Ray Saintonge wrote
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It's hard to know what brought on this personal attack. If there is anything "subtly misleading" in my posts let him present the facts that support that. Otherwise, I can only assume that Charles' statement was made out of the sheer pleasure of being argumentative.
Ray
Went through my Trash folder, results appended (my comments in [ ]).
Charles
Thank you; so now let's go through these one-by-one.
*We have no need to be strict about notability. [Oh really]
Notability is mostly subjective, and the occasional non-notable article will probably not be noticed because it is non-notable. Nothing misleading about that.
It is utterly misleading that WP does not need to be strict about notability. For example, we would be overwhelmed by CV type entries if we did not delete them. 'Occasional not notable article' hardly compares withe daily thousands posted and correctly deleted.
Are we on the same planet?
*Having "non-encyclopedic topics" (whatever that means) does not make us a worse encyclopaedia. [Not ?whatever that means?]
Ditto. Notable and encyclopedic are very similar concepts. Not misleading.
Well, this is chop-logic. "Non-encyclopedic topics" make an _encyclopedia_ worse.
*>>Scientific papers are secondary sources. The experimental or
observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
The data is usually published in the paper, so the paper is the primary source.
Another non-sequitur. [Silly quibble with Thomas Dalrton.]
No doubt that I have frequently disagreed with Tom. If A is the primary source, and B utilizes A that does not make B a primary source. There is nothing misleading about a logical analysis of the statements.
Well, it was a useless quibble. While a lab notebook is a 'primary' source, it is not a published source. From WP's point of view only published sources count, as we all know.
*Idolatry is not a valid basis for argument. [Personal attack on Steve Bennett or stevertigo, or someone]
The response was to stevertigo; Steve Bennett had mad an intermediate comment. The comment was in the nature of "If Jimbo says it it must be right". "Idolatry" is ad rem since it refers to the statement; "idolator" would have been ad hominem. The wording was perhaps a bit strong, but strong comments are anything but misleading.
Actually this is part of your continuing sly denigration of Jimbo, suggesting that those who support do not do so this side of claims of infallibility.
*I think your response is just another way of saying that you do not know. [Sort of personal attack or sniping at stevertigo]
I remember writing that, and it was perhaps a tad sarcastic, but since I forget what I was responding to, I will not comment at this point about whether it was misleading.
It was.
*Much of what is said to the media in a first instance (is) off the cuff and not necessarily supported by a broad consensus. [Well, an individual is being interviewed.]
The media look for sound-bytes, and when people are caught unawares it is very easy to say things that have not been thought through. The media hate dead air, and people often feel obliged to say something when things get too silent. Those who are media savvy will of course do better. Nothing misleading in that.
The whole point of interviewing technique is to get people into territory where they are spontaneous rather rehearsed. Misdirection. (I was interviewed at short notice by ABC, BTW.)
*Stonewalling is indeed an effective tactic. The only problem with it is that it pisses people off just as effectively. [Silence is golden, you know. Contradicts the ?off the cuff? comment, too.]
That was not necessarily in relation to the media. Government officials can be very adept at this when they don't want to admit anything. It's a part of being media savvy, and the media savvy do not get trapped into off-the-cuff remarks. Again, not misleading.
You want it both ways, really
*[>Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control
are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting the project than helping it.
That's like saying that democracy is too precious to be put under the control of the general population. [Oh really. Arguing with stevertigo again. Trolls really do go wild about constitutional definitions.]
If you say that was in response to stevevertigo I'll believe you; the banter does tend to go in series of comments. IIRC the argument had just been made in favour of limiting participation in governace discussions on the above basis. When you start limiting participation out of a prejudged fear that some participants might be trolls my comment is perfectly applicable. If there are trolls identify them and deal with them individually rather than acting out of fear that they might be there. Nothing misleading about that.
Evasive.
*>And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the
English Wikipedia at the moment.
Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy. [He wasn?t a constitutional monarch, as you know. Seems to be sniping at Jimbo now.]
There was an intervening comment that lacked the adjective "constitutional". Perhaps the allusion was a little sharp, but it was not misleading.
Oh, you weren't threatening Jimbo with beheading, then? Some of us might have been misled.
*When a process becomes backlogged it is evidently not scaling well. [No.]
Perhaps it might have been better if I had said "chronically backlogged" If the in-box keeps filling up faster than the outbos we need more effective processes. Not misleading.
No, backlogged processes on WP are to do with volunteer priorities. They more often indicate that the need is not clearly seen. People redeploy when persuaded the work matters. You are quite wrong about this.
*>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material
from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy".
Court judgements (and, for that matter, court filings by the disputants, and even trial transcripts) are a matter of public record. This is an important component to maintaining the transparency of the judicial system. Privacy should not be a factor with this kind of material. [Privacy is written into WP:BLP, so this is not the point at all.]
We evidently are using different interpretations of "privacy". As I see it information that is already available to the public is not private. You have chosen a different definition. Failure to agree to your definition does not make my comments misleading.
The 'living persons' policy is very clearly againt, for example, non-salient inclusions of minor legal involvements. This is what matters.
*Being "not supposed to do it" is not a strong enough excuse for not doing it. One shouldn't become doctrinnaire about sources when an article is just started; that only quashes the inspiration to do something. [Wrong. And somewhat wrong.]
All that says is that rules should be applied flexibly to suit the circumstances. Articles need time to grow, and immediately sourcing facts is more importasnt in some areas of knowledge than others. I've been consistent in my view so there is nothing misleading about it.
It is misleading to say one should not consider sources in starting an article: of course one should. Absent reliable sources, one shouldn't start the article. The sources don't need all to be in the first draft (we can agree that much).
*Fractal systems incorporate a lot of randomness. [Tosh. They may or may not.]
You can never be sure where new structures will develop. Not misleading.
No, you are just abusing the term 'fractal', which means something quite different.
- I do not believe that reliability should be or even can be one of our goals. [Really.]
Really! Although we should always be ttrying to improve the content, we also need to disavow people of reliability. That will encourage them to seek additional sources. Not misleading.
You argued a few days ago that schools articles would be useful to parents. Tell me, are parents looking for reliable information or some other kind? You want it both ways, once more. Reliability _is_ one of our goals, and a disclaimer about it doesn't change that. Misdirection.
*The queen retains her power by not exercisiing it. [Bad history ? 1973 general election.]
In which country? There was no UK general election that year. I tried to look it up to find out what you were talking about. Once in 55 years does not exactly make her a radical interventionist. Nevertheless, "using it sparingly" might have been more precise wording, but the general tone stands, and is not misleading.
Sorry, I meant 1974. She used precise constitutional powers, to keep Wilson out of 10 Downing Street, while Ted Heath tried to form a coalition. Misleading to say the powers are not used.
*A statistical mathematical model should be capable of marginalizing the effect that idiots have on the article. [Or not.]
Statistics allows for exceptions. When a single vote makes the difference between winning and losing the trolls can matter much more than if their votes are burid in a larger pattern of voting The idea might be radical but it's not misleading.
Statistical ideas are more likely to be gamed than just about any others. Quite misconceived.
*The alternative would be for the reporters to learn what putting Wikipedia in proper perspective means. They might even have to check their facts. That would not be the easy way out for them. [Implication that our coverage suffers from a lack of professionalism. Anyone believe this is helpful?]
Your implication is not mine. Reporters will be happy with Wikipedia as long as they can easily use the material in their work. They still need to check their facts. When they don't and the Wikipedia article that they use turns out to be one that has been subtly vandalized, they are more likely to blame Wikipedia than to take responsibility for their own action. This seems to be what happened with the publicity folders for Sioux Lookout. If anyone's professionalism is being criticized it's that of the reporters. Not at all misleading.
You switch cheerfully from 'putting WP into proper perspective' (reporting about WP) to reporters using WP as a source (something quite other) and then to 'Sioux Lookout', which was PR work not journalism, wasn't it? Quite an intellect mish-mash.
Well, I say it again, IMO you post industrial quantities of this kind of chop-logic and misdirecting stuff to this list.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam