing up, you didn't disappoint. :-) Bill Huffman 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express a desire for explanation about Supreme_Cmdr's claim that Derek Smart was notable as a game developer before he made a game. I'm popping in here rather new to wikipedia, but it should be said that I have heard a decent amount of information about Derek Smart, yet have not played any of his games. Taking me as a litmus, it would seem quite reasonable that, were we unable to use Bill Huffman's site about Derek Smart, we should delete the page entirely. However, Derek Smart is still a game developer. Even if he is known by many to have a reputation for less than honorable actions, the fact that his controversy is mentioned in other sources I feel could be enough for the sake of an encyclopedic article. In fact, the 'Why I love Derek Smart' on the current page about him speaks much about his controversy, even stating directly that (usually) if he does not invite the controversy that surrounds him, he creates it. I don't know wikipedia well enough to know if the project can be sued, as Supreme_Cmdr mentioned, for introducing Bill Huffman's site. However it is conceivable that in the face of verification that there is online controversy about him, mentioning that there have been sites built about this controversy (without mentioning what they are exactly) seems to be be a safe thing to do both for legality and for encyclopedic integrity. It has been said in Supreme_Cmdr's statements in the request for arbitration that no one cares if Derek Smart pets cats or kicks dogs, etc. I would refute such a statement by saying that if you have to spend enough time petting cats, if you kick enough dogs, you can become a notable cat-rubber or dog-kicker. In fact, ignoring Derek Smart's games which are already covered in other articles, his controversy seems to me to be the most notable and verifiable facet of the man. I'm not sure we should let a public figure who has earned a negative reputation outside of wiki get a free ticket out of that reputation here, simply because the verfiable articles that mention the controversy aren't entirely about the controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.109.99 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 January, 2007.

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)