The major issue with WP:OFFICE as I see it is an admin/non-admin problem.
When [[Paul Barresi]] was stubbed per WP:OFFICE in April, the article was
still editable, so an interested editor simply had to adopt the article and
add carefully sourced statements one by one. No problemo.
In the case of [[Pacific Western University]], the article is only editable
by admins. Several good non-admin editors have developed serviceable scratch
articles in the last four months. I suppose there's a question whether these
scratch articles should even be on Wikipedia if the actual article is in
lockdown.
There's really no clear system to discuss those proposed versions, come to a
consensus, and incorporate those changes. What we end up with is multiple
people saying on the article's talk page, "Hey, check out this version I
wrote," or "Let's add this well-sourced statement," but then there's no one
coordinating or incorporating the consensus-based additions.
Instead, and I have found this extremely frustrating in the case of the PWU
article, we get unilateral decisions made by admins regarding changes. For
instance, an editor who created a well-sourced scratch article also created
a [[List of Pacific Western University people]] containing a rather crufty
but well-sourced list of people claiming degrees from PWU, some of whom are
notable. The article was put up for AfD, but was instead quickly deleted in
its entirety, edit history and all, with the sourced statements about
notable alumni removed as well. I understand the need for caution, but this
kind of unilateral decision to completely delete articles containing useful
material that could be merged into other articles is what drives good people
from the project. The information can't even be retrieved by non-admins and
adds to the growing sense that non-admins are less important/less valued
contributors. Because they were redlinked in the PWU scratch article, I
gathered a lot of information and started articles on three officers of PWU,
including the founder, president, and owner, all of which were similarly
deleted on sight by JzG. The simultaneous lack of process with WP:OFFICE and
the unilateral deletion of all ancillary PWU articles made today my least
favorite Wikipedia user experience to date.
My from-the-trenches suggestions:
- Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the moment it is
protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to
WP:OFFICE). Perhaps randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers and
an a WP:COI clearance for the article in question. That person would be
listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day
and respond to proposed changes.
- A registration system for articles locked down by WP:OFFICE for impartial
non-admins to make edits, perhaps with a high threshold (edit number, WP:COI
clearance, etc.).
- Barring that, a centralized location where a scratch article can be
prepared and discussed by admins and non-admins alike, possibly
registration-only or off-site.
I recommend adopting the first suggestion immediately, and then discussing
the other options somewhere before implementing them. All the Office has to
do is lock and stub the disputed article, then the WP:OFFICE admin pool
would take it from there. I believe articles would slowly but surely move
toward unprotection from there, rather than languishing for many months
under the current system.
Jokestress
Let me just start by saying that I am completely in favour of
[[WP:OFFICE]] (I for one have no intention of paying the legal bills
we would undoubtedly incur if we had no such system in place).
But...
Take for example Pacific Western University. This is a verifiably
unaccredited school, there are numerous credible reports in the press
about people being disciplined after claiming its degrees, it is not
in the accreditation database, it is listed in several sources as a
diploma mill. A university it ain't.
Here's a typical example of external coverage:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81E30F937A15754C0A961…
Look up the "unaccredited correspondence school" in the press report
and you get an article on what appears to be a legitimate school
offering various degree programmes. No mention of accreditation.
The article was stubbed and OFFICEd, no doubt in response to
complaints from the school or its alumni. No problem with that, the
history sows some, ahem, problematic content. But well over a month
ago I asked Danny if we could at least add {{unaccredited}}. No
response.
Where is the mechanism for review and feedback in respect of OFFICEd
pages? I can't find any. Should I be bold, ignore all rules and add
{{subst:unaccredited}} in the lead, as I have done for every other
unaccredited school article I've found being whitewashed by its
students? Right now we provide a directory entry for an institution
multiply identified as a diploma mill, which makes no mention
whatsoever even of the trivially verifiable fact of its being
unaccredited. Doesn't look good, does it?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> From: jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
>
> On 12/21/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
> > >
> > > On 12/21/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> A while back I wrote about a self-publicising vanity author.
> One of
> > >>> the details I'd liked to have note was the complete (or near-
> > >>> complete)
> > >>> absence of his books in public library catalogues, but it's
> almost
> > >>> impossible to actually find a way to cite a "negative search"
> much
> > >>> less a positive result...
> > >>
> > >> Indeed, that would end up being OR - quite simple OR, but OR all
> the
> > >> same. It's annoying when you know something that apparently
> no-one
> > >> has
> > >> published, but there isn't much we can do about it. (Unless you
> > >> happen
> > >> to be an expert on the subject and can publish it yourself)
> > >
> > > If that is OR then WP:NOR is a broken rule.
> >
> > A citation is essentially a very simple piece of research that can
> > easily be reproduced by anyone without specialist knowledge.
> >
> > I don't see what that can't be broadened just a bit. For example,
> > let's suppose a library has an online catalog... let's say an
> online
> > catalog that's accessible to anyone. (Two that come to mind are the
> > Cornell University Library, and the 16,000-volume public library of
> > Bergen-op-Zoom in the Netherlands... well actually it seems to be
> > offline but it was available a few years ago).
> >
> > You can't prove a negative, but you can certainly say "his book is
> > not in the Cornell University Library" or whatever, and cite a link
> > to the search or a description of how to do the search. This
> doesn't
> > seem very different to me from a citation.
>
> No, you absolutely cannot do that, for reasons eloquently stated
> elsewhere. The claim that it is not in the Cornell University Library
> is a novel conclusion based on your own original research; this seems
> so trivially obvious to me that it astonishes me that others would
> claim otherwise. You might as well promote a novel claim in physics,
> and point people to the calculations you have made to prove your
> theory. If a reliable source says "the book is not found in the
> Cornell University Library", then quote them. Otherwise, move on.
>
> Jay.
Jay, I don't agree with everything Daniel and Steve have written
about this, but I also find your reply quite problematic. Surely
the library catalogue is the most reliable and verifiable source
for what is in the library.
Concerning negative information, consider "John Smith's latest
murder novel Killers of Wiki did not reveal the identity of the
murderer." Can't I cite the novel for that? Anyone can get
the book and verify the information, so it is reliable and
verifiable. I don't think it is necessary to wait until some
third party makes this observation about the book. (Obviously
it would be a different matter if the claim needed some actual
thinking or analysis beyond mere looking.) It seems to me that
citing a library catalogue as a source for saying that a book
is not there is fine. I can't think of why one would want to do
that in a Wikipedia article but I don't think it is illegal.
Zero.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
An administrator, CHAIRBOY, has accused me on User:XP of being some banned
user. I have no interest, having seen the prolonged wars that can develop
from these things, of participating further in Wikipedia. However, I choose
to exercise my right to vanish and specifically requested that my talk page
be blanked, protected, and hidden from non-admins. However, this
administrator has now twice reverted me on my own talk page, including with
use of the admin revert tool--which, as far as I know, is a violation.
Why am I not allowed to blank and vacate my own talk page, and have it
protected afterwards to keep troll comments off of it? This CHAIRBOY
individual has taken ownership of my talk page.
- XP
The stub-sorting project turned thousands of unusable entries in
[[Category:Stub]] into a usable breakdown of stubs by area.
Would a cite-sorting project for {{fact}} templates be feasible? That
way experts in a given subject area will easily be able to look up
facts needing a cite and possibly fill them in.
- d.
On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
Yes... and insufficient trimming too (very annoying for digest
readers). These are among a number of e-mail formatting problems
that are widespread.
I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common
problems and issues:
http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Sarah wrote
> Any public library can order material that's in a regular academic
> library.
Sorry - any public library in Kerala, Kampala or even Lima can order up anything from any academic library? Do remember that this is a global project. The 'populist' idea that anybody should be able to fact-check anything rather founders on the reality that it at most refers to about 5% of the world population, selected just about entirely on wealth.
We are really doing the opposite: making the cream of reliable-source material actually globally available whereever there is a decent internet connection.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
