In this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University It seems that VERIFIABILITY : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png This policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policiesin a nutshell: *Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Articles should cite these sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITEwhenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:
* *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*
- *It is relevant to the organization's notability;* - *It is not contentious;* - *It is not unduly self-serving;* - *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;* - *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*
Please clarify this. Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's image, is this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.
On 10/19/06, Luis Alberto Riveros riveros11@gmail.com wrote:
In this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University It seems that VERIFIABILITY : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png This policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policiesin a nutshell: *Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Articles should cite these sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITEwhenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:
- *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of
dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*
- *It is relevant to the organization's notability;*
- *It is not contentious;*
- *It is not unduly self-serving;*
- *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not
directly related to the subject;*
- *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*
Please clarify this. Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's image, is this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.
You bring up a valid point.
I cringe every time I see one of our "respected admins" reverting someone with an edit summary along the lines of "no blogs allowed" for instance...
Parker
Blogs are often self-serving or a platform for fringe opinions. People using self-published sources are usually out to promote their opinion instead of offering an unbiased article. These rules seem pretty clear and non-contradictory to me.
Mgm
On 10/19/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/06, Luis Alberto Riveros riveros11@gmail.com wrote:
In this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
It seems that VERIFIABILITY : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png This policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policiesin a nutshell: *Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Articles should cite these sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITEwhenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:
- *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of
dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*
- *It is relevant to the organization's notability;*
- *It is not contentious;*
- *It is not unduly self-serving;*
- *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events
not
directly related to the subject;*
- *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*
Please clarify this. Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's
image,
is this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.
You bring up a valid point.
I cringe every time I see one of our "respected admins" reverting someone with an edit summary along the lines of "no blogs allowed" for instance...
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Blogs are often self-serving or a platform for fringe opinions. People using self-published sources are usually out to promote their opinion instead of offering an unbiased article. These rules seem pretty clear and non-contradictory to me.
And often they are part of the reporting of a reputable news organization. Self-published blogs should be treated like self-published books, news blogs from a reputable news organization should be treated like other material from that reputable news organization.
Sorry for the hijack, but I just keep seeing the simplistic formulation of blog=bad over and over again, either by people who parrot policy and can't distinguish the two, or by people who use policy to further their agendas.
For example, I would have no qualms about using the Writer Beware blog as a source. It's an important part of the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America), a notable organisation in literature. I also wouldn't have problems with the blogs of reputed directors blogging about the filming process of their new work or the blog at the Newsround website. Random "My Life" blogs however, are not acceptable. Unfortunately, the distinction isn't always easy, especially when the notability of the person writing the blog (about themselves) is in question.
Self-published books aren't neccesarily bad sources either. I've heard about 2 guys who are writing a jazz encyclopedia and publishing it on Lulu. It might be a self-published source, but it won't promote their opinion. I'd see no harm in using their work as a source and I'm sure I'd have the same feelings with other self-published books.
Mgm
On 10/19/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Blogs are often self-serving or a platform for fringe opinions. People using self-published sources are usually out to promote their
opinion
instead of offering an unbiased article. These rules seem pretty clear
and
non-contradictory to me.
And often they are part of the reporting of a reputable news organization. Self-published blogs should be treated like self-published books, news blogs from a reputable news organization should be treated like other material from that reputable news organization.
Sorry for the hijack, but I just keep seeing the simplistic formulation of blog=bad over and over again, either by people who parrot policy and can't distinguish the two, or by people who use policy to further their agendas. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Self-published books aren't neccesarily bad sources either. I've heard about 2 guys who are writing a jazz encyclopedia and publishing it on Lulu. It might be a self-published source, but it won't promote their opinion. I'd see no harm in using their work as a source and I'm sure I'd have the same feelings with other self-published books.
If it is self-published by recognized authorites in a field, I don't see anything wrong with using it as a source, absolutely. Broad categories of anything shouldn't be treated as automatically good or bad. That's the problem, people aren't making these kinds of distinctions and instead are acting like, as David Gerard put it, "insane robots" mechanically repeating a sentence from a policy page.
Please see [[Larry Craig]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
There are rumors being commented about, but not on the mainstream press, based on a blog post and there is a dispute if [[WP:BLP]] should apply here or not.
My view is that we need to err on the side of caution and apply WP:BLP. That is why that policy was created. Wikipedia should not be a place to help the spreading of rumors. I do not want an article in the mainstream media that crtitizes our project for doing such a thing. Erring on the side of caution is the responsible thing to do in this case.
Your comments in talk page would be appreciated.
-- Jossi
On 10/19/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Please see [[Larry Craig]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
There are rumors being commented about, but not on the mainstream press, based on a blog post and there is a dispute if [[WP:BLP]] should apply here or not.
My view is that we need to err on the side of caution and apply WP:BLP. That is why that policy was created. Wikipedia should not be a place to help the spreading of rumors. I do not want an article in the mainstream media that crtitizes our project for doing such a thing. Erring on the side of caution is the responsible thing to do in this case.
There is a case to be made either way, I think, and that is a legitimate issue to be discussed, and it's one I've gone back and forth on in my internal dialogue as well as on the talk page. But it's just absolutely not true that it has not been discussed in the mainstream press and I find it frustrating that you keep repeating this false assertion, especially when your other comments on the matter are thoughtful and responsible.
On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Rob wrote:
There is a case to be made either way, I think, and that is a legitimate issue to be discussed, and it's one I've gone back and forth on in my internal dialogue as well as on the talk page. But it's just absolutely not true that it has not been discussed in the mainstream press and I find it frustrating that you keep repeating this false assertion, especially when your other comments on the matter are thoughtful and responsible.
If you refer to this: : http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml ... I would suggest you read it.
-- Jossi
On 10/19/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Rob wrote:
There is a case to be made either way, I think, and that is a legitimate issue to be discussed, and it's one I've gone back and forth on in my internal dialogue as well as on the talk page. But it's just absolutely not true that it has not been discussed in the mainstream press and I find it frustrating that you keep repeating this false assertion, especially when your other comments on the matter are thoughtful and responsible.
If you refer to this: : http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml ... I would suggest you read it.
You know I've read it. I said so when you asked me the same thing on the talk page, and I also posted a link to it there myself before you asked me the first time. And this doesn't address my point at all.
On 10/19/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Rob wrote:
You know I've read it.
Sorry, Rob, I missed to notice that you are Gamaliel.
No harm done, I didn't realize that people might miss that. I should start signing my posts.
Gamaliel
On 10/20/06, jf_wikipedia@mac.com jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Oct 19, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Rob wrote:
There is a case to be made either way, I think, and that is a legitimate issue to be discussed, and it's one I've gone back and forth on in my internal dialogue as well as on the talk page. But it's just absolutely not true that it has not been discussed in the mainstream press and I find it frustrating that you keep repeating this false assertion, especially when your other comments on the matter are thoughtful and responsible.
If you refer to this: : http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml ... I would suggest you read it.
This is an unusual case. If I may make a brief summary from what I've read:
a) Some guy publishes rumours on his blog, and mentions them while on a radio show b) A small newspaper [1] takes the unusual step of running the rumours c) The rumours spiral through the blogosphere d) The mainstream media publishes opinion pieces using the story to comment on the nature of rumours in the new media [2]
So the real story is not about Craig at all. The rumours remain rumours - the attention they have received from all parts of the media has been exclusively "Mike Rogers said this". Other people saying that someone said something doesn't really change the fact that only they said it.
We could have a sentence in Craig's article saying "in October, Mike Rogers claimed in his blog that Craig was gay". But would that really be responsible? How notable is Rogers? Blogs are acceptable sources *for the opinions only* of notable people, but what good reason is there to publish Rogers' opinion?
We could have a paragraph in Craig's article describing the controversy, including how the Spokesman-Review ran the story and the mainstream commentary on the whole business. But would that be appropriate from a BLP perspective? The real story is only peripherally about Craig.
My view is that we should have a nice objective paragraph *about the controversy around reporting the rumours* (not about the rumours themselves) in [[The Spokesman-Review]] article, or perhaps the article on Rogers (if he should actually have an article).
---- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spokesman-Review (2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2006-10-19-raasch_x.ht..., http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml
Stephen Bain wrote:
We could have a paragraph in Craig's article describing the controversy, including how the Spokesman-Review ran the story and the mainstream commentary on the whole business. But would that be appropriate from a BLP perspective? The real story is only peripherally about Craig.
If someone encounters the rumors about Craig and is curious about them, I expect the first place they'll look is the page about Craig. So if this rumor really is very popular and widespread IMO it's quite reasonable to at least mention it on Craig's page, ideally providing a link to another article where details about the "real story" can be found (probably [[The Spokesman-Review]], I would guess).
Disclaimer, this opinion is based entirely on your description of the situation.
On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
We could have a paragraph in Craig's article describing the controversy, including how the Spokesman-Review ran the story and the mainstream commentary on the whole business. But would that be appropriate from a BLP perspective? The real story is only peripherally about Craig.
If someone encounters the rumors about Craig and is curious about them, I expect the first place they'll look is the page about Craig. So if this rumor really is very popular and widespread IMO it's quite reasonable to at least mention it on Craig's page, ideally providing a link to another article where details about the "real story" can be found (probably [[The Spokesman-Review]], I would guess).
Disclaimer, this opinion is based entirely on your description of the situation.
There is no harm in waiting a few days and see what happens with that story. There is no rush, really.
-- Jossi
On 10/20/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
There is no harm in waiting a few days and see what happens with that story. There is no rush, really.
Meanwhile, I started to actually clean up the article with respect to sourcing. Is it me or are our American political biographies just totally awful? I removed a paragraph saying
On September 28, 2006, Craig voted to suspend [[habeas corpus]] provisions for anyone deemed by the Executive Branch an "unlawful combatant," barring them from challenging their detentions in court. Craig's vote gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, permitting the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005. Craig authorized the President to establish permissible interrogation techniques and to "interpret the meaning and application" of international [[Geneva Convention]] standards, so long as the coercion fell short of serious bodily or psychological injury.
And someone is actually trying to defend this garbage on the talk page! Also HE VOTED AGAINST CUDDLY ANIMALS.
Abigail Brady wrote: <snip>
Also HE VOTED AGAINST CUDDLY ANIMALS.
Oh, well that does it then. I'll order a Level 14 Cabalstrike.