--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Actually famous Usenet crank. More coherent than
Sollog. Lots of material
on skeptictank.com .
I think the point here is that WP policy states that we must used only reputable or credible published sources as secondary sources, and Usenet doesn't count as that. It can be used as primary-source material for information about itself, but it can't be used as a secondary source of information about someone else, especially not when we're using a person's real name (unlike the case of Sollog).
Sarah
WE are not reporting that he is Kook of the Millenium. We are reporting that the Usenet group so labeled him. This reporting is accurate and factual, and we shouldn't be removing the information.
RickK
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
On 5/6/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
WE are not reporting that he is Kook of the Millenium. We are reporting that the Usenet group so labeled him. This reporting is accurate and factual, and we shouldn't be removing the information.
All I'm arguing here is that we shouldn't try to exercise publishing power without responsibility; in other words, we shouldn't be bullies. If this were some newsworthy public figure trying to delete accurate, relevant, well-referenced, notable material about himself and threatening us with legal action, I might agree that we should revert him, argue with him, and ignore the threats. But this person we're ganging up on here is a non-notable, private individual who has done no harm other than to make a fool and a nuisance of himself on Usenet. Weve inserted his real name into an article; we've attached it to a slur; we've reverted him trying to delete it; we've protected the page so he can't delete it; we've ridiculed him when he contacted this mailing list for help; we've reverted the deletion that an admin tried to make; and now we're going to ban him for making legal threats. Which part of this exactly isn't bullying?
To make matters worse, the only reason you don't take his legal threats seriously is that he's made them before and nothing came of them. In other words, you're not taking him seriously because he's ineffectual and powerless. That's exactly when we should back off, not put the boot in further.
There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?
Sarah
I don't think it's us who the bullies are here. The alleged kook has been bullying people on usenet for many years; his legal threats are an example of that. If we had an article [[Abusive usenet contributors]], he'd be pretty close to the top of the list.
All we're reporting is that a usenet group known for naming people as kooks thinks he's one of the top ones. Readers can be trusted to do further research, if necessary, to make their own decisions regarding the judgement of that newsgroup, and of the kookiness or lack thereof of anyone mentioned. There's plenty of original source material to mine.
jpgordon
On 5/6/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
WE are not reporting that he is Kook of the Millenium. We are reporting that the Usenet group so labeled him. This reporting is accurate and factual, and we shouldn't be removing the information.
All I'm arguing here is that we shouldn't try to exercise publishing power without responsibility; in other words, we shouldn't be bullies. If this were some newsworthy public figure trying to delete accurate, relevant, well-referenced, notable material about himself and threatening us with legal action, I might agree that we should revert him, argue with him, and ignore the threats. But this person we're ganging up on here is a non-notable, private individual who has done no harm other than to make a fool and a nuisance of himself on Usenet. Weve inserted his real name into an article; we've attached it to a slur; we've reverted him trying to delete it; we've protected the page so he can't delete it; we've ridiculed him when he contacted this mailing list for help; we've reverted the deletion that an admin tried to make; and now we're going to ban him for making legal threats. Which part of this exactly isn't bullying?
To make matters worse, the only reason you don't take his legal threats seriously is that he's made them before and nothing came of them. In other words, you're not taking him seriously because he's ineffectual and powerless. That's exactly when we should back off, not put the boot in further.
There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/6/05, Josh Gordon joshua.p.gordon@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's us who the bullies are here. The alleged kook has been bullying people on usenet for many years; his legal threats are an example of that. If we had an article [[Abusive usenet contributors]], he'd be pretty close to the top of the list.
Josh, we're not supposed to use Usenet as a source except for material about itself. This is like using Stormfront as a source for an article about itself (which we can do), then mentioning that they give out an award for Jewish Supremacist of the Year, and adding the real name of this year's winner - a private individual, who's been given the award because he's been harassing Stormfront. And when that person writes to us and asks that we remove his name from the Stormfront article, and explains that he was only given the award because he's been making a nuisance of himself with Stormfront, we ridicule him, we protect the article so he can't remove his name, and then we threaten to ban him!
The bottom line is that Usenet can only be used as a source of information *about itself* because it does not count as a reputable, credible, or authoritative source, and while the Kook of the Year reference is about Usenet, the name of the complainant is not. He is a private, non-notable individual, except in Usenet terms, where he has achieved notability, but we are *not allowed to use Usenet as a source for the claim of notability*, because in so doing, we're using Usenet as a secondary source, which is not allowed under [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. So we have admins violating core policy here in order to keep this non-notable man's name in a silly article about a silly subject, even though he's asked us to remove it and has said it could harm his business.
Mperel made a good point about this elsewhere: "So does this mean you would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name "slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles, since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"?" --MPerel
Sarah
Well, I might consider reporting the accusation of sluttery if (a) there was a vast amount of evidence that the person was behaving in a way that could generally be construed as sluttish; and (b) if the person came onto our mailing list, proved themselves a slut, and insisted we not call them that.
Not likely.
However, alleged sluts have, apparently, more discretion and common sense then alleged kooks.
On 5/6/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Josh Gordon joshua.p.gordon@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's us who the bullies are here. The alleged kook has
been
bullying people on usenet for many years; his legal threats are an
example
of that. If we had an article [[Abusive usenet contributors]], he'd be pretty close to the top of the list.
Josh, we're not supposed to use Usenet as a source except for material about itself. This is like using Stormfront as a source for an article about itself (which we can do), then mentioning that they give out an award for Jewish Supremacist of the Year, and adding the real name of this year's winner - a private individual, who's been given the award because he's been harassing Stormfront. And when that person writes to us and asks that we remove his name from the Stormfront article, and explains that he was only given the award because he's been making a nuisance of himself with Stormfront, we ridicule him, we protect the article so he can't remove his name, and then we threaten to ban him!
The bottom line is that Usenet can only be used as a source of information *about itself* because it does not count as a reputable, credible, or authoritative source, and while the Kook of the Year reference is about Usenet, the name of the complainant is not. He is a private, non-notable individual, except in Usenet terms, where he has achieved notability, but we are *not allowed to use Usenet as a source for the claim of notability*, because in so doing, we're using Usenet as a secondary source, which is not allowed under [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. So we have admins violating core policy here in order to keep this non-notable man's name in a silly article about a silly subject, even though he's asked us to remove it and has said it could harm his business.
Mperel made a good point about this elsewhere: "So does this mean you would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name "slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles, since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"?" --MPerel
Sarah
On 5/6/05, Josh Gordon joshua.p.gordon@gmail.com wrote:
Mperel made a good point about this elsewhere: "So does this mean you would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name "slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles, since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"?" --MPerel
Precisely. The article says AUK called Wollmann a kook because one day in early 1998 I decided the guy's activities were amusingly self-defeating. About forty people agreed (they had open voting in those days) and he joined the likes of Archimedes Plutonium as a Kook of the Month. He's been nominated and awarded countless times since. However I was rather naive in those days. I believed and still believe that Wollmann's behavior isn't so much of a problem--he's easily ignored. However perhaps because of my actions some people seem to have dedicated large amounts of their lives to denigrating him, and seem to take him rather more seriously than he really deserves. I think it would be better if we didn't feed these people's beliefs that Wollmann is noteworthy and their long, long jihad is worthy.
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 03:00]:
There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?
Please go do your research on Mr Wollmann; enough pointers have certainly been posted to the list.
- d.
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
David, I take your point about him, but I've tried to make it clear that I'm not arguing about the individual, but about policy. Our secondary sources have to be authoritative, reliable, credible, and in some sense reputable. We can use Usenet as a source about itself, including as a source about its awards, but we can't use it to name individuals, because that's using Usenet as a source for claims about that person's notability. He isn't notable except in Usenet terms. Please see Mperel's argument about naming schoolgirls who've been labeled sluts at such-and-such a school, on that school's page. It's a very good analogy, yet we wouldn't dream of doing it.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
David, I take your point about him, but I've tried to make it clear that I'm not arguing about the individual, but about policy. Our secondary sources have to be authoritative, reliable, credible, and in some sense reputable. We can use Usenet as a source about itself, including as a source about its awards, but we can't use it to name individuals, because that's using Usenet as a source for claims about that person's notability. He isn't notable except in Usenet terms. Please see Mperel's argument about naming schoolgirls who've been labeled sluts at such-and-such a school, on that school's page. It's a very good analogy, yet we wouldn't dream of doing it.
We do, however, use the Web as a secondary source to judge notability, and this kook is all over the Web. Even if nothing else about him were notable, the number of ISPs who have canceled his accounts for abuse is remarkable.
If the administrations of numerous high schools across the country all went on record stating that a particular schoolgirl had to be kicked out of all their schools because of her slutty behavior, I would more than "dream of" publishing that information, I'd be getting into edit-conflicts trying to be the first to add that information to Wikipedia.
Sean Barrett said:
If the administrations of numerous high schools across the country all went on record stating that a particular schoolgirl had to be kicked out of all their schools because of her slutty behavior, I would more than "dream of" publishing that information, I'd be getting into edit-conflicts trying to be the first to add that information to Wikipedia.
I think I'd have to protect the page. Wikipedia isn't a place for recording petty gossip.
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
Sean Barrett said:
If the administrations of numerous high schools across the country all went on record stating that a particular schoolgirl had to be kicked out of all their schools because of her slutty behavior, I would more than "dream of" publishing that information, I'd be getting into edit-conflicts trying to be the first to add that information to Wikipedia.
I think I'd have to protect the page. Wikipedia isn't a place for recording petty gossip.
And I wouldn't consider a large number of administrations all finding the same problem with an individual and all taking the same action "petty gossip." I'd find it remarkable and noteworthy.
-- Sean Barrett | We will chant in Old Nahuatl sean@epoptic.com | As we pray to Quetzlcoatl | Who gave us chocolatl | And that's good enough for me!
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
David, I take your point about him, but I've tried to make it clear that I'm not arguing about the individual, but about policy. Our secondary sources have to be authoritative, reliable, credible, and in some sense reputable. We can use Usenet as a source about itself, including as a source about its awards, but we can't use it to name individuals, because that's using Usenet as a source for claims about that person's notability.
I've been reluctant to jump in on this debate, but this position just seems too peculiar for me to leave it be. We can say that a Usenet group has voted to give an award to a person, but we can't say who that person actually is? What would we write instead of the name of the recipient?
He isn't notable except in Usenet terms.
So, if there's an article about this newsgroup, he'd be notable in that article's context?
IMO the newsgroup itself is notable, although I've never visited it myself I've heard it discussed repeatedly over the years. And if the newsgroup itself is notable, then I don't see the problem with describing the major activities that go on there.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?
Isn't that against policy?
:-)
More seriously, I think this guy's case is difficult because it's right at the edge of what we consider valid WP content. He doesn't have any notability outside the Usenet connection, and yet it would be somewhat contorted to explain "Kook of the Millennium" without naming names.
To take an example from other encyclopedias, Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, etc, have a number of short articles on various obscure disreputable figures of ancient Rome. They are included not because they have accomplishments of their own, but because notable authors will make casual references to them ("as smelly as Acilius"), and the puzzled reader needs a reference work to explain that, say, this Acilius was an annoying beggar in the Forum, and not evidence that the consul of the same name had a BO problem.
So I guess that means that we can include the astrologer's name if he's alluded to in a Philip Roth novel...
Stan
On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
More seriously, I think this guy's case is difficult because it's right at the edge of what we consider valid WP content. He doesn't have any notability outside the Usenet connection, and yet it would be somewhat contorted to explain "Kook of the Millennium" without naming names.
To take an example from other encyclopedias, Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, etc, have a number of short articles on various obscure disreputable figures of ancient Rome. They are included not because they have accomplishments of their own, but because notable authors will make casual references to them ("as smelly as Acilius") ...
So I guess that means that we can include the astrologer's name if he's alluded to in a Philip Roth novel...
Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.
Also bear in mind that your disreputable ancient Roman figures are long dead. Their livelihoods aren't going to be harmed because someone calls them smelly. ;-)
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:25]:
Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.
On that basis, we wouldn't have articles about Usenet at all. We do, therefore your assertion that Usenet notability is not notability at all ever is evidently not the case.
(And that's not even pointing out that "notable" is not and has never been a criterion, and in fact failed to be ratified as policy. Because the policy is and remains *verifiability*, of which Mr Wollmann has provided buckets outside Usenet.)
Also bear in mind that your disreputable ancient Roman figures are long dead. Their livelihoods aren't going to be harmed because someone calls them smelly. ;-)
If Mr Wollmann's livelihood is harmed, it's by people looking him up and seeing the pages documenting his past fraudulent behaviour. That's what really riles him.
- d.
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:25]:
Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.
On that basis, we wouldn't have articles about Usenet at all. We do, therefore your assertion that Usenet notability is not notability at all ever is evidently not the case.
I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that John Smith won the KOM award, we shouldn't include Smith's name, because to do so is to use Usenet as a *source of information regarding a subject other than itself*. The sentence: "John Smith was honored as KOM," is about that Usenet group, but it is also about someone else.
As argued by Mperel, we wouldn't include the names of schoolgirls voted Slut of the Year by a particular school. We wouldn't include in the Stormfront article that Jane Doe was given Stormfront's Ugliest Jew of the Year award. We wouldn't include in an article about Wikipedia that such-and-such an editor (using his real name) is thought of as a real prat. And so on. It's unencyclopedic gossip using anonymous sources that are (at best) silly and sometimes downright nasty, and the whole point of all our policies about using good references is precisely to avoid sources like these being used, except in very limited cicumstances where we are writing about them (which makes them primary sources) - and even there we have to be extremely careful to balance their views about themselves with other's people's views about them.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:57]:
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:25]:
Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.
On that basis, we wouldn't have articles about Usenet at all. We do, therefore your assertion that Usenet notability is not notability at all ever is evidently not the case.
I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that
Perhaps because you appear to be alternating between the general case and this specific case and it isn't clear from each message which is the current context. In the general case, of course Usenet content is to be salted appropriately; in specific cases, we use editorial judgement. Case by case.
In this specific case, not including Wollmann's name would be ridiculous. In addition, if he had not made his name a curse through assiduous effort on Usenet (spamming, personal attacks, abuse of ISP abuse processes to an actually remarkable degree) and outside Usenet (fraudulent behaviour, the attacks and abuse of complaint processes) to such a notable degree that people needed to document it searchably, there would be no negative consequences of bringing up his name at all. You do appear to be ignoring this.
Usenet is not a fixed and relied-upon source like a peer-reviewed journal, but in the *vast* majority of cases, people are who they say they are and made their posts. (Modulo anomalies like the [[sporgery]] on [[alt.religion.scientology]].)
We have lots of sources of dubious reliability on Wikipedia; we sort them out using (a) editorial judgement and (b) not insulting the intelligence of the reader and assuming they're too stupid to judge a source.
- d.
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:57]:
I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that
Perhaps because you appear to be alternating between the general case and this specific case and it isn't clear from each message which is the current context. In the general case, of course Usenet content is to be salted appropriately; in specific cases, we use editorial judgement. Case by case.
Look, the only reason I'm going on about this is that it touches on some fairly fundamental issues about sticking to policy, about what counts as a decent reference, and about being fair as well as accurate. It also raises questions about the use of page protection to settle content disputes. So in most of what I write, I'm referring to cases in general, not this specific one, though I may use this one as an example.
David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an acceptable source, and that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded, balanced by other sources.
In this specific case, not including Wollmann's name would be ridiculous.
I disagree. It wouldn't detract from the article at all to leave his name out. Far more notable people than him have been given various awards by this group.
In addition, if he had not made his name a curse through assiduous effort on Usenet (spamming, personal attacks, abuse of ISP abuse processes to an actually remarkable degree) and outside Usenet (fraudulent behaviour, the attacks and abuse of complaint processes) to such a notable degree that people needed to document it searchably, there would be no negative consequences of bringing up his name at all. You do appear to be ignoring this.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I accept that he's made things a lot worse for himself, and that he was the cause of the whole thing in the first place. I accept that.
Usenet is not a fixed and relied-upon source like a peer-reviewed journal, but in the *vast* majority of cases, people are who they say they are and made their posts.
You can't know this. Most people who post do so anonymously, and even if you know their real names, what does that tell you? They're not credible, published sources just because they post to Usenet.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Usenet is not a fixed and relied-upon source like a peer-reviewed journal, but in the *vast* majority of cases, people are who they say they are and made their posts.
You can't know this. Most people who post do so anonymously, and even if you know their real names, what does that tell you? They're not credible, published sources just because they post to Usenet.
It really depends on the era. If you have a John Mashey or Erik Fair posting from 1983, it's almost certainly authentic and authoritative (the kremvax hoax of 1984 was the first time that most of us were even aware that forged postings were possible). Conversely, anybody can print a credible-looking book these days, so one's analysis of believability has to be based on context and content, not just the mechanism of transport.
Stan
Stan Shebs (shebs@apple.com) [050507 07:22]:
It really depends on the era. If you have a John Mashey or Erik Fair posting from 1983, it's almost certainly authentic and authoritative (the kremvax hoax of 1984 was the first time that most of us were even aware that forged postings were possible). Conversely, anybody can print a credible-looking book these days, so one's analysis of believability has to be based on context and content, not just the mechanism of transport.
i.e., editorial judgement and reader judgement.
- d.
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an acceptable source, and that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded, balanced by other sources.
Frankly, an unthinking no-tolerance policy that material in, frex, sci.space.moderated is somehow untouchable is a stupid policy, and I for one will be bold and continue to ignore it.
-- Sean Barrett | Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in sean@epoptic.com | rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Sean Barrett (sean@epoptic.org) [050507 07:27]:
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
David, if you're saying Usenet is sometimes an acceptable source, and that we ought to judge its validity on a case-by-case basis (as a secondary source), I'll have to ask you to show me where in any of our policy documents that is stated or implied, because my understanding of all the relevant policies is that they are worded precisely so that these issues are *not* judged by individual editors on a case-by-case basis. Usenet is only allowed as primary-source material in articles about itself, and then only in very limited ways, carefully worded, balanced by other sources.
Frankly, an unthinking no-tolerance policy that material in, frex, sci.space.moderated is somehow untouchable is a stupid policy, and I for one will be bold and continue to ignore it.
Indeed. For example, it is *impossible* to tell the story of [[Scientology]] over the last decade without reference to Usenet. The CoS has made groups.google.com unreliable, but the relevant posts put on the Web are frequently (and properly) used as Wikipedia sources.
- d.
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Sean Barrett (sean@epoptic.org) [050507 07:27]:
Frankly, an unthinking no-tolerance policy that material in, frex, sci.space.moderated is somehow untouchable is a stupid policy, and I for one will be bold and continue to ignore it.
Indeed. For example, it is *impossible* to tell the story of [[Scientology]] over the last decade without reference to Usenet. The CoS has made groups.google.com unreliable, but the relevant posts put on the Web are frequently (and properly) used as Wikipedia sources.
David, you're a member of the arbcom, and so the issue of what you regard as policy concerning references is important. Please show me where our policy states or implies that Usenet might be properly used as a Wikipedia source. Or are you agreeing with Sean that policy ought to be ignored? (I'm not trying to be needlessly confrontational here, by the way, or trying to put you on the spot; it's just that the issue of citation of credible sources is an important one for me.)
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Sean Barrett (sean@epoptic.org) [050507 07:27]:
Frankly, an unthinking no-tolerance policy that material in, frex, sci.space.moderated is somehow untouchable is a stupid policy, and I for one will be bold and continue to ignore it.
Indeed. For example, it is *impossible* to tell the story of [[Scientology]] over the last decade without reference to Usenet. The CoS has made groups.google.com unreliable, but the relevant posts put on the Web are frequently (and properly) used as Wikipedia sources.
David, you're a member of the arbcom, and so the issue of what you regard as policy concerning references is important. Please show me where our policy states or implies that Usenet might be properly used as a Wikipedia source. Or are you agreeing with Sean that policy ought to be ignored? (I'm not trying to be needlessly confrontational here, by the way, or trying to put you on the spot; it's just that the issue of citation of credible sources is an important one for me.)
Sarah
Just for the record, where is the policy stating that Usenet /cannot/ be used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't know.
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Just for the record, where is the policy stating that Usenet /cannot/ be used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't know.
The relevant policies state that Wikipedia sources must be published sources, and that the publishers must be, in some sense, reputable, authoritative, and credible. These terms are impossible to define, but they boil down to relying on publishing houses that have some form of fact-checking procedure, or peer-review if it's an academic subject. Sometimes the degree of fact-checking will be minimal, but there should be some infrastructure within which information is checked, complaints are responded to, and obviously authors are usually not anonymous.
None of these things applies to Usenet. It is pretty much the definition of a source that should not be used (except in very limited circumstances as primary-source material). See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for more details.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Just for the record, where is the policy stating that Usenet /cannot/ be used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't know.
The relevant policies state that Wikipedia sources must be published sources, and that the publishers must be, in some sense, reputable, authoritative, and credible. These terms are impossible to define, but they boil down to relying on publishing houses that have some form of fact-checking procedure, or peer-review if it's an academic subject. Sometimes the degree of fact-checking will be minimal, but there should be some infrastructure within which information is checked, complaints are responded to, and obviously authors are usually not anonymous.
None of these things applies to Usenet. It is pretty much the definition of a source that should not be used (except in very limited circumstances as primary-source material). See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for more details.
So, to summarize, there is no policy stating that Usenet is forbidden as a source. Some people (you, for instance) do not consider it to be reputable source, but nothing forbids some other people (me, for instance) from disagreeing. And, most importantly, there is no policy permitting anti-Usenetters to delete Usenet-based material /just because/ it originated on Usenet.
Certainly, Usenet contains a mindboggling level of garbage. It also contains real facts. Material from a group like alt.politics.usa.constitution should be scrutinized much more strictly than that from a group like sci.space.moderated, but in the end, Usenet is just as usable as a source as any Web site, popular magazine, or book from a library.
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
So, to summarize, there is no policy stating that Usenet is forbidden as a source. Some people (you, for instance) do not consider it to be reputable source, but nothing forbids some other people (me, for instance) from disagreeing. And, most importantly, there is no policy permitting anti-Usenetters to delete Usenet-based material /just because/ it originated on Usenet.
Sean, did you read WP:NOR? For example, see this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3..., though you also need to read the whole thing through. Also read [[WP:NPOV]]. Both state that sources must be published by reputable/credible publishers. I believe [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says the same thing, though it's a while since I've read it. We've also had this discussion many, many times on this list, and the consensus seems to be that WP sources must be published and must be credible.
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 09:33]:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?
- d.
David Gerard said:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 09:33]:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?
I happen to find slimvirgin's argument impossible to answer. As a secondary source, Usenet will never, ever be even remotely citable on the subject of the world outside Usenet. I would not regard deletion of Usenet-sourced material as disruption to make a point. Where we can trust what Usenet says, it is because, like Wikipedia, its information about the universe outside Usenet is independently verifiable. I would probably oppose any suggestion that Usenet posts were intrinsically interesting, and certainly oppose any suggestion that individual Usenet posts can be authoritative about anything outside themselves.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050507 09:54]:
David Gerard said:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 09:33]:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?
I happen to find slimvirgin's argument impossible to answer. As a secondary source, Usenet will never, ever be even remotely citable on the subject of the world outside Usenet. I would not regard deletion of Usenet-sourced material as disruption to make a point.
I found it very useful for [[The Eye of Argon]], for instance.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050507 09:54]:
David Gerard said:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 09:33]:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?
I happen to find slimvirgin's argument impossible to answer. As a secondary source, Usenet will never, ever be even remotely citable on the subject of the world outside Usenet. I would not regard deletion of Usenet-sourced material as disruption to make a point.
I found it very useful for [[The Eye of Argon]], for instance.
I also found it useful regarding a conversation between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and some guy named Linus Torvalds. For instance, under [[flaming]], which would you prefer?
1. For example, the Usenet discussion between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war".
2. For example, the Usenet discussion between a computer science professor and a software developer on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war".
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Deathphoenix wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050507 09:54]:
David Gerard said:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 09:33]:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?
I happen to find slimvirgin's argument impossible to answer. As a secondary source, Usenet will never, ever be even remotely citable on the subject of the world outside Usenet. I would not regard deletion of Usenet-sourced material as disruption to make a point.
I found it very useful for [[The Eye of Argon]], for instance.
I also found it useful regarding a conversation between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and some guy named Linus Torvalds. For instance, under [[flaming]], which would you prefer?
- For example, the Usenet discussion between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and
Linus Torvalds on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war".
- For example, the Usenet discussion between a computer science
professor and a software developer on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war".
This conversation has been reprinted many times, most notably in the O'Reilly book _Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution_. Reference to specific posts at Google are not necessary.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Deathphoenix wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050507 09:54]:
David Gerard said:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 09:33]:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Although in practice, this would be disruption to make a point. Why are you hardly being agreed with?
I happen to find slimvirgin's argument impossible to answer. As a secondary source, Usenet will never, ever be even remotely citable on the subject of the world outside Usenet. I would not regard deletion of Usenet-sourced material as disruption to make a point.
I found it very useful for [[The Eye of Argon]], for instance.
I also found it useful regarding a conversation between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and some guy named Linus Torvalds. For instance, under [[flaming]], which would you prefer?
- For example, the Usenet discussion between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and
Linus Torvalds on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war".
- For example, the Usenet discussion between a computer science
professor and a software developer on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war".
This conversation has been reprinted many times, most notably in the O'Reilly book _Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution_. Reference to specific posts at Google are not necessary.
Geoff
Yes, but the fact is, this originated from Usenet. If Usenet is an inappropriate source of information, then by extension, all documentation based on Usenet posts are also inappropriate sources of information
My point is that you can't paint *all* Usenet posts as being an inappropriate source citation. There's a lot of Usenet discussions that are quite informative (and not just on computer- or network-related subjects).
Granted, I wouldn't exactly classify alt.usenet.kooks as a source of encyclopedic information, but that doesn't mean all newsgroups are unencyclopedic.
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
The anonymous posters on Usenet are not published authors just because they post to Usenet. So yes, any editor who wanted to delete material sourced to Usenet would be well within their rights - except where it's being used as a primary source about itself.
Such deletion would clearly be against policy. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3... states, "When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus." Notice that it does not state that a single editor taking a hardline zero-tolerance stance can delete material simply because that single editor does not feel that it comes from a reputable source.
-- Sean Barrett | No time for goofing off, I sean@epoptic.com | got dawdling to do! --Tigger
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
So, to summarize, there is no policy stating that Usenet is forbidden as a source. Some people (you, for instance) do not consider it to be reputable source, but nothing forbids some other people (me, for instance) from disagreeing. And, most importantly, there is no policy permitting anti-Usenetters to delete Usenet-based material /just because/ it originated on Usenet.
Sean, did you read WP:NOR? For example, see this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3..., though you also need to read the whole thing through. Also read [[WP:NPOV]]. Both state that sources must be published by reputable/credible publishers. I believe [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says the same thing, though it's a while since I've read it. We've also had this discussion many, many times on this list, and the consensus seems to be that WP sources must be published and must be credible.
This is ever so much policy-geekism. I certainly don't need to read interminable pages of rules to tell me how to apply common sense. Much of this should never be treated as anything more than guidelines. It may be possible to develop applicable techniques to determine whether something has been published, the determination of credibility (whether of the work or its publisher) is essentially subjective. It's impossible to say that something is credible without expressing a POV.
Ec
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Just for the record, where is the policy stating that Usenet /cannot/ be used? I'm not being sarcastic; I genuinely don't know.
The relevant policies state that Wikipedia sources must be published sources, and that the publishers must be, in some sense, reputable, authoritative, and credible. These terms are impossible to define, but they boil down to relying on publishing houses that have some form of fact-checking procedure, or peer-review if it's an academic subject. Sometimes the degree of fact-checking will be minimal, but there should be some infrastructure within which information is checked, complaints are responded to, and obviously authors are usually not anonymous.
None of these things applies to Usenet. It is pretty much the definition of a source that should not be used (except in very limited circumstances as primary-source material). See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for more details.
Are you looking at the same page as I am? It notes that for non-academic subjects, "it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of 'reputable'", proposes a series of litmus tests to try, and suggests one's intuition as a fallback. The page also mentions that a "mix of primary and secondary sources is preferred".
In practice I agree, the main value of old Usenet postings is as a primary source, for instance, technologies were often announced and discussed by the principals involved. (Noteworthy examples include Berners-Lee's announcement of the World Wide Web itself, and Linus' announcment of Linux on comp.os.minix, which is linked from our Linux article in fact.)
Stan
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050507 05:25]:
Right. If he's named as a kook (or anything) somewhere vaguely reputable, we can use it. But we can't allow Usenet to determine who is or isn't notable.
On that basis, we wouldn't have articles about Usenet at all. We do, therefore your assertion that Usenet notability is not notability at all ever is evidently not the case.
I'm struggling to understand why people can't see the difference here between using something as a primary and a secondary source. We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that John Smith won the KOM award, we shouldn't include Smith's name, because to do so is to use Usenet as a *source of information regarding a subject other than itself*. The sentence: "John Smith was honored as KOM," is about that Usenet group, but it is also about someone else.
Whoa, that's getting pretty epistemiologically twisty... "A person named 'J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h' was mentioned as KotM on Usenet, but we make no claim as to who that designates in real life".
The irony is that Mr. Astrologer has directly informed us that he's pretty sure that Usenet was referring to him. At least I think so - what if the email is from somebody pretending to be him? Or maybe the astrologer is actually John Perry Barlow having a whole lot of fun playing a net kook? Has anyone actually seen this guy and Barlow together at the same time??
At some point you have to fall back on common sense, or else be confined to working on philosophy articles.
Another irony is that Usenet was once as revered as a source of good information as Google is today - I suspect part of the disconnect in the discussion is the difference in perception between people for whom it was an important part of their lives (in my case, 1982 to 1994 or so), vs those who've never known it as anything other than a flame board.
Stan
On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that John Smith won the KOM award, we shouldn't include Smith's name, because to do so is to use Usenet as a *source of information regarding a subject other than itself*.
Whoa, that's getting pretty epistemiologically twisty... "A person named 'J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h' was mentioned as KotM on Usenet, but we make no claim as to who that designates in real life".
That's not what I meant. I was using the name John Smith only as an example. My argument about Edmond is that we shouldn't name him at all, not that we should give him a pseudonym.
At some point you have to fall back on common sense, or else be confined to working on philosophy articles.
Are you saying that people who work on philosophy articles tend to have no common sense? LOL! Okay, I may have to concede that one to you. ;-p
Another irony is that Usenet was once as revered as a source of good information as Google is today - I suspect part of the disconnect in the discussion is the difference in perception between people for whom it was an important part of their lives (in my case, 1982 to 1994 or so), vs those who've never known it as anything other than a flame board.
That's a good point, though we're discussing it as a source the way it is today.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We can use Usenet as a source of information about itself, and about its awards. What we can't do is use it as a secondary source of information about someone or something else. Even if it's true that John Smith won the KOM award, we shouldn't include Smith's name, because to do so is to use Usenet as a *source of information regarding a subject other than itself*.
Whoa, that's getting pretty epistemiologically twisty... "A person named 'J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h' was mentioned as KotM on Usenet, but we make no claim as to who that designates in real life".
That's not what I meant. I was using the name John Smith only as an example. My argument about Edmond is that we shouldn't name him at all, not that we should give him a pseudonym.
No, I was just echoing your use of "John Smith" as a generic example.
Another way to think about this is how you would write up policy. Would you declare "Usenet is not credible"? Some of the postings to it are authentic and authoritative though, so you'd have to introduce some way to distinguish. "No naming of non-notable people?" Then you're just in the never-ending argument about notability. "Have a sense of decency?" Nice, but too subjective for WP editors to use, given how many of them seem to fall outside the three-sigma range for human behavior... :-)
Stan
On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Whoa, that's getting pretty epistemiologically twisty... "A person named 'J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h' was mentioned as KotM on Usenet, but we make no claim as to who that designates in real life".
As I was overruled about removing the name entirely, I asked for unprotection and added names of notable people who've won awards from this group (Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Pierre Salinger, Gary Glitter) so that Edmond's name stands out less.
Sarah
On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Whoa, that's getting pretty epistemiologically twisty... "A person named 'J-o-h-n S-m-i-t-h' was mentioned as KotM on Usenet, but we make no claim as to who that designates in real life".
As I was overruled about removing the name entirely, I asked for unprotection and added names of notable people who've won awards from this group (Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Pierre Salinger, Gary Glitter) so that Edmond's name stands out less.
Cool. Let's just hope they don't join forces and sue our pants off. :)
Stan Shebs wrote:
Another irony is that Usenet was once as revered as a source of good information as Google is today - I suspect part of the disconnect in the discussion is the difference in perception between people for whom it was an important part of their lives (in my case, 1982 to 1994 or so), vs those who've never known it as anything other than a flame board.
There are still useful parts of Usenet, for instance http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_frm/thread/288c... (used as one of several sources for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasant_Street_Incline ).
On 5/7/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his or her position in the manner described above, and we've all become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?
You don't feel the hounds of hypocrisy nipping at your heels, dear?