Ray Saintonge wrote
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
It's
hard to know what brought on this personal attack. If there is
anything "subtly misleading" in my posts let him present the facts that
support that. Otherwise, I can only assume that Charles' statement was
made out of the sheer pleasure of being argumentative.
Ray
Went through my Trash folder, results appended (my comments in [ ]).
Charles
Thank you; so now let's go through these one-by-one.
>*We have no need to be strict about notability. [Oh really]
Notability is mostly subjective, and the occasional
non-notable article
will probably not be noticed because it is non-notable. Nothing
misleading about that.
It is utterly misleading that WP does not need to be strict about notability. For example,
we would be overwhelmed by CV type entries if we did not delete them. 'Occasional not
notable article' hardly compares withe daily thousands posted and correctly deleted.
Are we on the same planet?
>*Having "non-encyclopedic topics"
(whatever that means) does not make us a worse encyclopaedia. [Not ?whatever that means?]
Ditto. Notable and encyclopedic are very similar
concepts. Not misleading.
Well, this is chop-logic. "Non-encyclopedic topics" make an _encyclopedia_
worse.
>*>>Scientific papers are secondary sources.
The experimental or
>>>observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
>>The data is usually published in the paper, so
the paper is the primary source.
Another
non-sequitur. [Silly quibble with Thomas Dalrton.]
No doubt that I have frequently disagreed with Tom. If A is the primary
source, and B utilizes A that does not make B a primary source. There is
nothing misleading about a logical analysis of the statements.
Well, it was a useless quibble. While a lab notebook is a 'primary' source, it is
not a published source. From WP's point of view only published sources count, as we
all know.
>*Idolatry is not a valid basis for argument.
[Personal attack on Steve Bennett or stevertigo, or someone]
The response was to stevertigo; Steve Bennett had mad
an intermediate
comment. The comment was in the nature of "If Jimbo says it it must be
right". "Idolatry" is ad rem since it refers to the statement;
"idolator" would have been ad hominem. The wording was perhaps a bit
strong, but strong comments are anything but misleading.
Actually this is part of your continuing sly denigration of Jimbo, suggesting that those
who support do not do so this side of claims of infallibility.
>*I think your response is just another way of
saying that you do not know. [Sort of personal attack or sniping at stevertigo]
I remember writing that, and it was perhaps a tad
sarcastic, but since I
forget what I was responding to, I will not comment at this point about
whether it was misleading.
It was.
>*Much of what is said to the media in a first
instance (is) off the cuff and not necessarily supported by a broad consensus. [Well, an
individual is being interviewed.]
The media look for sound-bytes, and when people are
caught unawares it
is very easy to say things that have not been thought through. The media
hate dead air, and people often feel obliged to say something when
things get too silent. Those who are media savvy will of course do
better. Nothing misleading in that.
The whole point of interviewing technique is to get people into territory where they are
spontaneous rather rehearsed. Misdirection. (I was interviewed at short notice by ABC,
BTW.)
>*Stonewalling is indeed an effective tactic. The
only problem with it is that it pisses people off just as effectively. [Silence is golden,
you know. Contradicts the ?off the cuff? comment, too.]
That was not necessarily in relation to the media.
Government officials
can be very adept at this when they don't want to admit anything. It's a
part of being media savvy, and the media savvy do not get trapped into
off-the-cuff remarks. Again, not misleading.
You want it both ways, really
>*[>Because the topic of Wikipedia's
governance and processes of control
>
>
>>are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting
>>the project than helping it.
>>
>>
>That's like saying that democracy is too precious to be put under the
>control of the general population. [Oh really. Arguing with stevertigo again. Trolls
really do go wild about constitutional definitions.]
If you say that was in response to stevevertigo
I'll believe you; the
banter does tend to go in series of comments. IIRC the argument had just
been made in favour of limiting participation in governace discussions
on the above basis. When you start limiting participation out of a
prejudged fear that some participants might be trolls my comment is
perfectly applicable. If there are trolls identify them and deal with
them individually rather than acting out of fear that they might be
there. Nothing misleading about that.
Evasive.
>*>And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the
best analogy for the
>
>
>>English Wikipedia at the moment.
>>
>>
>Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy. [He wasn?t a
constitutional monarch, as you know. Seems to be sniping at Jimbo now.]
There was an intervening comment that lacked the
adjective
"constitutional". Perhaps the allusion was a little sharp, but it was
not misleading.
Oh, you weren't threatening Jimbo with beheading, then? Some of us might have been
misled.
>*When a process becomes backlogged it is evidently
not scaling well. [No.]
Perhaps it might have been better if I had said
"chronically backlogged"
If the in-box keeps filling up faster than the outbos we need more
effective processes. Not misleading.
No, backlogged processes on WP are to do with volunteer priorities. They more often
indicate that the need is not clearly seen. People redeploy when persuaded the work
matters. You are quite wrong about this.
*>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
>
>
>>suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on
>>how public the figure is. For non-public figures, it says "material
>>
>>
>>from primary sources should generally not be used," whereas for public
>>figures it says "material from primary sources should be used with
>>care" though that is under the heading "Presumption in favor of
>>privacy".
>Court judgements (and, for that matter, court
filings by the disputants,
>and even trial transcripts) are a matter of public record. This is an
>important component to maintaining the transparency of the judicial
>system. Privacy should not be a factor with this kind of material. [Privacy is
written into WP:BLP, so this is not the point at all.]
We evidently are using different interpretations of
"privacy". As I see
it information that is already available to the public is not private.
You have chosen a different definition. Failure to agree to your
definition does not make my comments misleading.
The 'living persons' policy is very clearly againt, for example, non-salient
inclusions of minor legal involvements. This is what matters.
>*Being "not supposed to do it" is not a
strong enough excuse for not
>doing it. One shouldn't become doctrinnaire about sources when an
>article is just started; that only quashes the inspiration to do
>something. [Wrong. And somewhat wrong.]
All that says is that rules should be applied flexibly
to suit the
circumstances. Articles need time to grow, and immediately sourcing
facts is more importasnt in some areas of knowledge than others. I've
been consistent in my view so there is nothing misleading about it.
It is misleading to say one should not consider sources in starting an article: of course
one should. Absent reliable sources, one shouldn't start the article. The sources
don't need all to be in the first draft (we can agree that much).
>*Fractal systems incorporate a lot of randomness.
[Tosh. They may or may not.]
You can never be sure where new structures will
develop. Not misleading.
No, you are just abusing the term 'fractal', which means something quite
different.
>* I do not believe that reliability should be or
even can be one of our goals. [Really.]
Really! Although we should always be ttrying to
improve the content, we
also need to disavow people of reliability. That will encourage them to
seek additional sources. Not misleading.
You argued a few days ago that schools articles would be useful to parents. Tell me, are
parents looking for reliable information or some other kind? You want it both ways, once
more. Reliability _is_ one of our goals, and a disclaimer about it doesn't change
that. Misdirection.
*The queen
retains her power by not exercisiing it. [Bad history ? 1973 general election.]
In which country? There was no UK general election that year. I tried to
look it up to find out what you were talking about. Once in 55 years
does not exactly make her a radical interventionist. Nevertheless,
"using it sparingly" might have been more precise wording, but the
general tone stands, and is not misleading.
Sorry, I meant 1974. She used precise constitutional powers, to keep Wilson out of 10
Downing Street, while Ted Heath tried to form a coalition. Misleading to say the powers
are not used.
>*A statistical mathematical model should be
capable of marginalizing the effect that idiots have on the article. [Or not.]
Statistics allows for exceptions. When a single vote
makes the
difference between winning and losing the trolls can matter much more
than if their votes are burid in a larger pattern of voting The idea
might be radical but it's not misleading.
Statistical ideas are more likely to be gamed than just about any others. Quite
misconceived.
>*The alternative would be for the reporters to
learn what putting Wikipedia in proper perspective means. They might even have to check
their facts. That would not be the easy way out for them. [Implication that our coverage
suffers from a lack of professionalism. Anyone believe this is helpful?]
Your implication is not mine. Reporters will be happy
with Wikipedia as
long as they can easily use the material in their work. They still need
to check their facts. When they don't and the Wikipedia article that
they use turns out to be one that has been subtly vandalized, they are
more likely to blame Wikipedia than to take responsibility for their own
action. This seems to be what happened with the publicity folders for
Sioux Lookout. If anyone's professionalism is being criticized it's that
of the reporters. Not at all misleading.
You switch cheerfully from 'putting WP into proper perspective' (reporting about
WP) to reporters using WP as a source (something quite other) and then to 'Sioux
Lookout', which was PR work not journalism, wasn't it? Quite an intellect
mish-mash.
Well, I say it again, IMO you post industrial quantities of this kind of chop-logic and
misdirecting stuff to this list.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam