Hi,
there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
"Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the best."
It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used by Oliver is this:
-- The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28, 2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the best." --
A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready to start an "edit war".
My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons not to have the quote in the article:
* We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments". * The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then, too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case, can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever? * Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.
In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].
Regards,
Erik
This seems better suited to a /Talk page?
Erik Moeller wrote:
Hi,
there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
"Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the best."
It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used by Oliver is this:
-- The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28, 2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the best." --
A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready to start an "edit war".
My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons not to have the quote in the article:
- We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on
the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments".
- The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add
another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then, too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case, can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever?
- Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is
non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.
In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].
Regards,
Erik
-- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
This seems better suited to a /Talk page?
I agree. But since Erik Moeller has made misleading claims about me on this mailing list, could I please be allowed to correct them? Most people here won't bother to look at the Talk page in question, and I don't want them thinking that I am responsible for an edit war.
Firstly, I have never insisted on keeping the quote in the article. I have made only one edit to the article itself, and that was before the quote was removed. I simply reverted the quote to its original state, as someone had added some vandalism about "having you-know-what" with Ms. Sweeney. My subsequent comments at the Village pump and on the article's Talk page actually agreed that the quote should be removed, albeit a little ambivalently (containing a "maybe" and an "I suppose" respectively).
It was only *after* Arno had put the quote back into the article that I proposed - in the Talk page, not in the article itself - my compromise wording, which simply makes a verifiable statement (albeit an arguably unencyclopaedic one) about the history of the article.
Neither I nor Tom Parmenter have made any edits to the article in question since the quote was removed, and neither of us can be held responsible for the subsequent edit war between Arno and Eloquence.
Sorry to clog up the mailing list with this, but I felt that a public defence had to be made against a public complaint. Further comments, if necessary, to the Talk page...
Oliver
Erik Moeller wrote:
Hi,
there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
"Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the best."
It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used by Oliver is this:
-- The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28, 2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the best." --
A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready to start an "edit war".
My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons not to have the quote in the article:
- We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on
the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments".
- The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add
another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then, too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case, can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever?
- Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is
non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible.
In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]].
Regards,
Erik
-- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f�r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
This seems better suited to a /Talk page?
I agree. But since Erik Moeller has made misleading claims about me on this mailing list, could I please be allowed to correct them? Most people here won't bother to look at the Talk page in question, and I don't want them thinking that I am responsible for an edit war.
Oliver,
it is correct that you did not insert the quote in the actual article, although it was my understanding that you intended to do so if there were no objections against your latest proposal (otherwise, why did you make it?). My problem here is that you and Tom are sending mixed messages to new contributors that do not at all help them to understand our established policy of adding only verifiable, relevant facts to articles. In that way, you are also responsible if Arno now (possibly repeatedly) violates that policy and others have to fix it.
It would help a lot if you could put a clear and non-ambiguous note on the Talk page stating that you do not want the quote to be part of the article, and that Arno should abstain from adding it. That's all I'm asking for.
Regards,
Erik
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
My problem here is that you and Tom are sending mixed messages to new contributors that do not at all help them to understand our established policy of adding only verifiable, relevant facts to articles. In that way, you are also responsible if Arno now (possibly repeatedly) violates that policy and others have to fix it.
In general, I think that discussing all sides of a debate on a Talk page, and attempting to come up with a compromise, is precisely how to *avoid* edit wars. Just my point of view, of course. :)
Oliver
P.S. - I have now added a note to the [[Talk:Madeline Amy Sweeney]] page saying that I support your decision to remove the quote from the article. However, I reserve the right to change my mind on any subject at any time... :)
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
Oliver wrote:
In general, I think that discussing all sides of a debate on a Talk page, and attempting to come up with a compromise, is precisely how to *avoid* edit wars. Just my point of view, of course. :)
That's what I tried to do, but since we were arguing back and forth with no clear result and Arno did not even participate in the discussion, the mailing list seemed to be like the next most reasonable choice. That's what wikien-l is for -- resolving conflicts on the English Wikipedia by getting other people's opinions.
P.S. - I have now added a note to the [[Talk:Madeline Amy Sweeney]] page saying that I support your decision to remove the quote from the article.
Thanks.
Regards,
Erik
wikikarma [[Stewardess]] |From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: 23 Jan 2003 22:21:00 +0100 | |Oliver wrote: | |> In general, I think that discussing all sides of a debate on a Talk page, |> and attempting to come up with a compromise, is precisely how to *avoid* |> edit wars. Just my point of view, of course. :) | |That's what I tried to do, but since we were arguing back and forth with |no clear result and Arno did not even participate in the discussion, the |mailing list seemed to be like the next most reasonable choice. That's |what wikien-l is for -- resolving conflicts on the English Wikipedia by |getting other people's opinions. | |> P.S. - I have now added a note to the [[Talk:Madeline Amy Sweeney]] page |> saying that I support your decision to remove the quote from the article. | |Thanks. | |Regards, | |Erik |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Erik Moeller wrote:
That's what I tried to do, but since we were arguing back and forth with no clear result and Arno did not even participate in the discussion, the mailing list seemed to be like the next most reasonable choice. That's what wikien-l is for -- resolving conflicts on the English Wikipedia by getting other people's opinions.
I'm not going to enforce this, obviously, but my preference is that we don't bring conflicts to the mailing list as quickly as this one was brought. The majority of discussions about what should be in an article should take place on the Talk: page for the article.
Things should only be 'elevated' to the mailing list when there's either an unresolved policy mystery that needs meta-analysis, or if someone is being a royal pain in the neck, or similar.
And in both the talk pages and on the mailing list, we should always operate under the most charitable reasonable assumption about the motives of others.
--Jimbo
I'm not going to enforce this, obviously, but my preference is that we don't bring conflicts to the mailing list as quickly as this one was brought.
1) Arno has, in spite of the newly noted consensus on the Talk page, re-added the quote. This proves that I was justified in my concerns, and that it was good to get quick opinions on the matter, for which the mailing list is optimal.
2) There is a policy question pertinent to this case, namely, whether anonymous, unverifiable quotes are OK in articles if they are attached for "sentimental" reasons. I think we have now concluded that they are not, which is good. It would help if the criterion of verifiability was adopted as a Litmus test for the inclusion of particular statements in Wikipedia.
3) Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be a "complete and accurate" encyclopedia. Regarding accuracy, it seems of utmost importance to me that any unverifiable or ideosyncratic information is treated with some amount of urgency, lest its presence be forgotten in the course of the page's history, especially when dealing with articles like this one which are not likely to be edited much.
4) Lastly, I fail to see how this case is any less proper than, say, the recent discussion of DW's rudeness. In fact, because of 1), 2) and 3), it seems to me that it is more proper and relevant to the purpose of this list. Thus, unless there are objections to the reasoning above, I will continue to use wikien-l in cases where it applies.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
- Lastly, I fail to see how this case is any less proper than, say,
the recent discussion of DW's rudeness. In fact, because of 1), 2) and 3), it seems to me that it is more proper and relevant to the purpose of this list. Thus, unless there are objections to the reasoning above, I will continue to use wikien-l in cases where it applies.
OK. Well, different people may have a different idea of how quickly specific things need to be brought to the mailing list. That's one reason why I won't even attempt to enforce my preferences. There are lots of judgment calls.
But I certainly think that there was no need for a mailing list discussion of whether or not it's o.k. to include an unverifiable quote in an article for "sentimental reasons". Obviously, it's not. We don't have to discuss things like that on the mailing list unless there's some sort of huge dustup about it.
I'm just suggesting that maybe the mailing list has a bit too much discussion of things that should be discussed on Talk: pages. Each of us may have our own ideas about what the line may be, but let's all please consider this.
--Jimbo
But I certainly think that there was no need for a mailing list discussion of whether or not it's o.k. to include an unverifiable quote in an article for "sentimental reasons". Obviously, it's not.
Unfortunately, it was not obvious to three other people in the discussion on the article's Talk: page.
Regards,
Erik
|From: Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de |X-Priority: 3 (Normal) |X-Authenticated-Sender: #0003262782@gmx.net |X-Authenticated-IP: [193.175.135.118] |X-Flags: 0001 |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:57:48 +0100 (MET) | |> But I certainly think that there was no need for a mailing list |> discussion of whether or not it's o.k. to include an unverifiable |> quote in an article for "sentimental reasons". Obviously, it's not. | |Unfortunately, it was not obvious to three other people in the discussion on |the article's Talk: page.
Excuse me, but that is *exactly* what the talk pages are for.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
| |Regards, | |Erik |
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On ĵaÅ, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a
vict im
of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ?
That, too, would be fine with me. However, the article as it is complies with Wikipedia policy, it's just the anonymous quote that bothers me.
Regards,
Erik
Brion Vibber wrote:
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote:
there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution:
I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Unless an individual had done something to merit encyclopedic entry before Sept. 11, I agree with Magnus and Brion that these obituaries should be moved.
Ec
|From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net |X-Accept-Language: en-us |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:01:51 -0800 | |Brion Vibber wrote: | |>On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-23 at 01:20, Erik Moeller wrote: |> |>>there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim |>>of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution: |>> |>I thought we were moving all these to the separate wiki at |>http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ ? |> |>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) |> |Unless an individual had done something to merit encyclopedic entry |before Sept. 11, I agree with Magnus and Brion that these obituaries |should be moved. | |Ec
[[Madeline Amy Sweeney]] called Air Traffic Control and relayed important information about the attacks to the ground while they were going on. Easily as important as [[Mohammed Atta]]. Her article needs more information, not banishment.
Tom P. O88
| |> | | | |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
I haven't insisted on it having the anonymous quote, nor have I engaged in any edit wars. I have maintained, on the talk pages only, that there's little or no harm in a sentimental quotation in an article that is largely sentimental. I decided to drop out of the discussion out of fear that any further contributions from me might take on the appearance of trolling.
I did notice in some of the news stories about this lady, who really did some amazing things as she was heading toward certain death, also included anonymous quotations. In poking around, it seems to me that the article needs beefing up as regards her genuine actions, and really belongs in the Wikipedia, while other 9-11 victims are more doubtful as encyclopedia subject.
Better to spend time on improving the article, and, say, working on an article, nonexistent at the moment, on the role of stewards and stewardesses on airliners. In the early days, they were required to be nurses, then the job became "waitress in the sky" as the song by The Replacements put it, then, post 9-11, the security role was thrust upon them, in large part because of the instinctive, responsible actions of people like Madeline Amy Sweeney.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de |X-Priority: 3 (Normal) |X-Authenticated-Sender: #0003262782@gmx.net |X-Authenticated-IP: [193.175.135.118] |X-Flags: 0001 |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:20:58 +0100 (MET) | |Hi, | |there's a problem with the article [[Madeline Amy Sweeney]], about a victim |of the Sep 11 attacks. This started out as an anonymous contribution: | |"Amy was a wonderful person to wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, |work hard and have fun with my job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, |because it was the best of the best." | |It was expanded, and the quote was removed. Oliver Perreira and Tom |Parmenter have insisted on keeping that quote in the article. The latest variant used |by Oliver is this: | |-- |The Wikipedia article on Madeline Amy Sweeney was started on November 28, |2001, with the following anonymous sentiment:- "Amy was a wonderful person to |wrok with. She inspired me to enjoy my life, work hard and have fun with my |job as an American Airlines Flight Attendant, because it was the best of the |best." |-- | |A new contributor named Arno also wants to keep the quote in, with the |remark "SPECIAL NOTE". Because he is encouraged by Tom and Oliver, he is now ready |to start an "edit war". | |My position is that, however touching this may be, there are several reasons |not to have the quote in the article: | |* We have a precedent here. On [[Wilson Flagg]] we have kept the comment on |the Talk page and linked to it, with the link name "Tributes and Comments". |* The anonymous quote is unverifiable. I could easily come along and add |another, similar quote to the article under an anonymous IP. Should that then, |too, be included because of its sentimental value? Or does the first quote get |priority because it was "the quote that started this article"? In that case, |can I come along and add new articles about Sep 11 victims with fake |anonymous quotes that are destined to remain in them forever? |* Any self-reference of the type "The Wikipedia article .." is |non-encyclopedic to the extreme and should be avoided whenever possible. | |In conclusion, I think it is obvious that we should keep the anonymous |comment on the Talk page, and not in the article. It would set an extremely bad |precedent if we allowed these kind of unverifiable comments in articles. I'd |like to hear more opinions on, preferably on the Talk page of the article |[[Madeline Amy Sweeney]]. | |Regards, | |Erik | |-- |+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ |NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f�r 1 ct/ Min. surfen! | |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |