I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone; he is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his artistic life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking note.
I have sent other messages that have not appeared so I will just say again, that tone of editors needs to be more self-aware. BTW, the "Roth vs. Wikipedia " issue is being discussed on many many lists by librarians, literary scholars, and students. It is important. It is a time to learn.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
This is the comment I made to The New Yorker article:
If you, or anyone else, has a similar problem please contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Directions are on that page in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team We are sorry this matter was not handled better.
Read more
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipe...
Now, a factual inquiry, if he had done that would this problem have been solved? Or would he still ended up trying to bully us?
Fred
It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they are the authority on their own opinions.
We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work. Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze over the most important bit.
I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS there is sure to be at least one.
I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources. So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the source, or another source appearing to rebut it.
This is much more palatable than "your word isn't a reliable source".
If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning the reliability of him/her as a person.
Tom Morton
On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
No it doesn't.
I'll give you good odds on me being right.
Because I see the same thing week after week.
You mean leading author almost synonymous with "rare interview" assumes his word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has a percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. Really, nothing on the record?
(I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of situation do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, even if dealing with someone famous.)
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone; he is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his artistic life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking note.
I have sent other messages that have not appeared so I will just say again, that tone of editors needs to be more self-aware. BTW, the "Roth vs. Wikipedia " issue is being discussed on many many lists by librarians, literary scholars, and students. It is important. It is a time to learn.
It time for everyone to learn. I live in a resort area and have met celebrities; most are courteous and reasonable people; a few are not.
They demand, and if their demands are not met, they bully. They don't discuss; they don't negotiate. They use their ready access to the media as one club and their fan base as another.
How is he fighting for his life? If he gave a few interviews this stuff would not be any big mystery. Rather reminds me of the author of The Catcher in the Rye, J. D. Salinger. Wouldn't interact with anyone and always complaining that no one else was any good.
Fred
Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia content, and is throwing his weight around?
If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror Wikipedia editors.
KTC
Yes.
2012/9/8 Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info
Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia content, and is throwing his weight around?
If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror Wikipedia editors.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
______________________________**_________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary source and verifiability standards confusion.
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Luca Motoc motoc.luca@gmail.com wrote:
Yes.
2012/9/8 Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info
Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia content, and is throwing his weight around?
If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror Wikipedia editors.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
______________________________**_________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Luca Motoc site:http://sites.google.com/site/lucamotoc/ Europeana bruxelles (EEB4) 4 EEB4 WEB. http://www.eeb4.eu/ SOMERFESTO 23/06/2012 SOMERFESTO WEBSITE http://www.somerfesto.eu P4ENa Tom Wadsworth P4RO .Vlaicu Adriana CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: This communication and any attachment to this communication is confidential, is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which this communication is addressed and is privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from all dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this communication or such attachment. If you have received this communication or any attachment to this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete and destroy the communication or attachment you have received and all copies thereof. Receipt by an individual or entity, through misdirection, error or mistake, or by wrongful dissemination, work product or other legal or private privilege, and does not invalidate the sender’s requirement and expectation of confidentiality and privacy. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9 September 2012 11:02, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary source and verifiability standards confusion.
Good point. Saying "secondary sources" like a mantra seems to have failed
us here (and is the one point of failure I can identify in the whole business).
The way the article was left by 20 August seems to have been exemplary given the sources then available. If academia is interested in WP's role in this, it should note that a misconception about a major work has been dispelled by WP's pickiness. For academics "personal communication" is indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all round.
Charles
For academics "personal communication" is indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all round.
Charles
Really, I don't know why a personal communication would not be sufficient for us, provided we know we are actually talking to the person. I suppose some "personal communications" would be troublesome. I can imagine someone lying or giving us false information. Saying editorial discretion would not solve the problem of editors not being able to deal appropriately with such communications. Academics are somewhat more able.
Fred