On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to the school's new logo/shield:
"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
I originally removed it from the article as needing a source, but replaced it after the contributor in question demonstrated to me on the talk page that he appears to know what he is talking about - certainly more than I know about heraldry.
However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion, and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable source.
My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the article again pending this.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:35:03 +0100, "Earle Martin" wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to the school's new logo/shield:
Trivia: My mum went to [[Godolphin and Latymer School]].
"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
And? It's a logo. Why would it need to be?
In any case, isn't he trying to use Wikipedia to fix an external problem?
Guy (JzG)
On 02/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Trivia: My mum went to [[Godolphin and Latymer School]].
Small world. I went to Latymer, which is why I keep an eye on this article.
"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
And? It's a logo. Why would it need to be?
Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display".
I wonder then if the logo of the [[Ministry of Sound]] (and probably those of many other outfits) require authorization...
In any case, isn't he trying to use Wikipedia to fix an external problem?
Well, he may be just trying to illustrate a point about the logo/shield; if it's factual, I have no problem with it, even if originally motivated by a dislike of the new symbol.
On 02/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
And? It's a logo. Why would it need to be?
Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display".
I wonder then if the logo of the [[Ministry of Sound]] (and probably those of many other outfits) require authorization...
I'm not sure it's so much "require authorisation" as making the point that it *isn't* a shield of arms. It looks like one, it feels like one, but it *isn't* one. My understanding is that if you're using it as a shield, it has to be authorised; in this case, it isn't, so it's simply a pretty and confusing logo.
Really depends what you present it as, I suppose.
Something similar happened with the [[University of Durham]]; it remarketed itself under a new name and a new badge recently, but the official crest stayed the same.
On 02/04/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure it's so much "require authorisation" as making the point that it *isn't* a shield of arms. It looks like one, it feels like one, but it *isn't* one. My understanding is that if you're using it as a shield, it has to be authorised; in this case, it isn't, so it's simply a pretty and confusing logo.
Well, the school is using it everywhere that it previously used its traditional shield; that would seem to imply that it is in fact a shield. I have sent an enquiry to the school and will update the article when I get a response.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 02/04/07, Earle Martin wrote:
And? It's a logo. Why would it need to be?
Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display".
I wonder then if the logo of the [[Ministry of Sound]] (and probably those of many other outfits) require authorization...
I'm not sure it's so much "require authorisation" as making the point that it *isn't* a shield of arms. It looks like one, it feels like one, but it *isn't* one. My understanding is that if you're using it as a shield, it has to be authorised; in this case, it isn't, so it's simply a pretty and confusing logo.
Who but Monty Python would go into a modern battle carrying this type of shield, and with a full suit of armor. :-)
Is there any penalty for walking around with an unauthorized shield?
Really depends what you present it as, I suppose.
It's very different from the right to bear arms in the US Constitution. :-)
Ec
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:48:24 +0100, "Earle Martin" wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display".
I don't think a logo is necessarily a shield of arms.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/2/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 02/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Trivia: My mum went to [[Godolphin and Latymer School]].
Small world. I went to Latymer, which is why I keep an eye on this article.
"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
And? It's a logo. Why would it need to be?
Well, I raised that on the talk page, and Chelseaboy (he of the heraldic interests) commented "It is obvious from looking at the shield (which is illustrated in the box at the top of the article) that it is a shield [...] newly formed shields of arms (this is a shield bearing a chevron and a cross, which are heraldic elements) used in England require authorisation from the College of Arms before display".
In general, I find it problematic when someone states that something is "obvious" in as obscure and complicated a field as heraldry. Obvious to you, perhaps. Not at all obvious to me. Thus, a source would be nice, for those of us who aren't heraldic experts and would like to find out more about this interesting fact beyond the 1 or 2 sentences in a Wikipedia article. I'm sure Chelseaboy knows what he's talking about; that's missing the point, though.
-- phoebe
On 02/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion, and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable source.
My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the article again pending this.
Glancing at the talkpage - if it was an authorised design it would be published in X; it's not published in X; ergo unauthorised. The problem is that a) understanding that the links in that chain are meaningful requires a degree of external knowledge of how the system works; and b) the usual issues with proving "was not in any version of X" if someone decides to quibble.
(I do hate it when institutions do this. Damnit, they have a nice serviceable crest already... why create a new one and confuse everybody?)
It'd be much easier for someone to write a letter to the Old Latymerians (or whatever) newsletter complaining about it, and cite that ;-)
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:48:52 +0100, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Glancing at the talkpage - if it was an authorised design it would be published in X; it's not published in X; ergo unauthorised.
Proof of a negative, of course.
I tagged it as needing a citation. We should probably be fine as long as we restrict ourselves to what is said in reliable secondary sources.
Guy (JzG)
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
Seraphimblade
On 4/2/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:48:52 +0100, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Glancing at the talkpage - if it was an authorised design it would be published in X; it's not published in X; ergo unauthorised.
Proof of a negative, of course.
I tagged it as needing a citation. We should probably be fine as long as we restrict ourselves to what is said in reliable secondary sources.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
Guy (JzG)
On 02/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
Yes, this is a good call. I will remove the section in question again (and link to this discussion in the list archives from the talk page).
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree.
Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or usable comprehensive secondary sources.
-Phil
On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree.
Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or usable comprehensive secondary sources.
-Phil
We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our purpose as an encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
Agreed. Allowing "straightforward interpretation" guts NOR. What is straightforward, and what is over the line? What if I think my interpretation is straightforward and you don't? And why should we be fulfilling (or usurping) the role of secondary sources-distinguishing not only what is true and factual, but is important and relevant?
Seraphimblade
On 4/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree.
Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or usable comprehensive secondary sources.
-Phil
We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our purpose as an encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Agreed. Allowing "straightforward interpretation" guts NOR. What is straightforward, and what is over the line? What if I think my interpretation is straightforward and you don't? And why should we be fulfilling (or usurping) the role of secondary sources-distinguishing not only what is true and factual, but is important and relevant?
I am not sure how the requirement for editorial judgment guts this or any other policy.
-Phil
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Agreed. Allowing "straightforward interpretation" guts NOR.
Not allowing it guts everything. The classic example is saying that someone is a female lawyer when the sources separately say that they are female and a lawyer. To claim the person is a female lawyer is to draw an inference (in this case, using a logical conjunction) that is not in the source material. We *have* to allow such things. It makes no sense not to.
What is straightforward, and what is over the line? What if I think my interpretation is straightforward and you don't?
The same thing you do if Wikipedians disagree about anything else. We routinely make decisions which include some degree of personal judgment; why should "is this straightforward?" not be one of them?
On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:56 AM, John Lee wrote:
On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree.
Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or usable comprehensive secondary sources.
-Phil
We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our purpose as an encyclopaedia.
Yes, but no prior encyclopedia has had the onerous requirement of sourcing every statement either. They generally were content to pay experts some money and get tertiary sources. This is possible because the expert can fill in the holes and gaps between the secondary sources with their own judgment and knowledge, which is itself, functionally, a secondary source.
We've abandoned the experts-write-articles method. We can't fetishize sources at the same time.
-Phil
On 4/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our purpose as an encyclopaedia.
The assertion that we must always be a tertiary source has been made before, and has failed to achieve consensus.
-Matt
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:43:59 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree. Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or usable comprehensive secondary sources.
So: the user looks at the logo, states that it's a shield, *therefore* it is a shield of arms, *therefore* it requires to be approved, it is not on the list, *therefore* it is not approved, *therefore* it is not pukka. There are enough links in the chain of logic there from source to conclusion that it's reasonable in this case to require some secondary sources.
Look up a fact? No problem. Join the dots from a series of facts you looked up? Original research, in my book.
Guy (JzG)
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
- d.
On Apr 2, 2007, at 1:18 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
Or, if you dislike my previous response, David's does just as well. ;)
-Phil
On 4/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
- d.
It's an unfortunate truth that many of our editors aren't exactly capable of exercising good editorial judgment. Also, while I disagree that we should replace editorial discretion with rules, it's certainly non-contestable that WP is never the right place for the role of "first reporter".
The solution, I think, is to stay true to NOR as it has always been: don't use primary sources unless you are using them to present a non-novel interpretation.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 4/3/07, David Gerard wrote:
On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade wrote:
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
It's an unfortunate truth that many of our editors aren't exactly capable of exercising good editorial judgment. Also, while I disagree that we should replace editorial discretion with rules, it's certainly non-contestable that WP is never the right place for the role of "first reporter".
The solution, I think, is to stay true to NOR as it has always been: don't use primary sources unless you are using them to present a non-novel interpretation.
At least this is an improvement over those who seem intent Nobody is arguing in favour of being "first reporter", which would be about creating primary sources. The discussion is about using primary sources. The likely result of a fixation on secondary sources is that those sources would be preferred even when they contradict the primary source.
Ec
On 4/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
100% agreed with David here.
I'd add that any sufficiently complex system of rules can be rules-lawyered by the intelligent and nitpicky to allow results not anticipated by the rules' crafters.
-Matt
One can use editorial judgment regarding how to present sourced information coherently and logically without original research.
On 4/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
100% agreed with David here.
I'd add that any sufficiently complex system of rules can be rules-lawyered by the intelligent and nitpicky to allow results not anticipated by the rules' crafters.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/2/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
One can use editorial judgment regarding how to present sourced information coherently and logically without original research.
One certainly can; in fact, David, Phil & I are stating that. Others, to my mind, were sailing pretty close to denying that any editorial judgment should be exercised.
-Matt
Seraphim Blade wrote:
One can use editorial judgment regarding how to present sourced information coherently and logically without original research.
Quite true, I've never felt otherwise.
But why can this only apply to secondary sources (as you appear to imply in some of your other postings on this thread) and not also primary ones? I've done plenty of work on Wikipedia with primary sources that's required editorial judgment and I can't think of any instances where it's been disputed.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 4/2/07, David Gerard wrote:
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
100% agreed with David here.
I'd add that any sufficiently complex system of rules can be rules-lawyered by the intelligent and nitpicky to allow results not anticipated by the rules' crafters.
That likelihood increases with the volume of rules.
Ec
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:18:17 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Yup. Sadly, without rules like that, the editors who self-evidently lack Clue will fight tooth and nail to keep crap, on the grounds that there is no policy which says it must go.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/2/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Yup. Sadly, without rules like that, the editors who self-evidently lack Clue will fight tooth and nail to keep crap, on the grounds that there is no policy which says it must go.
Unfortunately, creating policy that works with such people is a constant whac-a-mole, and with unfortunate side effects to editors with clue.
-Matt
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:18:17 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle course.
Yup. Sadly, without rules like that, the editors who self-evidently lack Clue will fight tooth and nail to keep crap, on the grounds that there is no policy which says it must go.
I think it's more likely that they disagree with the premise that it actually _is_ crap. And they very well might be right since labeling something "crap" can be highly subjective. Assume good faith, please.
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:51:55 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I think it's more likely that they disagree with the premise that it actually _is_ crap. And they very well might be right since labeling something "crap" can be highly subjective. Assume good faith, please.
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:51:55 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I think it's more likely that they disagree with the premise that it actually _is_ crap. And they very well might be right since labeling something "crap" can be highly subjective. Assume good faith, please.
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)
You'd be wrong. A video game aficionado could well find our articles about video game characters to be the most interesting and useful content on all of Wikipedia. Personally, I hate horror movies and yet I find Wikipedia's articles about current and upcoming horror movies to be extremely useful; when I see an ad for one with a seemingly interesting premise I can read the plot outline on Wikipedia and satisfy my curiosity without having to watch any of it. So who's to judge?
Fred Bauder wrote:
It would be common sense to adopt this position. I support it. Why
should be deny >users the right to add what they know? Published or not?
Go look at your Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case for your answer. (Or for that matter, most arbitration cases.) All those editors, every one of them, are -adding what they know-. And I guarantee you, they KNOW it, you could never convince one of them that everything they're writing is not 100% true and factual. That's why we should stick to what we can verify, not what we know.
Seraphimblade
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:31:05 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)
You'd be wrong.
Not really. Personal essays are not allowed by policy, after all.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:31:05 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)
You'd be wrong.
Not really. Personal essays are not allowed by policy, after all.
You're shifting the goalposts from the subject of the article to the quality and style of the writing in it, reread the part of my response that you snipped and that should be clear. It's a fallacy along the lines of "pies laced with arsenic are dangerous, ergo we should ban pies."
An article about a video game character that's in the form of a personal essay should be rewritten to match our manual of style, not necessarily deleted. There could well be plenty of useful information in it retained in the resulting article so the original essay isn't necessarily "crap".
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:42:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)
You'd be wrong.
Not really. Personal essays are not allowed by policy, after all.
You're shifting the goalposts from the subject of the article to the quality and style of the writing in it, reread the part of my response that you snipped and that should be clear. It's a fallacy along the lines of "pies laced with arsenic are dangerous, ergo we should ban pies."
Not really. I was treating the concept as a whole: personal essays on the character traits of video game characters. Every such essay I have seen has sucked royally. I don't discount the possibility that properly cited encyclopaedic treatment of the same subject may be possible, and it would be quite refreshing to see such a section.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:42:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap :-)
You'd be wrong.
Not really. Personal essays are not allowed by policy, after all.
You're shifting the goalposts from the subject of the article to the quality and style of the writing in it, reread the part of my response that you snipped and that should be clear. It's a fallacy along the lines of "pies laced with arsenic are dangerous, ergo we should ban pies."
Not really. I was treating the concept as a whole: personal essays on the character traits of video game characters. Every such essay I have seen has sucked royally. I don't discount the possibility that properly cited encyclopaedic treatment of the same subject may be possible, and it would be quite refreshing to see such a section.
And again you've snipped the portion of my reply where I addressed that very issue. Go ahead and rewrite the essay, I've never had a problem with that. My objection is to your claim that you can determine the objective crappitude of it. A well-written personal essay could well contain plenty of useful material to be incorporated into the article, and even a poorly-written one could have a few tidbits. Outright deletion is not the best approach.
Also, could you perhaps explain how this is relevant to the university crest and top gear issues? We seem to be drifting here.
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:18:42 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And again you've snipped the portion of my reply where I addressed that very issue. Go ahead and rewrite the essay, I've never had a problem with that. My objection is to your claim that you can determine the objective crappitude of it. A well-written personal essay could well contain plenty of useful material to be incorporated into the article, and even a poorly-written one could have a few tidbits. Outright deletion is not the best approach.
You say. I say the best approach to personal essays is indeed to remove them. Both legitimate Wikiphilosophies.
Also, could you perhaps explain how this is relevant to the university crest and top gear issues? We seem to be drifting here.
Wooo, topic drift. That's never happened before.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:42:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
What, like the personal essays on character traits of various characters in video games? I would say that is *objectively* crap
:-)
You'd be wrong.
Not really. Personal essays are not allowed by policy, after all.
You're shifting the goalposts from the subject of the article to the quality and style of the writing in it, reread the part of my response that you snipped and that should be clear. It's a fallacy along the lines of "pies laced with arsenic are dangerous, ergo we should ban
pies."
Not really. I was treating the concept as a whole: personal essays on the character traits of video game characters. * Every such essay I have seen has sucked royally.* I don't discount the possibility that properly cited encyclopaedic treatment of the same subject may be possible, and it would be quite refreshing to see such a section.
Guy (JzG)
They do suck royally. I've worked with a couple of pop culture topics on FAC, with editors willing to work hard, and the results have been spectacular, with articles even my grandmother could read, understand and appreciate. Editors think allowing them to put their crap on-line at Wikipedia (crap including their game character analysis, COI biographies, and their resumes) is doing them a favor--I think it's conspiring against them to make them look like shit.
On the other hand, damn people get hostile when you ask for a citation, or reference book. Once more I am told that a definition is "self-evident" and doesn't need a dictionary. My my.
KP
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:03:09 -0700, "K P" kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
They do suck royally. I've worked with a couple of pop culture topics on FAC, with editors willing to work hard, and the results have been spectacular, with articles even my grandmother could read, understand and appreciate. Editors think allowing them to put their crap on-line at Wikipedia (crap including their game character analysis, COI biographies, and their resumes) is doing them a favor--I think it's conspiring against them to make them look like shit.
Amen to that. I have nothing against popular culture articles. Nothing much, anyway. What I hate is articles that duplicate the same speculative bullshit you get on game guide websites. Wikipedia is supposed to be better than that. we aspire to be an actual encyclopaedia, you know, with references and shit.
Guy (JzG)
On 4/2/07, Seraphim Blade seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an article, you use information in reliable secondary sources.
We use our editorial judgment all the time. Without that, our articles would simply become fact and citation dumps, free of any organization or coherence.
We are not a database.
-Matt
Seraphim Blade wrote:
NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first?
Giving the original research rule a double role in this way is bad for two reasons:
- it is hard enough to work out where we want the boundary of this rule to be considering either one of the jobs separately;
- using the existence of published sources as a central way to judge relevance and importance is a recipe for systematic bias.
That isn't to say that the existence of published sources isn't a sensible way to help make decisions about relevance and importance. But there's no good reason to suppose that we should be using the same criteria for the decision about when a statement is sufficiently obvious that we can make it without giving a reference and the decision about when a statement is significant enough to mention.
-M-
On 02/04/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It'd be much easier for someone to write a letter to the Old Latymerians (or whatever) newsletter complaining about it, and cite that ;-)
Heh. Well, I shall probably inquire with them myself.