This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 11 October 2011 (→META). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:01, 11 October 2011 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→META)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
| There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on commons and meta. Please choose the most relevant. |
| (Manual archive list) |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A question about truth
Is this quote which was attributed to you correctly attributed?: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." if it is then how does that relate to your statement on my talkpage that "Truth is a huge concern, and the new version makes that clear".? To me this looks like a contradiction, although I guess it might be a matter of context. In any case the first quote is a very big part of what I find Misplaced Pages to be about - presenting different views weighted in accordance with their level of acceptance, not presenting truths. I think that the proposed policy change basically suggests that notions of objective truth or untruth trumps views to the contrary. Perhaps I am wrong again, but maybe you could explain to me why?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- One part to focus on is this: "What people believe is a matter of objective fact...". We are deeply concerned with truth. Another part to focus on is this: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe..." It is not the only way, just perhaps the easiest way.
- We want everything in Misplaced Pages to be verifiable. We also want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true. Because people may not always agree on what is true, we very often need to 'go meta' in various ways, one of which is to write about what people believe.
- Another way you might think about this: because we want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true, and because we write it using an open process of dialogue, a useful set of techniques for getting at the truth include depending on reliable sources (which are judged to be reliable because they say true things more often than unreliable sources), and going meta when beliefs about what is true differ significantly. Far from verifiability coming about because we don't care about the truth, verifiability is useful because we care so deeply about the truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. In my world there is no "truth" only well supported claims and hypotheses. I consider truth to be for religious people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is what you say true?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is my point of view, you need give it no more than its due weight.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is what you say true?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. In my world there is no "truth" only well supported claims and hypotheses. I consider truth to be for religious people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, a number of people insist on retaining the "verifiability, not truth" formulation in the first sentence of WP:V, which causes a great deal of confusion on this subject. Hopefully, the current RfC will produce a consensus on a compromise that at least moves these words out of the lede. Neutron (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm allowed to comment here, the "go meta" approach that Jimbo speaks of can be summarized as: truth is approximated in Misplaced Pages by following the neutral point of view, with all its ancillaries, starting with basic verifiability of statements, but paying attention to the reliability of sources, and avoiding the synthesis of conclusions not supported by sources. Alas, some see a conflict between NPOV and NOR. E.g. when a source says "the earliest use of word X is 1909", but when a Misplaced Pages editors finds on a Google Books search a source from 1901 using it, then it has been argued that NOR—and more specifically SYNT—prohibits mentioning the 1901 occurrence in Misplaced Pages because it obviously contradicts the secondary source, even though the NOR policy gives considerable leeway for choosing sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Interesting enough, at least some of those wanting to keep "verifiablity, not truth" in WP:V argue that secondary sources should always trump primary sources, even though that's not what the NOR policy says. I suspect it's the desire to have a simple rule that drives them to embrace such a position. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- An interesting if WP:TLDR dispute can be found in the RS/N archives . Basically the abstract of a paper had contracted "GDP per capita" to GDP, and there was an extremely long discussion mostly among editors who did not have access to the full paper whether WP:V and WP:NOR should trump common sense. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Truth panel
Your comment that we often need to 'go meta' reminded me of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and its usage panel, providing information about usage for selected words. For example, see the usage note at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/can. Perhaps, Misplaced Pages can have a truth panel for reporting percentages of the truth panel supporting each of the main viewpoints in an article where editors disagree on what is true. In many cases, the differences in viewpoint show no sign of disappearing. When Misplaced Pages has a neutral presentation of views, then its readers can make informed decisions about what to believe. (See also Teach the Controversy.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am leaving space for Jimbo to answer above, but I think you have raised a complex collection of issues. WP allows multiple articles to reflect opposing, or various, alternative viewpoints. However, to reduce "text-spamming" or flooding main articles with fringe theories, the tactic has been to lump fringe theories into an "umbrella article" such as "Titanic alternative theories" about the sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic in 1912. Using that umbrella article, then the curse-of-the-mummy theory is not mentioned in every major article related to Titanic nor in all of the ship's crewmember articles. However, just because a theory is rare, and kept from flooding other articles, does not mean that it is "less true" but rather only that the theory is "less publicized" which is a major effect of judging notability by the number and prestige of reliable sources which mention a topic. For example, during the sinking of Titanic in April 1912, some crewmen reported that water was seeping under the bulkhead walls, rather than over the top, even though Titanic had a double bottom to the hull (not double-hull walls as added to sister ship R.M.S. Olympic afterward). Eventually, a new theory arose that the rivets, which held the hull plates together, were made with weaker metal which became very brittle in icy water, and so accordingly, the cold rivets snapped as more water entered, and made the outside damage to the hull worse than the original impact with the iceberg and ice field. Logically, that theory seems plausible, but it should not instantly replace the original idea that the iceberg made a very-long gash in the hull which allowed huge amounts of water to enter. Eventually, a new theory can become the mainstream view. A broader theory changed in viewpoints about dinosaurs, where during the 1960s, many people were taught that dinosaurs were "reptiles" and the animal group which never "ruled the world" were birds (and then, Hitchcock's film The Birds). Nowadays, the prevailing view is that most dinosaurs were, instead, birds (not reptiles), and the dinosaurs-as-reptiles viewpoint could be considered a fringe theory currently. That is why it is good to have multiple articles about such theories. As for a "Truth panel", there could be multiple WP:WikiProjects (along with the 2,000 WikiProjects already formed) which ensure that all published theories, for their subject area, are mentioned, in proportion to the reliable sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- These WikiProjects seem to be relevant here.
- (The article "Dinosaurs" classifies dinosaurs in the class Reptilia, but, if you have evidence that they should be classified as birds, then you might wish to convey that information to the members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs.)
- —Wavelength (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- As the infobox in our dinosaur article shows, it is true, according to the modern classification, that all birds are dinosaurs (Aves is a subset of Dinosauria), but it is not true that all, or even most, dinosaurs were birds (Dinosauria is not a subset of Aves). In the modern classification, birds are considered reptiles. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there might be an incentive for POV pushers to "push" the "truth percentages" in their own direction. I suggested several possibilities in an essay WP:Advocacy articles including the simplest one of all -- allow an article to be as one-sided as editors wish, but to be so labelled, and to alow a countering advocacy article for the other POV. Collect (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Wiktionary - Misplaced Pages links
I am not sure if this was ever discussed, but I was thinking of how often a more direct link to Wiktionary would be extremely usefull. For instance, some words have wp articles with direct links to other language wikipedia´s found on the right column, but if you want to check the definition found on Wiktionary, you need to leave wp or open a new tab. We could have a Wiktionary link included in the same list, or perhaps some other way of having the direct link between the two projects. Huge number of en.wiki users are not native English speakers, and anyway, even for the ones that are, the definition found on Wiktionary can be usefull. Did anyone ever thought about this before? FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Wikimedia sister projects.
- —Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- We can manually add links to Wiktionary where appropriate: ] --> wikt:example, {{wiktionary|example}} -->
Look up example in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
{{wiktionary-inline|example}} --> The dictionary definition of example at Wiktionary.
- There is also wikinews:WN:WiktLookup, which can be activated on Misplaced Pages by following the instructions on that page. Fences&Windows 00:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Touré
Hello, Jimmy. The subject of the Touré article, whom I've met and photographed twice in person, requested that his surname not be used in his article. As it is the practice to comply with such requests for reasons like privacy, I have taken care to keep it out of the article. Another editor asked about this on the article's talk page and now Touré has asked me to remove mention of it from that talk page, which I have. Can the edit that first introduced it be removed from the talk page's edit history? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- We nevertheless ought to strike a balance between a desire for privacy or secrecy and the inherent value of producing a complete reference work. This individual makes regular media appearances and hosts at least two television programs. This is someone who is a celebrity; someone who is famous, not infamous. We aren't sheltering the victim of a viral video meme; Touré has diligently sought to build his name and reputation as an essayist, critic, and television personality through more than a decade of publishing and television appearances. To be clear, we're not protecting the identity of Star Wars Kid (about whom I still question the merit of having any article, whether he is named or not). At first blush, insisting that we conceal the last name of Touré seems to make no more sense than deleting the last name of Prince (musician). Absent a clear issue related to personal safety or his family's privacy (one which goes above and beyond the considerations which might apply to any celebrity) we're only left with a question of the degree to which our encyclopedia should conform to a celebrity's preferred personal branding. While I can appreciate that any biography's subject will be sensitive to its contents (and I believe we as a project ought to be sensitive to a subject's concerns), I can't help but find his claims that the inclusion of his surname is 'vandalism' to be somewhat overwrought.
- The original (and only) BLP noticeboard discussion took place in 2006, shortly after the BLP policy came into effect, and while the community was still sorting out what it all meant to the project. (Indeed, the discussion is on the very first page of the BLP noticeboard archives.) I would hesitate to rely on that discussion's conclusion to guide us forevermore, for two reasons above and beyond our usual awareness that consensus can change. First, the discussion was in the early days of WP:BLP, and we lacked the body of experience with BLP that we have now.
- Second, a major point raised in the original discussion was that issue shouldn't be decided by BLP concerns, but rather was a question about verifiability and the existence of reliable sources. At the time, no reliable sources were offered to support the use of the subject's purported surname. Glancing briefly through the recent history of the article, it certainly appears that this concern remains valid today. Before we even think of pulling the BLP trigger, we need to make sure that article content clears the basic five-pillar requirement of verifiable, reliable sourcing. It is there that the question of including the subject's surname falls down. It should go without saying that the existence of a widely-available, reliable secondary source would also obviate much of the concern regarding a real or hypothetical invasion of privacy on Misplaced Pages's part—the cat, as they say, would already be out of the bag. Absent such reliable secondary sources, the name shouldn't be included purely on the basis of non-verifiability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. Someone who is purposefully famous for their work and seeks to remain as such isn't a private individual. Thus, to maintain our neutrality and our breadth of coverage, we should include his full name, regardless of his wishes. So, unless sources only refer to him with half his name all the time without mentioning his full name, we should include it all. If they do only mention half...well, that's a different scenario that needs to be discussed, but I find it unlikely. Silverseren 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a reliable source for his full name? It does link the name to a profession on BET. Bielle (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think you actually have to use a reference for his name in the article, that would be a bit overkill, I think. It just needs to be shown to us editors, not the readers, that RS's use his full name. So, that's one example there, yes. Silverseren 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would be reluctant to rely on a primary source document relating to an individual's tax filings; it takes us to the edge of the realm of encyclopedia-writing and brushes up against investigative journalism. As a gut-instinct matter, it feels more like a 'gotcha' or 'outing'. Ideally, I'd like to see an article about Touré (preferably in the entertainment press or some other relevant venue) which includes his surname. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the first secondary or tertiary source to include any particular bit of biographical information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think TenOfAllTrades has produced a classic, thoughtful, and elegant discussion of the issue. The rule can't be "Don't include a surname unless it is ok with the BLP subject" nor can the rule be "Always include a surname, BLP subject wishes and human dignity be damned". Thoughtful editorial judgment to balance valid competing concerns is, as almost always, the right way forward.
- I don't know much about this particular example. I could be swayed towards omission if: there is a physical danger to family members, there is doubt about the sourcing, there is a sense that notability happened to the person rather than being sought, etc. I could be swayed towards inclusion if: there are plenty of reliable sources, there is no obvious safety or privacy issue, the person has deliberately sought fame. It's always a lovely thing when there is a simple and easy formulaic answer, but reality is complex so there often isn't one. Thoughtful discussion can be productive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a reliable source for his full name? It does link the name to a profession on BET. Bielle (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does Miles Marshall Lewis writing in the Huffington Post count? Bielle (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Following up on my previous remarks, I note that Target Entertainment Group (which distributes Touré's television interview program On The Record) refers to Touré by his full name – Touré Neblett – in their press releases and on their web site: (Rights...Catalog...Entertainment...On The Record). The phrase "renowned music journalist Touré Neblett" seems to come from that press release, and was repeated verbatim by a handful of outlets. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, we deal with similar issues at WP:BLP/N on occasion, usually revolving around (alleged) real or birth names of people known by stage names (particularly pornographic actor/ess), although sometimes middle names or similar. I don't recall any other case involving a surname but I don't see any reason to treat this differently. We or at least I usually prefer to deal with it in a way similar to that suggested here. We definitely don't publish the info based on searches in primary sources like trademark documents, ancestery searches, tax filings, legal cases, etc. Instead we look for reliable secondary sources. One difference I perhaps have with the above, if the person is covered in more generalised sources I would prefer to find at least one instance of the usage there rather then solely going by specialised sources. (This somewhat reflects my experience, sometimes it may be the real name of porngraphic actor/ess was covered in reliable sources that cover the industry but I don't see the need spread the name when other more generalised sources have not.) However I can see this would go both ways, it may be generalised sources are not aware of the subject's preference in a case like this. We do of course get more complicated cases in BLP/N where the subject is no longer involved in whatever it was they were doing before, and potentially no longer really seeking publicity and all the sources are fairly old. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Interface change
I think you should change the interface of Misplaced Pages (and your other Wiki sites) to allow non-admin users to delete their user, user talk and subpages. Spidey665 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- After thoroughly and thoughtfully considering the implications of this proposal, I have come to the conclusion that this would run the risk of allowing anyone to move an article they don't like to their to their own userspace and then delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.216 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- User above is correct. Tofutwitch11 19:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia for kids?
Is there such thing?Gregory Heffley (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- See these websites.
- —Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- All plastered with promotion. →Στc. 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- 2008/9 Misplaced Pages Selection for schools is the best I have seen out there. NW (Talk) 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The original question is ambiguous. Are you asking about a wiki that children can edit, or about an encyclopedia that they can consult?
- —Wavelength (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
META
I think you might like to note how a META sysop can keep an essay in his own preferred status . Cheers -- I feel like I am swimming up the Thames. Collect (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't we played this game already? Deal with it on META, not here...Get over it Tofutwitch11 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- At such time as Jimbo says that he is reading his meta user page again, that might make sense. As for "getting over it" right now there is a legitimate issue about an admin/editor wearing two hats at once. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't something you should come crying to Jimbo for. This is something you should bring to the administration of META (I'm not sure how Meta works, so I'm not sure who you'd go to). Looking at your whopping 93 edits shows that outside of worrying about that "Dick" ESSAY; you haven't been doing much else. Tofutwitch11 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you did not note Jimbo's opinions clearly stated about this "essay" and the nature of the edits which were stable. I would also suggest that my 20K edits across projects does not indicate any pre-occupation with any single essay. Cheers, now can you accept that Jimbo does not read his user talk page on Meta as a rule? Collect (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jimbo's not going to come in and save the day. I'm not going to further argue with you on the topic. Tofutwitch11 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Tofutwitch11, you're mistaken. I do care about bullying in any Wikimedia venue. Coming in and making wholesale changes after a long period of stability, and reverting people without discussion, is just never ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jimbo's not going to come in and save the day. I'm not going to further argue with you on the topic. Tofutwitch11 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you did not note Jimbo's opinions clearly stated about this "essay" and the nature of the edits which were stable. I would also suggest that my 20K edits across projects does not indicate any pre-occupation with any single essay. Cheers, now can you accept that Jimbo does not read his user talk page on Meta as a rule? Collect (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't something you should come crying to Jimbo for. This is something you should bring to the administration of META (I'm not sure how Meta works, so I'm not sure who you'd go to). Looking at your whopping 93 edits shows that outside of worrying about that "Dick" ESSAY; you haven't been doing much else. Tofutwitch11 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- At such time as Jimbo says that he is reading his meta user page again, that might make sense. As for "getting over it" right now there is a legitimate issue about an admin/editor wearing two hats at once. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)