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.
*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.
*>>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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
*[>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.
*>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.
*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.
*>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.
*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.
*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.
- 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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
Ray