Lower priority than defamation, to be sure. But I think this is a
large
and growing problem.
Here is a typical example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeli_Mateo
This is someone who *lost* on Philippine Idol, the Philippines
version
of "Pop Idol" or "American Idol". The entire bio has no references,
the
photo is almost certainly a copyvio (I would delete it now, but I
want
people to take a quick look at it first). "Greenarcher" claims to
have
created it, but unless he is the official photographer for the show, this seems quite unlikely.
As it stands, I don't think there is much that can be done about this article other than deletion.
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it? I mean, seriously. There's little I dislike more about the current Wikipedia line of thinking like this one, where we predict that an article can't possibly be expanded, and then decide to remove the article based on that. Never mind how well known the person is, forget that there's almost certainly local papers and sources that we may not be able to read right at the moment, but certainly have the information to flesh this out. No, we'll just dismiss it as "fancruft" (a word I never thought I'd hear you use) and go along on our merry way.
Yikes.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them. I see no reason to trust anything about the article at all.
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources. And any movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
--Jimbo
A couple of questions here, because they're issues that are important elsewhere in popular culture sourcing...
On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
1) Are third party sources required here? The classic definition of NOR said that primary sources could be used so long as they were not used for "novel" claims. Surely the basics of this article are thus verifiable via the primary source of the show: her status as a contestant, when she lost, and a good chunk of her bio were all no doubt covered.
2) Does this cause problems with systemic bias, whereby American, Canadian, and British popular culture will all be far easier to write about than other countries due to the prevalence of English-language fandoms that generate sources?
3) Is the problem with the article that it is a crappy article that is not worth developing from its current state, or that at present the topic cannot be written about? I can see the former, but I'm honestly skeptical about the latter. And in the case of the former, perhaps we need to start coming up with solutions other than deletion. Something like, perhaps, deletion and replacement with a template along the lines of "This topic may well be notable, but past efforts to write articles on it have failed to meet basic standards of quality. Please help Wikipedia by starting a well-sourced, NPOV article on this topic."
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources. And any movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
As one of the people cautious about this, I (unsurprisingly) object to that claim. I think most of our popular culture articles are complete crap, to be sure. Well over 50% require some version of the {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}} tag, there's insane resistance within a given subject to paring back fancruft, and a complete lack of understanding of the idea that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and that X, Y, and Z aspects of the article might be better suited to a fan encyclopedia. But the problems with these articles are too often attributed to the topics (non-notable, unverifiable, etc) instead of to the editors who fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the articles.
The question then becomes how we can help editors who want to write good articles on these topics (and there are many) without letting articles like this one run amok. The answer has, it seems to me, manifestly shown itself NOT to be draconian sourcing policy that defies the common sense of anyone familiar with the topic and aggressive deletion.
The important question, to my mind, is this: how can we give good editors the tools they need to write good popular culture articles while actively discouraging and reducing crap articles?
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
- Are third party sources required here? The classic definition of
NOR said that primary sources could be used so long as they were not used for "novel" claims. Surely the basics of this article are thus verifiable via the primary source of the show: her status as a contestant, when she lost, and a good chunk of her bio were all no doubt covered.
Perhaps, although caution is warranted here. The bios of people on such shows are PR puffery at its worst. Only the most basic facts can be considered true, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe is a good article about the phenomena with respect to wrestling, where the intermingling of reality and storyline is well known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_McGee is a friend of mine, and her story should set off alarm bells for anyone writing about "reality television". The mixing of fact and fiction is substantial in these shows, and generally speaking, the websites of such shows should be regarded in much the same way as websites of fictional shows. The people appearing on the shows are characters in a storyline.
- Does this cause problems with systemic bias, whereby American,
Canadian, and British popular culture will all be far easier to write about than other countries due to the prevalence of English-language fandoms that generate sources?
This is an interesting but separate question. Will a high quality encyclopedia always be biased towards things that have high quality sources? Yes, I hope so. :)
But, I think there is no reason to think that fandoms don't exist equally well in all cultures.
- Is the problem with the article that it is a crappy article that
is not worth developing from its current state, or that at present the topic cannot be written about? I can see the former, but I'm honestly skeptical about the latter. And in the case of the former, perhaps we need to start coming up with solutions other than deletion. Something like, perhaps, deletion and replacement with a template along the lines of "This topic may well be notable, but past efforts to write articles on it have failed to meet basic standards of quality. Please help Wikipedia by starting a well-sourced, NPOV article on this topic."
I think there are cases of both.... topics where *in theory* we could have a good article, but due to the limited number of quality wikipedians, and the incredible number of POV fancrufters who want to write hagiography, we as a practical matter can't... AND topcis where, even in theory, we can't write a good bio, because there is frankly not enough information of any kind which can be trusted.
This one probably falls just barely in the camp of "We could easily have a stub, but nothing more, because we only know about 3 facts about this person which can be verified. Her name. That she appeared on this show. That she did not win. Most of the rest of it is impossible to properly source.
As one of the people cautious about this, I (unsurprisingly) object to that claim. I think most of our popular culture articles are complete crap, to be sure. Well over 50% require some version of the {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}} tag, there's insane resistance within a given subject to paring back fancruft, and a complete lack of understanding of the idea that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and that X, Y, and Z aspects of the article might be better suited to a fan encyclopedia. But the problems with these articles are too often attributed to the topics (non-notable, unverifiable, etc) instead of to the editors who fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the articles.
I would tend to agree with this, and if I said anything which suggested differently, I take it back. :)
Non-notable is a value judgment which I find to be problematic in many ways, although with WP:BIO, I think it is increasingly useful as a way to keep people from writing really problematic articles. Non-verifiable generally can be relied upon to do the heavy lifting for us.
But there is an interaction. If someone fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the articles, and they try to write something about George W. Bush, we can deal with it. If they try to write about obscure reality television characters, we can't very well deal with it... we end up with copyvios and fancruft hagiography.
The important question, to my mind, is this: how can we give good editors the tools they need to write good popular culture articles while actively discouraging and reducing crap articles?
Yes.
--Jimbo
On 11/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The bios of people on such shows are PR puffery at its worst. Only the most basic facts can be considered true, I think.
In some ways, best handled by treating such bios in classic NPOV fashion - 'According to the show's website, <person> ...'
These biographies are probably semi-fiction, but in some ways should be handled like pro-wrestlers' official biographies - important in the context of the fictional character they play, but should be separated from the real-life person.
-Matt
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 9, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
- Are third party sources required here? The classic definition of
NOR said that primary sources could be used so long as they were not used for "novel" claims. Surely the basics of this article are thus verifiable via the primary source of the show: her status as a contestant, when she lost, and a good chunk of her bio were all no doubt covered.
Perhaps, although caution is warranted here. The bios of people on such shows are PR puffery at its worst. Only the most basic facts can be considered true, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe is a good article about the phenomena with respect to wrestling, where the intermingling of reality and storyline is well known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_McGee is a friend of mine, and her story should set off alarm bells for anyone writing about "reality television". The mixing of fact and fiction is substantial in these shows, and generally speaking, the websites of such shows should be regarded in much the same way as websites of fictional shows. The people appearing on the shows are characters in a storyline.
Jimmy, I might be misreading you here, so I've kept all the above for context rather than snipping and missing a facet. Apologies.
Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes against the grain of the verifiability policy. We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the puff, are we? We simply present information as it is presented in the source. For example, in the instance of Irene McGee, my understanding is that you can't edit it to remove inaccuracies which have been sourced. You have to balance it with sources which show the other side. I appreciate there's a grey area with balancing, you don't cite one source which lists a DOB as 1926 if 100 lists it as 1976.
So I'm not sure how we go about with articles such as these. Like you, I guess I'd lean towards listing for deletion. It pains me that too many times people paint the afd process as a bad thing. I think it can be an important process that should generate a good discussion about an article and whether it should exist. Perhaps we need to refocus debates and base them on the merits of the article, rather than the strict application of a formula. It annoys me to see people argue over the meaning of [[WP:WEB]] #3 footnote b, even though I wrote it, because in helping to draft the page I was always pushing the idea that the page itself wasn't a tool for deletion but a guide for inclusion.
People should not be looking at notability guidance and deleting on the basis, they should be for new editors who are considering creating an article. And a deletion debate shouldn't focus on the specific clause of a notability guidance, it should centre on the merits of the article. People shouldn't be stating that it fails such and such a clause, they should be saying, look, I'm not happy that the sources this article cites are strong enough to build an article to the required standard... blah blah blah. I mean, me and Phil lock horns now and again but at least Phil debates the point and fights the corner, and I hope he would concede the same of me. What we need is the ability to write guidance which tells people that discussion is the best solution, and to keep discussing until an agreeable solution is found.
On 11/9/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The question then becomes how we can help editors who want to write good articles on these topics (and there are many) without letting articles like this one run amok. The answer has, it seems to me, manifestly shown itself NOT to be draconian sourcing policy that defies the common sense of anyone familiar with the topic and aggressive deletion.
The vast majority of these topics I think would be better suited for a merge. As for Ms. Mateo, for example, I don't see why it wouldn't be more appropriate to say whatever there is to say about her in the Phillipine Idol article. (Should it get too large, Phillippine Idol contestants or something similar.) If nothing else it brings it to a wider audience of those who are interested in the show, and so may have seen her in her only really notable act, rather than those interested only in her specifically -- probably a much smaller group. It also gives the information context to start from, which is useful for minor topics and even more beneficial for fictional subjects.
Merging *improves* these articles for that reason, but people seem to be offended by the suggestion that their pet topic doesn't deserve an independent article. I believe in splitting off articles only when you have to, when it wouldn't make sense not to, rather than independent articles as the default. Encouraging new writers to add to existing articles rather than start new ones may help.
But I said something similar a year ago too, on this very list (reproduced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage/mergism for what it's worth), and I've mostly given up this issue...
-Kat
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 11/9/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The question then becomes how we can help editors who want to write good articles on these topics (and there are many) without letting articles like this one run amok. The answer has, it seems to me, manifestly shown itself NOT to be draconian sourcing policy that defies the common sense of anyone familiar with the topic and aggressive deletion.
The vast majority of these topics I think would be better suited for a merge. As for Ms. Mateo, for example, I don't see why it wouldn't be more appropriate to say whatever there is to say about her in the Phillipine Idol article. (Should it get too large, Phillippine Idol contestants or something similar.) If nothing else it brings it to a wider audience of those who are interested in the show, and so may have seen her in her only really notable act, rather than those interested only in her specifically -- probably a much smaller group. It also gives the information context to start from, which is useful for minor topics and even more beneficial for fictional subjects.
I have no objection to merging the stubbish material in the article about Ms. Mateo; it even appears that some of the other competitors for Philippine Idol have already been merged. When there is enough material on these contestants their articles can be split off again as has been the case with American Idol or Canadian Idol. (I haven't looked at what's happening with the other national versions.) This discussion has ranged into far more involving notions of copyvios, verifiability and notability. Can we apply the same strict standards to a Philippino writing about an issue of strictly Philippine interest as we would to an American, Canadian, Briton or Australian writing about his own country? Do we have a critical mass of editors from that country to fill in the holes, or to check facts, or to resolve possible copyvios? Those of us who edit from advanced industrial countries didn't arrive at these rules overnight, and we did so in a context where intellectual resources are plentiful.
When judging contributions we need to do so in the context of the affected country with the recognition that contributors from that country need to evolve their skills just as those of us in the developed countries have had to. This may imply less rigid sourcing rules for editors from some countries.
Ec
I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page in case it was deleted or edited or something:
---- '''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as '''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first season.
She is a lounge singer by profession doing part-time modeling and hosting as side jobs after her schooling in [[University of Asia and the Pacific]].
Some of her musical influences include [[Ray Charles]], [[Diana Krall]], and [[Michael Bolton]] among others. ----
Reading this and reading your analysis it seems to me that you are talking about a completely different article.
On 11/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable.
It all seems verifiable to me, save perhaps for a clarification that *she says* that her musical influences include...
Now there aren't any sources listed, and that's certainly a problem, but it doesn't seem an insurmountable one assuming the information is in fact true.
It is likely a copyvio,
This part makes me think that the version I'm looking has been altered. Because there is no image in the version I see (not even a link to a deleted one), and the text is all pretty much factual and non-copyrightable. But the version I see is from 16:01, 27 September 2006, which leads me to believe it is the original version.
Icidently, the first two paragraphs of [[Philippine Idol]] are likely plagiarized from http://www.philippineidol.org/about.html (I say likely, because possibly they plagiarized from Wikipedia).
and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
You could certainly get a lot closer to zero. But admittedly the amount of information is likely to be small.
Not that I think that in itself is a reason for deletion. I don't have a problem with short articles.
It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them. I see no reason to trust anything about the article at all.
Googling her name brings up a few blogs which seem to present similar information. So that's a reason to trust some of it.
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources.
The version I see doesn't have any sources at all.
And any movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
{{citequote}}
Who has that view? It seems like a minority view at best.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page in case it was deleted or edited or something:
'''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as '''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first season.
She is a lounge singer by profession doing part-time modeling and hosting as side jobs after her schooling in [[University of Asia and the Pacific]].
Some of her musical influences include [[Ray Charles]], [[Diana Krall]], and [[Michael Bolton]] among others.
Reading this and reading your analysis it seems to me that you are talking about a completely different article.
{{nn-bio}}, in the English speaking world anyway. What speakers of Filipino think of her is entirely up to them, and should have nothing to do with what we think of her. Unless they can come up with something better than "Aww she so cute"...
On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
{{nn-bio}}, in the English speaking world anyway. What speakers of Filipino think of her is entirely up to them, and should have nothing to do with what we think of her. Unless they can come up with something better than "Aww she so cute"...
Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating the problems with using notability as a catch-all.
-Phil
On 11/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page in case it was deleted or edited or something:
'''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as '''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first season.
She is a lounge singer by profession doing part-time modeling and hosting as side jobs after her schooling in [[University of Asia and the Pacific]].
Some of her musical influences include [[Ray Charles]], [[Diana Krall]], and [[Michael Bolton]] among others.
Reading this and reading your analysis it seems to me that you are talking about a completely different article.
{{nn-bio}}, in the English speaking world anyway. What speakers of Filipino think of her is entirely up to them, and should have nothing to do with what we think of her. Unless they can come up with something better than "Aww she so cute"...
{{hangon}} What we think of her should have nothing to do with whether or not we have an article on her.
Anthony
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page in case it was deleted or edited or something:
'''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as '''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first season. ...
{{nn-bio}}, in the English speaking world anyway. What speakers of Filipino think of her is entirely up to them, and should have nothing to do with what we think of her. Unless they can come up with something better than "Aww she so cute"...
That comment is pure anglo-chauvinism. English is very common among Philippinos, and some of the Philippine Idol contestents apparently do sing in English. To suggest that notability is a function of one's nationality or language is ofensive.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them. I see no reason to trust anything about the article at all.
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources. And any movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or it's not. Either you have compared it with some original text, or you haven't. Wouldn't it be better to verify a claim that someone is acting illegally before making it. If we are going to criticize such unsubstantiated claims when they are made about the subject of an article, shouldn't the same standard apply to claims about our fellow contributors.
I would not presume to say whether the information is verifiable or not. I do not understand Tagalog, and I do not regularly keep tabs on what is being said in Philippine publications.. Do you?
And what really is the standard for pop culture notability? There is an extensive article for the 9th place finisher from the most recent ''American Idol''. This was the first season of ''Philippine Idol''. Why wouldn't it's 9th place finisher merit the same treatment, including the way that publicity shots are accepted? This project isn't just about what goes on in those countries that have a high proportion of Wikipedians. It isn't just about the sophisticated standards that have developed over a long period of time in our key countries. It's also about educating editors in other countries, and you don't accomplish that with automated messages about the evils of copyvios. These techniques that one would associate with Gringo imperialism do nothing to draw newbies into our fraternity.
I don't see User:The Green Archer as having with a serious problem. In the spirit of "Don't bite the newbies" someone writing him a personal message or taking this "lad" under wing would have accomplished more in educating a new editor. Simply welcoming with an automated message that shows newcomers the way to "Help" and "FAQ" pages is our equivalent to an automated telephone message telling us to "Press 1 if ..., Press 2 if ..., Press 3 if... , ..."
Ec
On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or it's not.
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
Second of all, and I can promise you that this is an experience that anybody who has ever taught a writing course can verify, when it comes to identifying plagiarism, you know first, and then you go back and find proof. There are various things about plagiarized writing that just stick out. In the case of the Jeli Mateo article, in its old version, here are the two that I look at and go "Ah, plagiarism"
"A towering beauty at 5’8, Jeli never fails to make heads turn."
Clearly a POV paragraph, but more to the point, it seems out of context. The writer of that sentence has some sort of perspective that is not the same as Wikipedia's. The sentence assumes some sort of proximity to Mateo such that the observation of heads turning is possible.
"What does she want to prove in Idol? That she’s beauty, brains and talent all in one package."
The present tense here throws. Yes, the sentence was added the day before her elimination, but even still, the tone of the sentence sounds like it's intended for an ephemeral context. The "beauty, brains and talent all in one package" line is also clearly a promotional slogan.
These are more than enough to label it "probable" copyvio, and frankly, even if the paragraph weren't a POV puff piece, I'd remove the paragraph on probable cause even if I couldn't Google the phrases.
-Phil
On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
Second of all, and I can promise you that this is an experience that anybody who has ever taught a writing course can verify, when it comes to identifying plagiarism, you know first, and then you go back and find proof.
If you llok at the deletion log I found the source.
There are various things about plagiarized writing that just stick out. In the case of the Jeli Mateo article, in its old version, here are the two that I look at and go "Ah, plagiarism"
"A towering beauty at 5'8, Jeli never fails to make heads turn."
Clearly a POV paragraph, but more to the point, it seems out of context. The writer of that sentence has some sort of perspective that is not the same as Wikipedia's. The sentence assumes some sort of proximity to Mateo such that the observation of heads turning is possible.
"What does she want to prove in Idol? That she's beauty, brains and talent all in one package."
The present tense here throws. Yes, the sentence was added the day before her elimination, but even still, the tone of the sentence sounds like it's intended for an ephemeral context. The "beauty, brains and talent all in one package" line is also clearly a promotional slogan.
These are more than enough to label it "probable" copyvio, and frankly, even if the paragraph weren't a POV puff piece, I'd remove the paragraph on probable cause even if I couldn't Google the phrases.
-Phil
On wikipedia other reasons would be:
Lack of wikification.
Flows. Even our best writers tend to produce well polished sentances of strung together factoids. Most of our writers are not that good. Wikipedia style tend to priorities presenting information over haveing a flowing narative. This tends not to be the case with stuff from elsewhere
Waffle. Wikipedians tend to pad out word counts with trivia rather than Waffle.
Pics that are just too good. While there are a few very good pics taken by wikipedians for the most part high quality pics of recent events means problems. And if the editor has uploaded a questionable pic it worth cheacking the article.
Ultimately though it comes to to experence to a extent.
On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or it's not.
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
What about the version dated "27 September 2006"? As Jimbo's email is from November 7th presumably that was the version he was talking about. Is that the version that existed on that date, or is there some new power to change other people's edits (not just delete them)?
Anthony
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or it's not.
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the current version. It has essentially been there since Sept. 27. If anyone but Jimbo had written this way it would have been treated as trolling. He even said, "(I would delete it now, but I want people to take a quick look at it first)", but the picture was already gone. It was reloaded but not linked from the new article. The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
Ec
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
No... the copyvio revisions were deleted from the edit history yesterday. That was not an old version Jimbo was talking about, but the current and now-deleted one.
-Phil
On 11/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the current version. It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
From the deletion log:
* 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Jeli Mateo" (1 revisions restored: undelete non copyvio material) * 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Jeli Mateo" (g12 much taken from or derived from http://starmometer.com/2006/09/20/jellica-jelli-marie-mateo-philippine-idol-...)
Those deleted revisions, leaving out the post-Jimbo ones, were:
# 13:38, 1 November 2006 . . 202.81.173.73 (Talk | block) # 22:37, 17 October 2006 . . Lectricky (Talk | contribs | block) (stub update) # 12:23, 13 October 2006 . . 125.60.185.149 (Talk | block) # 08:31, 30 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.114 (Talk | block) # 15:36, 29 September 2006 . . The Green Archer (Talk | contribs | block) # 14:49, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block) # 14:32, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block) # 13:38, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block) # 13:34, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
So, yes, plenty of material was added after the 17th and was posted at the time of the original message.
So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
...no, the fact remains that it wasn't, it just looks like it was.
Thanks for the explanation.
Now, on a more productive note, I say we start CC Idol, an online search for the best English language singer who releases all of his/her works under a free content license. Sure, an article about it will be deleted as non-notable freecontentcruft, but that shouldn't stop us from doing it.
Yeah, yeah, it's probably never going to happen... I'm certainly not going to do the singing...
Anthony
On 11/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the current version. It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
From the deletion log:
- 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Jeli
Mateo" (1 revisions restored: undelete non copyvio material)
- 18:45, 9 November 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Jeli
Mateo" (g12 much taken from or derived from http://starmometer.com/2006/09/20/jellica-jelli-marie-mateo-philippine-idol-...)
Those deleted revisions, leaving out the post-Jimbo ones, were:
# 13:38, 1 November 2006 . . 202.81.173.73 (Talk | block) # 22:37, 17 October 2006 . . Lectricky (Talk | contribs | block) (stub update) # 12:23, 13 October 2006 . . 125.60.185.149 (Talk | block) # 08:31, 30 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.114 (Talk | block) # 15:36, 29 September 2006 . . The Green Archer (Talk | contribs | block) # 14:49, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block) # 14:32, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block) # 13:38, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block) # 13:34, 29 September 2006 . . 210.1.100.9 (Talk | block)
So, yes, plenty of material was added after the 17th and was posted at the time of the original message.
So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
...no, the fact remains that it wasn't, it just looks like it was.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the current version. It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
No, Anthony misled you. The current version at the time I used this as an example was first theorized by me to be a copyvio. Then it was proven by Geni to be so, and those revisions were deleted.
If anyone but Jimbo had written this way it would have been treated as trolling.
Ray, I hope you will apologize to me for this remark. I was not trolling, you misread the history, ok? The revisions which I speculated to be copyvios were copyvios, and subsequently deleted it.
He even said, "(I would delete it now, but I want people to take a quick look at it first)", but the picture was already gone. It was reloaded but not linked from the new article. The leader of Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still current the results are bound to be chaotic.
I think you should also apologize to me for this. I said nothing "irresponsibly".
Your comments about the former version make a lot of sense, but the fact remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
No, that is not true. Please review the history again, and remember that AGF applies even to me. :) I don't make up crazy irresponsible examples. The bits I complained about were live on the site when I complained about them.
Please acknowledge this.
--Jimbo
On 11/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
First of all, let me note that the current version is not the version that had the copyvio problems.
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the current version. It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
No, Anthony misled you. The current version at the time I used this as an example was first theorized by me to be a copyvio. Then it was proven by Geni to be so, and those revisions were deleted.
I misled no one. In fact, I specifically said that the version I was quoting didn't seem like it was the same version that you were referring to.
Please stop spreading lies about me.
Anthony
Unfortunately I am not online at the moment so I can't look at the history. But I wanted to comment quickly now in case I forget later.
The version that was live on the site when I wrote my original post was an apparent copyvio, and it was later confirmed to be a copyvio. Anthony wants to pretend that I was talking about some other version, but that's Anthony for you.
The image was a blatant copyvio.
--Jimbo
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
I did not say that. The point is, it is NOT verifiable. It is likely a copyvio, and the amount of information known about this woman from reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them. I see no reason to trust anything about the article at all.
In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources. And any movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
This is an overreaction. While there may be some basis for suspecting that the image may be a copyvio, saying that about the text of the article is a bit of a stretch. There is not much information in the article to start with. It is a stub, but that is more an argument for the proposed merge than outright deletion. How can you say that something is "likely a copyvio"? Either it's prima facie a copyvio or it's not. Either you have compared it with some original text, or you haven't. Wouldn't it be better to verify a claim that someone is acting illegally before making it. If we are going to criticize such unsubstantiated claims when they are made about the subject of an article, shouldn't the same standard apply to claims about our fellow contributors.
I would not presume to say whether the information is verifiable or not. I do not understand Tagalog, and I do not regularly keep tabs on what is being said in Philippine publications.. Do you?
And what really is the standard for pop culture notability? There is an extensive article for the 9th place finisher from the most recent ''American Idol''. This was the first season of ''Philippine Idol''. Why wouldn't it's 9th place finisher merit the same treatment, including the way that publicity shots are accepted? This project isn't just about what goes on in those countries that have a high proportion of Wikipedians. It isn't just about the sophisticated standards that have developed over a long period of time in our key countries. It's also about educating editors in other countries, and you don't accomplish that with automated messages about the evils of copyvios. These techniques that one would associate with Gringo imperialism do nothing to draw newbies into our fraternity.
I don't see User:The Green Archer as having with a serious problem. In the spirit of "Don't bite the newbies" someone writing him a personal message or taking this "lad" under wing would have accomplished more in educating a new editor. Simply welcoming with an automated message that shows newcomers the way to "Help" and "FAQ" pages is our equivalent to an automated telephone message telling us to "Press 1 if ..., Press 2 if ..., Press 3 if... , ..."
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Unfortunately I am not online at the moment so I can't look at the history. But I wanted to comment quickly now in case I forget later.
The version that was live on the site when I wrote my original post was an apparent copyvio, and it was later confirmed to be a copyvio. Anthony wants to pretend that I was talking about some other version, but that's Anthony for you.
He isn't an admin so he can't see exactly what happened. Mistakes under such conditions can be understood.