Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 8 February 2008 (→Prem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #256

The "perfect" Misplaced Pages article is built on solid research (remember to cite your sources). Contrary to popular belief, not all information is available for free on the Internet. Some research is only published in scientific journals and books (ask your library for remote lending services); some material is available only in commercial, password-protected electronic databases. If you have access to useful research material, please add the relevant information to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange, a central portal to find Wikipedians with access to such resources. Remember we can only use facts from sources such as these, not a particular copyrighted expression thereof.

If you are a qualified user you can request access to the databases of paywalled resources proctored by The Misplaced Pages Library. Qualification usually involves having 500–1000 main namespace edits and 6–12 months tenure editing on Misplaced Pages.

Comment on article

I was recently mentioned in an on-line article off-wiki.

This is my response

You may also want to read the request for advice I placed at the Village Pump a few weeks ago here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 5#Request for support and advice you ask for advice. My advice is to stop editing any article or policy that is problematic for Misplaced Pages's reputation or yours. People have already told you which pages those are. Trust their judgement over yours on the issue. The entire point of COI is that the person who has one doesn't see it and therefore needs to avoid editing certain things because they are dead sure they are being neutral when in fact they are not. Don't edit subjects close to you. You thought you were immune from being human? Nope, just like the rest of us, when you open your eyes you see the world from your point of view. You also asked for support. Well, know that I'm glad when I see you involved on a page because I find your contributions to usually be accurate, helpful, balanced, and fair. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I haven't tried to figure out what this latest episode is about. But you have my support and appreciation for the hard and earnest work you've been doing on Misplaced Pages. If only there was more attention to NPA out there.... Be well and of good cheer. Feel free to contact me by Talk or email. Take care of yourself, as you have by asking for support, b'hatzlakhah, HG | Talk 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Cla68 has a conflict of interest here, as he has been in contact with Metz before, but chose to add Metz's allegations to the "criticism of Misplaced Pages" article; I do not think that any criticism should be added unless it has been identified as a notable criticism by sources independent of the originating publication. But then, Cla68 did not see a conflict in promoting the linking of an interview with him to that article, accusing those who pointed out factual errors in the interview of having a conflict in not wanting it there, so perhaps he's the one whose understanding of COI is off-base. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, it is clear that Jossi has a COI regarding some things. Whether Cla68 has a COI regarding a certain newspaper or one of its reporters is another matter. And with regard to a COI on the "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" article; we ALL have a COI there! WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So is my argeement that there is a COI off-base? I think not. Stop trying to find excuses, folks: If Jossi were KDBuffalo, we'd all be at his throat.

Anyway, if you'll notice, I don't edit the IRS article because in COI cases, perception is 9 points of the "law". •Jim62sch• 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Register article tries to read into a few facts a whole series of unverified conclusions. I have had a number of occasions to observe Jossi's work as an editor and admin over the last 16 months that I have been editing on Misplaced Pages. In all honesty, I have always admired his contributions, and his willingness to go the "extra mile" in helping out people who needed technical advice or assistance in dispute resolutions. Hang in there Jossi, you have many who support you! Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Me das lastima ver lo que le esta pasando con Maharaji. Si le puedo ayudar, solo decirmelo. Pues Maharaji no es uno de los malos y las cosas que sele acusan tampoco son buenas. Vaya pues, SqueakBox 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

This too shall pass. Hang in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about The Register.

I think the article by The Register is largely my fault.

I don't know anything about you or Prem Rawat, and told Cade nothing about that.

However, this all seems to have begun because I e-mailed The Register about the hoax, Brahmanical See, which asserted that Hinduism is organized like Catholicism (basically comparing the Maharaj to the Pope). I thought it would be good for such criticism of Misplaced Pages to be published because it seems to encourage Misplaced Pages to improve.

I spoke with Cade over the phone for a while about it. Today, he sent me a link to the article in question via e-mail and I was surprised to see that it had nothing to do with Brahmanical See, but appeared to just be conspiracy theorism about you.

Now, even though my contact with Mr. Metz had nothing to do with you, it seems true that he would've never been creating these conspiracy theories if I had never e-mailed him to begin with.

I hope nobody bothers you about this.

My suggestion: If you face a persistent amount of harassment, you may be able to seek a legal injunction against The Register or Mr. Metz for harassment, libel, or defamation of character.

For now, I'm somewhat paranoid because he has my real name and contact info. I'm not an admin, but since I'm supporting you here, god knows there's a good chance I will end up in one of his future conspiracy theories. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel the Register article is bad editorial, and shows a profound lack of knowledge in how Misplaced Pages actually works, so hopefully it won't be taken as reliable. I think what Zenwhat said above when he called it "conspiracy theorism" hits the nail on the head. --Nealparr 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I read the Register article carefully and I think it's well written. The major point it makes - that a few well placed Wikipedians wield inordinate influence - is indeed true. The issue is not if there is a "cult" article being whitewashed, rather it's about the fact that wiki leaders claim tthe wiki is egalitarian, but it's really not. The Reggister likes to tweak hypocrites and in the Wiki, they have found what they feel is a fair target. Wringly or rightly, the Reg is fixated on spotlighted wiki-misteps. We should take a step back and try to truly understand why they are this way. Their views about wiki are a mirror of the wiki. If we don;t like what we see, perhaps we should improve? 66.96.211.167 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly. This is because after a certain amount of time and a certain amount of edits, editors get reputations. When editors continually do good work, continually show good judgment, continually show dedication to the aims of this project, naturally their word means more to those who know that person than for some random person who comes along. Misplaced Pages is egalitarian in that anyone can contribute and has the right to build a reputation that makes their words listened to. The idea of Misplaced Pages is not that everyone who contributes is equal and anyone who comes along is immediately welcomed with open arms if they engage in behavior that is questionable. That's not "news" to anyone except those who thought that erroneously to begin with. --David Shankbone 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user, you're right. That is true. However, based on Jossi's response, I think it's reasonable.

Also, it turns out my apology is totally unnecessary. I e-mailed Metz and he said he's been working on this story for 2 months. Wow. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And he got paid for writing it (presumably). Double wow. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to community feedback, and thank you all for your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=189994816 --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic, and see no reason to destroy the hard work of many editors over a period of more than a year. You are most welcome to come and improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "You deleted sources, hundreds of copyedits, new material, and the hard work of many editors, including non-involved editors." - The article is better sourced, better NPOV, and restores quite some "destroyed" edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)