|
Hi Syrenka V! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hi GrammarFascist, and thanks for your willingness to help!
I've been taken aback by the speed with which policy and guideline issues on sources come to dominate attempts to create or rescue articles. In a couple of weeks I've accumulated a list of over 100 policies, guidelines, essays, help pages, information pages, and project pages that I need to read, or have just now had to read, in order to try to navigate the minefield of WP:PRIMARY, WP:ROUTINE, WP:RS, and similar, that deletionists use to try to disqualify the vast majority of available sources, especially on recent events. This isn't just a matter of "Don't spam the Wiki with autobiographies and promotional material"; that's easy to understand. But some of the most commonly applied rules from the policy and guideline documents make no sense to me at all. The article draft I'm currently working on, User:Syrenka V/Documenting Hate, short as it is, provides several examples.
My recent inquiry at the Teahouse ( WP:Teahouse#Notability: "independent of subject" for large collaborative journalistic projects) is only the first example, and comparatively one of the milder ones. I see the point of source independence as a general rule, but it's not at all clear to me that the rule should be applied in such a draconian fashion as to rule out every participant in a large data-gathering collaboration among journalistic and academic organizations, especially when many of them joined after the fact, rather than being involved in its creation. Would every individual or corporate entity that has contributed to the United Way, or every journalist who belongs to PEN International, be disqualified as an independent source for writing about these organizations? Even the essay WP:IS, which I just discovered, seems to think of lack of independence as involving much more substantial relationships; ditto WP:COI. No doubt ProPublica, and maybe its original partners in founding the collaboration, should be considered to violate independence; but for example the Boulder Weekly, which joined less than a week ago, not so much.
But even without using anything produced by journalistic organizations that have joined the collaboration, there would be plenty of material for an article on Documenting Hate — if it weren't for the rules on primary sources, reliability, and opinion.
I recently discovered another essay, WP:USEPRIMARY, that states that all "Editorials, opinions, and op-eds" are "Defined as a primary source by policy." At first sight I literally didn't believe this. But I clicked through the essay's link to WP:NOR, and there it was: "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces..." In a footnote, with no explanation or justification whatsoever, and no connection to the general discussion, in the policy's main text, of what makes a source primary! This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Why are the analyses and syntheses of evidence in an editorial or an op-ed any less "secondary" than those in a book review, or those in an academic review of literature? And primary sources are disqualified as support for notability.
As long as these reflections have been, they're just the beginning. But I have to go, and you may already have some responses.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 04:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response, GrammarFascist! As far as I can tell from a search for "daily caller" in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, it appears that the Daily Caller would indeed be considered a reliable source (well, reliable enough). The problem is that my reference from the Daily Caller was one of two examples I had in mind in my above discussion of opinion pieces! The other was this thoughtful piece from the Center for Data Innovation. Both of these are opinion pieces, in that they argue for conclusions they cannot entirely prove, and can be dismissed as primary sources on that ground. The same is likely to be true of any story written by a right-wing journalistic organization that declines to join Documenting Hate.
On the other hand, the three purely descriptive independent sources ( from Nieman Lab, from Journalism.co.uk, and from Fast Company) are all likely to be dismissed as primary for two reasons:
It's very nearly a catch-22: if a news story, even a reputable one, argues for any speculative conclusions, it's an opinion piece, and therefore "by policy" a primary source; if it sticks to the facts, it is purely descriptive, and therefore again a primary source. The only way to escape the catch-22 and arrive in secondary-source Beulah Land appears to be the use of analytic or synthetic methods that are as unimpeachable as the facts themselves — as would be done in a textbook, or a scholarly review, or a meta-analysis. No wonder that editor at AfC thought I would need to wait years, until scholarly sources were available. (Well, even scholarly material doesn't always avoid speculation, but that's a fine point.)
If you think it's an exaggeration to say that the material from the Center for Data Innovation would be dismissed as an opinion piece, check out this AfD discussion, where an article in a peer-reviewed journal published by the Rutgers Graduate School of Education is airily dismissed as an "opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes".
The current Wikipedia policies on sources are so thoroughly unreasonable that they need to be challenged, repeatedly, no matter how firm the consensus behind them appears to be. Even if we can't change the policies that are actually operative in AfDs, maybe we can at least get them stated clearly and openly — not left to be inferred from a footnote here and a bullet point there, or imposed by a cliquish AfD flash mob that will not even condescend to explain them to outsiders. I think a clear statement of these policies would be such an embarrassment that it would be, in and of itself, a step toward their demise.
And maybe we can even get the occasional great article on a great topic to survive, despite them!
— Syrenka V ( talk) 08:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi GrammarFascist, an update: despite the above reflections, I've decided to go live with Documenting Hate! There have been some exciting developments in just the last week. Check it out; the involvement of Google News Lab and the creation of the Documenting Hate News Index have triggered another round of widespread news coverage—and another round of criticism from the Daily Caller. Also, participation in some successful rescue attempts has led me to believe that Wikipedians—even deletionists!—are on the whole more reasonable than a strict reading of the letter of some of the policies would suggest—and more reasonable than this particular AfD would suggest. That now looks like an aberration, rather than the norm.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 02:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you viewed the question as a personal attack. It is only a question. It will probably come up again from someone else, and can be dealt with then. Best regards. Jytdog ( talk) 22:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For going above and beyond to rescue a worthy article that was en route to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrafile. A Train talk 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenBSD security features is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBSD security features until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Syrenka V: |
User: Syrenka V You listed at Article Rescue squad this article as being at AFD and said something about its being relisted. It doesn't seem to be. Please clarify. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your work on saving Bring Back the Bees at AfD! The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Syrenka V: Thanks for your work to expand, improve and rescue Wikipedia articles. As a side note, you may be interested in perusing WP:EAGER, an essay I created. North America 1000 16:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Syrenka V. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Tendentious question about user history
|
---|
Are you a sock
I have the sense that you were not a new editor when you joined. Please can you declare the previous accounts you edited under. If you do not wish to do this publicly, you can either email me or contact arbcom, who keep a list of fresh starts. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)}} |
You didn't !vote in a form that the bot can pick up. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Holiday barnstar | |
You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this barn flake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
Saw you are part of the Article Rescue Squadron and wondered if you might be able to offer advice and or help. I'm an inexperienced editor who wrote a few articles in 2014 (I'm a professor and wanted to understand wikipedia better and be able to help my students with it). Two of my articles were created, but one was deleted today (Ty Morse) after a discussion that hinged on whether or not the subject was actually notable, which did not seem to reach consensus. I don't know who to reach out to or if this is even appropriate, but I'm looking for some guidance on what to do now or how to resolve it. Any ideas? Jemima1418 ( talk) 18:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Syrenka V. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Undoing my edit to Cadmium because you characterize Dr. Mullenix as an anti-fluoridationist is inserting your POV into a factual conversation. Dr. Mullenix is a board certified toxicologist and legal expert on this topic. She only reported the results of laboratory tests on samples of fluoridation products used in multiple communities. I'm re-entering my edit as originally posted and copied below Seabreezes1 ( talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Seabreezes1: I stand by my edit summary for my undo:
In view of Phyllis Mullenix's known history as an anti-fluoridationist crusader, her formal qualifications do not make her a reliable source on the topic, any more than Linus Pauling's Nobel and other eminent qualifications as a biochemist make him a reliable source on Vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Even by the standards of a radical inclusionist like myself, representing notorious POV advocates as neutral authorities is not acceptable. The inclusionist standard is conservata veritate—with conservation of truth. Trying to use Phyllis Mullenix as a neutral authority on the science of fluoride does not meet that standard.
I have noticed that you have also inserted anti-fluoride POV material into a number of other articles with no obvious connection to fluoride or dentistry, including:
As far as I can tell, none of these insertions was accompanied by discussion on the talk page of the article in question.
I have some suggestions for you, for more constructive interaction:
— Syrenka V ( talk) 05:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Clarification on the above: on reflection, "neutral" was a poor choice of words for what I meant. I'm aware that reliable sources by the standards of WP:RS and WP:V need not be neutral by the standards of WP:NPOV. But that was not the standard of neutrality I had in mind when I pointed out that Phyllis Mullenix's academic qualifications no more made her a reliable source on the effects of fluoride than Linus Pauling's eminence as a biochemist made him a reliable source on the effects of vitamin C. Although bias and non-neutrality in general may not exclude a source as reliable, extreme advocacy of a WP:FRINGE theory can still invalidate the reliability of even so eminent a source as Pauling—let alone Mullenix—at least for questions directly related to the fringe theory. WP:RS points out that the creator of a work, as well as the venue of publication, can be relevant to its reliability. Also see the comments on promoters of fringe theories as sources in the section WP:PROFRINGE within WP:FRINGE.
|
Hi Syrenka V! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hi GrammarFascist, and thanks for your willingness to help!
I've been taken aback by the speed with which policy and guideline issues on sources come to dominate attempts to create or rescue articles. In a couple of weeks I've accumulated a list of over 100 policies, guidelines, essays, help pages, information pages, and project pages that I need to read, or have just now had to read, in order to try to navigate the minefield of WP:PRIMARY, WP:ROUTINE, WP:RS, and similar, that deletionists use to try to disqualify the vast majority of available sources, especially on recent events. This isn't just a matter of "Don't spam the Wiki with autobiographies and promotional material"; that's easy to understand. But some of the most commonly applied rules from the policy and guideline documents make no sense to me at all. The article draft I'm currently working on, User:Syrenka V/Documenting Hate, short as it is, provides several examples.
My recent inquiry at the Teahouse ( WP:Teahouse#Notability: "independent of subject" for large collaborative journalistic projects) is only the first example, and comparatively one of the milder ones. I see the point of source independence as a general rule, but it's not at all clear to me that the rule should be applied in such a draconian fashion as to rule out every participant in a large data-gathering collaboration among journalistic and academic organizations, especially when many of them joined after the fact, rather than being involved in its creation. Would every individual or corporate entity that has contributed to the United Way, or every journalist who belongs to PEN International, be disqualified as an independent source for writing about these organizations? Even the essay WP:IS, which I just discovered, seems to think of lack of independence as involving much more substantial relationships; ditto WP:COI. No doubt ProPublica, and maybe its original partners in founding the collaboration, should be considered to violate independence; but for example the Boulder Weekly, which joined less than a week ago, not so much.
But even without using anything produced by journalistic organizations that have joined the collaboration, there would be plenty of material for an article on Documenting Hate — if it weren't for the rules on primary sources, reliability, and opinion.
I recently discovered another essay, WP:USEPRIMARY, that states that all "Editorials, opinions, and op-eds" are "Defined as a primary source by policy." At first sight I literally didn't believe this. But I clicked through the essay's link to WP:NOR, and there it was: "Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces..." In a footnote, with no explanation or justification whatsoever, and no connection to the general discussion, in the policy's main text, of what makes a source primary! This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Why are the analyses and syntheses of evidence in an editorial or an op-ed any less "secondary" than those in a book review, or those in an academic review of literature? And primary sources are disqualified as support for notability.
As long as these reflections have been, they're just the beginning. But I have to go, and you may already have some responses.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 04:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful response, GrammarFascist! As far as I can tell from a search for "daily caller" in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, it appears that the Daily Caller would indeed be considered a reliable source (well, reliable enough). The problem is that my reference from the Daily Caller was one of two examples I had in mind in my above discussion of opinion pieces! The other was this thoughtful piece from the Center for Data Innovation. Both of these are opinion pieces, in that they argue for conclusions they cannot entirely prove, and can be dismissed as primary sources on that ground. The same is likely to be true of any story written by a right-wing journalistic organization that declines to join Documenting Hate.
On the other hand, the three purely descriptive independent sources ( from Nieman Lab, from Journalism.co.uk, and from Fast Company) are all likely to be dismissed as primary for two reasons:
It's very nearly a catch-22: if a news story, even a reputable one, argues for any speculative conclusions, it's an opinion piece, and therefore "by policy" a primary source; if it sticks to the facts, it is purely descriptive, and therefore again a primary source. The only way to escape the catch-22 and arrive in secondary-source Beulah Land appears to be the use of analytic or synthetic methods that are as unimpeachable as the facts themselves — as would be done in a textbook, or a scholarly review, or a meta-analysis. No wonder that editor at AfC thought I would need to wait years, until scholarly sources were available. (Well, even scholarly material doesn't always avoid speculation, but that's a fine point.)
If you think it's an exaggeration to say that the material from the Center for Data Innovation would be dismissed as an opinion piece, check out this AfD discussion, where an article in a peer-reviewed journal published by the Rutgers Graduate School of Education is airily dismissed as an "opinion essay, sort of an op-ed with footnotes".
The current Wikipedia policies on sources are so thoroughly unreasonable that they need to be challenged, repeatedly, no matter how firm the consensus behind them appears to be. Even if we can't change the policies that are actually operative in AfDs, maybe we can at least get them stated clearly and openly — not left to be inferred from a footnote here and a bullet point there, or imposed by a cliquish AfD flash mob that will not even condescend to explain them to outsiders. I think a clear statement of these policies would be such an embarrassment that it would be, in and of itself, a step toward their demise.
And maybe we can even get the occasional great article on a great topic to survive, despite them!
— Syrenka V ( talk) 08:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi GrammarFascist, an update: despite the above reflections, I've decided to go live with Documenting Hate! There have been some exciting developments in just the last week. Check it out; the involvement of Google News Lab and the creation of the Documenting Hate News Index have triggered another round of widespread news coverage—and another round of criticism from the Daily Caller. Also, participation in some successful rescue attempts has led me to believe that Wikipedians—even deletionists!—are on the whole more reasonable than a strict reading of the letter of some of the policies would suggest—and more reasonable than this particular AfD would suggest. That now looks like an aberration, rather than the norm.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 02:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you viewed the question as a personal attack. It is only a question. It will probably come up again from someone else, and can be dealt with then. Best regards. Jytdog ( talk) 22:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
For going above and beyond to rescue a worthy article that was en route to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrafile. A Train talk 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenBSD security features is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBSD security features until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Syrenka V: |
User: Syrenka V You listed at Article Rescue squad this article as being at AFD and said something about its being relisted. It doesn't seem to be. Please clarify. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your work on saving Bring Back the Bees at AfD! The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Syrenka V: Thanks for your work to expand, improve and rescue Wikipedia articles. As a side note, you may be interested in perusing WP:EAGER, an essay I created. North America 1000 16:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Syrenka V. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Tendentious question about user history
|
---|
Are you a sock
I have the sense that you were not a new editor when you joined. Please can you declare the previous accounts you edited under. If you do not wish to do this publicly, you can either email me or contact arbcom, who keep a list of fresh starts. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)}} |
You didn't !vote in a form that the bot can pick up. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Holiday barnstar | |
You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this barn flake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
Saw you are part of the Article Rescue Squadron and wondered if you might be able to offer advice and or help. I'm an inexperienced editor who wrote a few articles in 2014 (I'm a professor and wanted to understand wikipedia better and be able to help my students with it). Two of my articles were created, but one was deleted today (Ty Morse) after a discussion that hinged on whether or not the subject was actually notable, which did not seem to reach consensus. I don't know who to reach out to or if this is even appropriate, but I'm looking for some guidance on what to do now or how to resolve it. Any ideas? Jemima1418 ( talk) 18:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Syrenka V. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Undoing my edit to Cadmium because you characterize Dr. Mullenix as an anti-fluoridationist is inserting your POV into a factual conversation. Dr. Mullenix is a board certified toxicologist and legal expert on this topic. She only reported the results of laboratory tests on samples of fluoridation products used in multiple communities. I'm re-entering my edit as originally posted and copied below Seabreezes1 ( talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Seabreezes1: I stand by my edit summary for my undo:
In view of Phyllis Mullenix's known history as an anti-fluoridationist crusader, her formal qualifications do not make her a reliable source on the topic, any more than Linus Pauling's Nobel and other eminent qualifications as a biochemist make him a reliable source on Vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Even by the standards of a radical inclusionist like myself, representing notorious POV advocates as neutral authorities is not acceptable. The inclusionist standard is conservata veritate—with conservation of truth. Trying to use Phyllis Mullenix as a neutral authority on the science of fluoride does not meet that standard.
I have noticed that you have also inserted anti-fluoride POV material into a number of other articles with no obvious connection to fluoride or dentistry, including:
As far as I can tell, none of these insertions was accompanied by discussion on the talk page of the article in question.
I have some suggestions for you, for more constructive interaction:
— Syrenka V ( talk) 05:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Clarification on the above: on reflection, "neutral" was a poor choice of words for what I meant. I'm aware that reliable sources by the standards of WP:RS and WP:V need not be neutral by the standards of WP:NPOV. But that was not the standard of neutrality I had in mind when I pointed out that Phyllis Mullenix's academic qualifications no more made her a reliable source on the effects of fluoride than Linus Pauling's eminence as a biochemist made him a reliable source on the effects of vitamin C. Although bias and non-neutrality in general may not exclude a source as reliable, extreme advocacy of a WP:FRINGE theory can still invalidate the reliability of even so eminent a source as Pauling—let alone Mullenix—at least for questions directly related to the fringe theory. WP:RS points out that the creator of a work, as well as the venue of publication, can be relevant to its reliability. Also see the comments on promoters of fringe theories as sources in the section WP:PROFRINGE within WP:FRINGE.