http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed", "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one article?
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed", "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section, but this articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=prev&oldid=90393406wins if we judge based on tag density in the overall article.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=prev&oldid=90393406 I don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
-Chris Croy
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed", "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section, but this article< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
wins
if we judge based on tag density in the overall article.< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
I don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}? {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get into flamewars, do it on the talk page.
I came accross 7 actual citations in a 300 word paragraph today (text used under GFDL from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins) :
Overall, Johns Hopkins was an abolitionist [10]http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/aprjun95/may2295/22johns.html, who was a child participant when his parents emancipated the able-bodied slaves of the family in 1807 [11]http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/archives/jacob.html, who worked with other abolitionists such as Myrtilla Minerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtilla_Miner [12]http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/print?articleId=125877&fullArticle=true&tocId=9125877and Henry Ward Beecher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ward_Beecher [13]http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-9125877before the Civil War and who supported Abraham Lincolnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln [14]http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/AMALL:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28d1927200%29%29and the Union during the war. After the war, he was a Reconstruction actor who provided instructions in the above mentioned documents that his philanthropy should be used in ways that were often opposed to the racial practices that were beginning to emerge during the American Reconstructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionperiod [15]http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/chronology/index.cfm, and later even in the posthumously constructed and founded institutions that would carry his name.[16]http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/chronology/index.cfm
A vandal buster had reverted it as vandalism. The poor guy who had sourced it was livid.
Mike
On 28/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
I came accross 7 actual citations in a 300 word paragraph today (text used under GFDL from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins) :
Overall, Johns Hopkins was an abolitionist [10]http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/aprjun95/may2295/22johns.html, who was a child participant when his parents emancipated the able-bodied slaves of the family in 1807 [11]< http://www.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/archives/jacob.htm...
,
who worked with other abolitionists such as Myrtilla Minerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtilla_Miner [12]< http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/print?articleId=125877&fullArticl...
and
Henry Ward Beecher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ward_Beecher [13]http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-9125877before the Civil War and who supported Abraham Lincolnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln [14]< http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/AMALL:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28d192...
and
the Union during the war. After the war, he was a Reconstruction actor who provided instructions in the above mentioned documents that his philanthropy should be used in ways that were often opposed to the racial practices that were beginning to emerge during the American Reconstructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionperiod [15]< http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/chrono...
,
and later even in the posthumously constructed and founded institutions that would carry his name.[16]< http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/chrono...
A vandal buster had reverted it as vandalism. The poor guy who had sourced it was livid.
Mike _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
was it from an ip address? i've noticed RC patrollers have a tendency to be over-zealous on 'anonymous' edits.
On 28/06/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
I came accross 7 actual citations in a 300 word paragraph today (text
used
under GFDL from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins) :
Mike _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
was it from an ip address? i've noticed RC patrollers have a tendency to be over-zealous on 'anonymous' edits. _______________________________________________ Nope RC patroller was just reverting eyes shut, I think. The poor guy (not an IP)has got a vandalism tag against him that is going to show on every bot now when he does large edits. I went through all over his contrib log and he is a star at sourcing (John Hopkin college was his alma mata) - just feel very guilty that he got caught in a very vain attempt at boosting count. the vandal guy even mentions his low count and "rough start" in wikipedia it all seems a little crass when genuine editors who can be bothered spend time checking if something is POV or vandalism have to pick up the damage and find out why it was done.
mike
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed", "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section, but this article< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
wins
if we judge based on tag density in the overall article.< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
I don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}? {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get into flamewars, do it on the talk page.
Tags also warn readers--and, frankly, I'm not editing articles owned by people and getting into flamewars, but I will alert readers that the article is a piece of crap, and hopefully someone else will come along and edit the article.
KP
I personally would only ever tag something that was actually questionable. CItes aren't a guarantee of good data, or even that the cite agrees with the passage.
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed", "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section, but this article<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
wins
if we judge based on tag density in the overall article.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
I don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}? {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get into flamewars, do it on the talk page. _______________________________________________
Another example I encountered today. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Stravinsky&curid=38172&am...
Was this overtagging? I think so, the article has plenty of sources, just not everything is cited. Plus the information tagged with {{fact}} does not seem controversial or possibly false.
Garion96
On 6/30/07, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy cjcroy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed", "neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section, but this article<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
wins
if we judge based on tag density in the overall article.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=pr...
I don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}? {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get into flamewars, do it on the talk page. _______________________________________________
Another example I encountered today. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Stravinsky&curid=38172&am...
Was this overtagging? I think so, the article has plenty of sources, just not everything is cited. Plus the information tagged with {{fact}} does not seem controversial or possibly false.
Garion96
Not controversial? Anything that discusses a person's intentions with their artistic work must come directly from source--this is one of the most common errors from sourced materials I see on Wikipedia, an editor concluding what a person intended with their actions by descriptions merely of the events. People's intentions are very difficult to know without biographical material or meticulously gathered evidence.
"Unfathomable" is not controversial? Again, did these many orchestras declare the works unfathomable? I would not let that slide without a fact tag, it should, imo, be removed from the article rather than fact requested--this a fact request that belongs on the talk page before the information is placed in the article.
The ballets on rolls is very specific information--this was obtained from somewhere, not remembered in someone's head, and it should have come with its source when inserted in the article.
I'd say this article is undersourced and under-referenced for the specificity of information it contains.
Encyclopedias report opinions in addition to facts, but the former have to be handled differently from the latter--these opinions about the reception of Stravinsky's music can and should be directly supported with facts, to show that that is what is being reported: other critical opinions of the composer's reception in the music world, not the opinion of the Wikipedia editor.
KP
K P wrote:
On 6/30/07, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Another example I encountered today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Stravinsky&curid=38172&am...
Was this overtagging? I think so, the article has plenty of sources, just not everything is cited. Plus the information tagged with {{fact}} does not seem controversial or possibly false.
Garion96
Not controversial? Anything that discusses a person's intentions with their artistic work must come directly from source--this is one of the most common errors from sourced materials I see on Wikipedia, an editor concluding what a person intended with their actions by descriptions merely of the events. People's intentions are very difficult to know without biographical material or meticulously gathered evidence.
There were nine such notices in one paragraph. Clearly over the top for things that may very well be found in standard biographies listed in the references.. How did any of these differ from what was in those biographies, or at least from the one that you must have consulted to keep your comments from being anything but pointless not-picking.
"Unfathomable" is not controversial? Again, did these many orchestras declare the works unfathomable? I would not let that slide without a fact tag, it should, imo, be removed from the article rather than fact requested--this a fact request that belongs on the talk page before the information is placed in the article.
I presume you are speaking from your own musical experience with modern orchestras who may have since mastered the techniques necessary for representing Stravinsky's works. For contemporary comments, to what extent do the standard biographies.
The ballets on rolls is very specific information--this was obtained from somewhere, not remembered in someone's head, and it should have come with its source when inserted in the article.
I'd say this article is undersourced and under-referenced for the specificity of information it contains.
The article has 14 references, 8 items for further reading and 6 external links. Are you saying that none of these support the comments which you dispute? Does at least one even dispute the comments? How is this undersourced?
Encyclopedias report opinions in addition to facts, but the former have to be handled differently from the latter--these opinions about the reception of Stravinsky's music can and should be directly supported with facts, to show that that is what is being reported: other critical opinions of the composer's reception in the music world, not the opinion of the Wikipedia editor.
How many other encyclopedias have 28 references for Stravinsky? Our level of documentation in many such articles is already well beyond what is found in other encyclopedias or other works for general readership. Adding a "citation needed" tag carries with it a strong connotation of "I don't believe this." Simply adding it to every statement that does not meet your personal criteria is excessive, and probably leads readers to doubt beyond their own capacities. We want people to question more than most do, but this must also be balanced with the readability of articles and an appreciation for the fact that there are levels of questioning which support mental paralysis. What does the average reader of the Stravinsky article want out of his experience? A serious scholar of the subject will probably already be reading far more than what we report.
I perfectly understand your need for more detailed documentation in botanical and other science related articles, but Stravinsky ain't botany. It doesn't help anybody to have our pool of knowledge overgrown by duckweed.
Ec