This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dave Winer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
If you guys undo one more change without providing some proof I'll report you. DAVE DID NOT INVENT PODCASTING.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Quit telling me what to do and stop adding incorrect statements. There are people who founded large companies that don't have this much talk about their blogs and fake claims of inventing things. You guys are being rediculous.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, if you want any of those back, provide proof. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The "writer" section is clearly not worthy of being in the page. It is simply fluff meant to add credibility to the rest of the page. If you look at Steve Wozniak his personal site isn't mentioned, the same is true for other tech company heads.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If no one objects to this, here, I will consider it approval to edit the page. Any undoing will be considered vandalism.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 16:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Id like to get along, but some of this is obviously fluff and making some of the things hes done vastly more important than they were. Some of these share your OPML site type entries are for sites that were never popular and don't exist anymore. Bill Gates started a company before Microsoft, but its never got its own section. Lets be fair instead of promoting fluff.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 17:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) For example, Editthispage.com was a Userland site, not Dave's site.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm going to remove it. Your opinion is not important when it's a matter of fact.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Quit undoing things and calling them vandalism. If the statements are true they can be here. Quit trying to edit out anything negative. You act like children. You do not own Wikipedia and can't delete things that you simply don't like.
Its nice that this page is protected every time someone adds something that isn't flattering to Dave Winer. I would like to see anyone argue that Gawker and the other sources are not apropriate. There is nothing wrong with the edits I made, the people here are simply biased and childish. If you can show that any of the things added are untrue, please discuss it here rather than simply trying to force people to do as Mr. Winer asks.( Irelan12)
I would like to propose the Cybersquatting section for removal as it does not meet the notability criterion. Moreover, the headline of the article cited for support should disqualify that article from consideration as a reliable source. ARK ( talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is now the subject of a thread on the BLP noticeboard: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Winer. — Tom Morris ( talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the list of external links is undesirable. This page has been a source of friction over the years, however, and in some cases material that probably ought to be present in the main body has been relegated to this list out of sensitivity to the concerns of specific editors. I'd like to verify that the most useful links are properly connected to the main article before we simply delete the list. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This article has been nominated by an anonymous user to be checked for its neutrality. As the user offers no discussion of this nomination, I assume it can be ignored and the template should be removed. ARK ( talk) 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
We've had the "POV check" for 5 1/2 months; it's time to delete it. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Calling for a little outside attention to the article. I came here today to find out the role of this individual in some technological advances. The article is rich with detail, but limited in its broader perspective, in part because it relies so thoroughly on news reports (which do not have the persecutive or go deeply enough to be actual best sources for WP historical statements), and then, as well, it relies on substantial material, sourced and unacknowledged, that derives from the title subject. For these reasons, I have called for a technology expert to see if some Winer sources can be replaced with third-party, scholarly, secondary sources, to buttress stated importance of his contributions and innovations.
In course of doing this, an effort was made to begin the process of checking and completing citation to standard, esp. URL-only citations.
As well, I have made more transparent the lack of sourcing of some material to Winer sources (adding citation needed tags to clear autobiographical statements), and as a matter of principle and policy, have removed a variety of external links that were embedded in the text (turning them into formal sources). An inexplicable external link to a blog, of Winer's father, was removed, because it was unclear what this source was intended to convey. (Perhaps the externally linked blog was the blog of the father; regardless, it was not properly placed as a source, and was not a valid source for the fact that the gentleman named was Winer's father.
As well, the general issue is explained in this way, to include the indirect: It is clear that Mr Winer has initiated and participated in many efforts, organizations, and companies. When these organizations and companies produce informational materials about Winer efforts, products, etc. these sources of information are still, inherently under the control of the title subject (while he is at the helm of the effort), and so these are not independent, third-party sources, as called for under WP:VERIFY. Hence, these also do not contribute the perspective that is most needed (and called for via the expert tag), for this article.
Otherwise, in lessor matters, I combined two overly short sections containing related career content categories, made a section title to be "Family background and education" as this is more standard for BLP articles, added a "Personal life" section, to end, as per standard for biographies,
Finally, the reason for the "third-party" and BLP refimprove" tags was simply this: there was a complete lack of third-party sourcing in the Early life… section, and most material there was unsourced. And as I scanned elsewhere in the article, I noted that this bad habit of inserting unsourced sentences had begun to occur, in this otherwise well-researched article.
It is best we keep to standard, and not let the article begin to drift to the addition of stray unsourced statements. People's opinions and stray thoughts are fine, but they are not encyclopedic.
That is all, Press on. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dave Winer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on January 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
If you guys undo one more change without providing some proof I'll report you. DAVE DID NOT INVENT PODCASTING.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Quit telling me what to do and stop adding incorrect statements. There are people who founded large companies that don't have this much talk about their blogs and fake claims of inventing things. You guys are being rediculous.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, if you want any of those back, provide proof. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The "writer" section is clearly not worthy of being in the page. It is simply fluff meant to add credibility to the rest of the page. If you look at Steve Wozniak his personal site isn't mentioned, the same is true for other tech company heads.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If no one objects to this, here, I will consider it approval to edit the page. Any undoing will be considered vandalism.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 16:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Id like to get along, but some of this is obviously fluff and making some of the things hes done vastly more important than they were. Some of these share your OPML site type entries are for sites that were never popular and don't exist anymore. Bill Gates started a company before Microsoft, but its never got its own section. Lets be fair instead of promoting fluff.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 17:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) For example, Editthispage.com was a Userland site, not Dave's site.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm going to remove it. Your opinion is not important when it's a matter of fact.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Quit undoing things and calling them vandalism. If the statements are true they can be here. Quit trying to edit out anything negative. You act like children. You do not own Wikipedia and can't delete things that you simply don't like.
Its nice that this page is protected every time someone adds something that isn't flattering to Dave Winer. I would like to see anyone argue that Gawker and the other sources are not apropriate. There is nothing wrong with the edits I made, the people here are simply biased and childish. If you can show that any of the things added are untrue, please discuss it here rather than simply trying to force people to do as Mr. Winer asks.( Irelan12)
I would like to propose the Cybersquatting section for removal as it does not meet the notability criterion. Moreover, the headline of the article cited for support should disqualify that article from consideration as a reliable source. ARK ( talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is now the subject of a thread on the BLP noticeboard: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Winer. — Tom Morris ( talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the list of external links is undesirable. This page has been a source of friction over the years, however, and in some cases material that probably ought to be present in the main body has been relegated to this list out of sensitivity to the concerns of specific editors. I'd like to verify that the most useful links are properly connected to the main article before we simply delete the list. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This article has been nominated by an anonymous user to be checked for its neutrality. As the user offers no discussion of this nomination, I assume it can be ignored and the template should be removed. ARK ( talk) 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
We've had the "POV check" for 5 1/2 months; it's time to delete it. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Calling for a little outside attention to the article. I came here today to find out the role of this individual in some technological advances. The article is rich with detail, but limited in its broader perspective, in part because it relies so thoroughly on news reports (which do not have the persecutive or go deeply enough to be actual best sources for WP historical statements), and then, as well, it relies on substantial material, sourced and unacknowledged, that derives from the title subject. For these reasons, I have called for a technology expert to see if some Winer sources can be replaced with third-party, scholarly, secondary sources, to buttress stated importance of his contributions and innovations.
In course of doing this, an effort was made to begin the process of checking and completing citation to standard, esp. URL-only citations.
As well, I have made more transparent the lack of sourcing of some material to Winer sources (adding citation needed tags to clear autobiographical statements), and as a matter of principle and policy, have removed a variety of external links that were embedded in the text (turning them into formal sources). An inexplicable external link to a blog, of Winer's father, was removed, because it was unclear what this source was intended to convey. (Perhaps the externally linked blog was the blog of the father; regardless, it was not properly placed as a source, and was not a valid source for the fact that the gentleman named was Winer's father.
As well, the general issue is explained in this way, to include the indirect: It is clear that Mr Winer has initiated and participated in many efforts, organizations, and companies. When these organizations and companies produce informational materials about Winer efforts, products, etc. these sources of information are still, inherently under the control of the title subject (while he is at the helm of the effort), and so these are not independent, third-party sources, as called for under WP:VERIFY. Hence, these also do not contribute the perspective that is most needed (and called for via the expert tag), for this article.
Otherwise, in lessor matters, I combined two overly short sections containing related career content categories, made a section title to be "Family background and education" as this is more standard for BLP articles, added a "Personal life" section, to end, as per standard for biographies,
Finally, the reason for the "third-party" and BLP refimprove" tags was simply this: there was a complete lack of third-party sourcing in the Early life… section, and most material there was unsourced. And as I scanned elsewhere in the article, I noted that this bad habit of inserting unsourced sentences had begun to occur, in this otherwise well-researched article.
It is best we keep to standard, and not let the article begin to drift to the addition of stray unsourced statements. People's opinions and stray thoughts are fine, but they are not encyclopedic.
That is all, Press on. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)