This is about [[Mark Steyn]]. There are two types of major issue with this
page.
(I) Scope for scepticism. As it now says immediately after the lead, there
is actually a dearth of personal details on Steyn. No date nor birth nor
place of birth; no educational details, beyond the fact that he supposedly
left school at 16. How do we even know he's really Canadian? This is one
for SlimVirgin then; given no reasonable way to check, do we need to see his
passport? :Plenty of Google hits for "Mark Steyn, a Canadian". I'm not
going to worry about this, and sourcing it; are the fanatics for
verification, though?
As for the rest of Steyn's life, it is about his media jobs and association
with Conrad Black and Hollinger, which is all fairly straightforward.
(II) Issues around NPOV. This is where the real meat is. Quoting directly
from Steyn's columns is easy, but on its own is not enough for a WP article
about a figure who revels in controversy. Just about every whisper of
criticism of Steyn on the page has been subject to close attention from fans
of his, who tend to cut first and ask for sources afterwards. There have
been also some insertions by critics which were not well sourced.
Breaking it down by topics:
(a) USA and Europe. There is not much left of this, just the one quote from
[[Peter Preston]] towards the end, sourced from The Observer. There used to
be more about Steyn on Europe's attitudes to armed forces post-WWII. It was
cut a while ago and not replaced.
(b) Steyn's long-standing claims that Bin Laden is quite obviously dead.
This is mentioned in the terms that Private Eye satirises him for that.
Someone on the Talk page said that he had dropped this, which dates from
2002 or so; no source provided, and I showed him still at it in 2004. He's
clearly not going to retract, so how long can we claim that he continues to
think Bin Laden is dead? Strictly, we can't. I don't think we really need
to reference issues of Private Eye in which he is mocked for this, but
perhaps others disagree.
(c) Allegations of Islamophobia. There are three typical areas about this,
and the material on the page appears to revolve. The points are
- claims that Steyn reported as factual some wild rumours about Muslims in
New York shortly post-9/11, and supporting critical column by Johann Hari,
with web reference on the latter (we have had some edit-warring on whether
direct, sourced critical quotes from Hari should be on the page)
- Steyn's use of ancient anti-Islamic quotes from Winston Churchill
(seemingly from Churchill's impressions of fighting in the Sudan pre-1900)
- aggressive comparisons by Steyn of Anglospheric and Islamic cultures, in
sweeping terms.
These can all be properly sourced, so really this should be respectable NPOV
coverage and allowed to stand without mauling around. I expect more
drive-by edits, though.
(d) 'Commitment to Democracy questioned'. This is the active area, with a
paragraph cut out recently by User:Mitchberg (discussion on Talk page).
It was alleged in an earlier edit, that 'critics of Steyn' have questioned
his commitment to democracy; because relative to Bush-Kerry, Steyn had said
Kerry was foolish to have said that Bush should have propped up Aristide in
Haiti. The quote from Steyn was provided, and says just that. It was a bit
selective of that column, which has to be read in full to see what Steyn was
arguing (Martha Stewart was innocent, so state power needs opposition from
'civil society' to be legitimate).
The debate itself is for politics buffs (so, we have to say Hamas and Fatah
is more about democracy, than Aristide and the downtrodden Haitians?). The
verifiability issue is like this, though: to claim that 'critics of Steyn'
alleged something we should source those critics. What are the criteria?
Well, random bloggers are not really up to the current standards. We don't
need to doubt that people do criticise Steyn this way; but undoubtedly we
get a better article by being specific about this, and giving at least one
respectable example of such a critic.
That's why the para on this is not back on the page. Since Steyn is such a
vocal pro-US-Republican writer, it is certainly a shame that the one quote
on the page that refers directly to US domestic politics has gone. Could
the bit about 'critics of Steyn' be just omitted? Yes, but then it reads
oddly, and there really does need to be a more developed discussion about
what Steyn's views are (he gets called a neocon, but this is not properly
entered into).
There are secondary points, and what User:Mitchberg says on the Talk relates
to those. He's (I assume male and) a self-confessed newbie, so he makes one
mistake, in that he tries to refute the criticism of Steyn. That's not a
reason for cutting out criticism (in the way that the lack of a proper
source actually is). He also doesn't really take the point that the quote
is selective. He goes on to say that he has interviewed Steyn, and knows
from that that Steyn is committed to democracy. To do him justice, he isn't
putting that wrongly as an argument; but he is also apparently not seeing
that if he has an interview, and has published it, that would constitute a
proper source for the article.
This discussion is a bit stalled right now. I don't really want to spend
for ever researching the critics of Steyn, and there is the rhetorical point
about whether 'commitment to liberty' now trumps 'commitment to democracy'
for American conservatives (with the implications for 'civil society' as a
prerequisite). This is interesting stuff, but needs first-rate sources. So
there is the verifiability issue in practice, again, of What Is An
Acceptable Source?
Charles
Steve Summit wrote:
>>Well, set your heart at rest, David: [[Wikipedia:Jordanhill commemoration]]
>>was launched this morning.
>>
>>
>I tell you, if I lived in Scotland I would be bold and epoxy some
>kind of homemade plaque to a wall in that station myself.
>
>
Now, now, what with all our complaints about vandalism on Wikipedia, we
can't be encouraging people to put stuff up in the real world without
authorization.
--Michael Snow
I believe I've been mistakenly blocked for violating the 3rr. I'm hoping
that Hall Monitor and the rest of administration can clear this up.
Siddhartha21 I.P. 151.213.167.25.
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Frankly, you've not shown anything to contradict or even introduce an
element of doubt into even one of my claims, so I find it hard to
believe. You're asking me to take on faith that you know better than
me, despite all evidence to the contrary. Sorry, that's not how I do
things on Wikipedia or in my professional life.
I don't think I'm asking for too much.
Here are my claims simplified:
1. TBSDY was speedying large amounts of images labeled as "fair use"
as being copyvios.
2. There are no CSD provisions for speedying images as copyvios (or at
least, were not any at the time he was doing this; I haven't checked
them since then).
3. TBSDY claimed that Jimbo gave him the right to speedy images as
copyvios in a private e-mail.
4. TBSDY produced the e-mail, and it said that TBSDY could nominate
the images for deletion (the proper policy), and if that failed, Jimbo
might decide to speedy them. It did not say TBSDY could speedy images,
or any other admin, as copyvios.
My conclusions: TBSDY did not, in fact, have the authority to speedy
images as copyvios, and was acting against policy. I'm perfectly happy
to assume good faith on this and assume he misunderstood Jimbo's
e-mail or something like that -- nothing dishonest is posited.
That's it. Show me where I'm wrong on any of those counts, and I'll
happily agree with you and be part of those seeking to smooth this
over. Until then, please don't expect me to just agree that I am wrong
in the face of no evidence. I find it hard to believe that you'd do
the same thing in a similar situation, though even if you would, it
changes very little.
This is, of course, a case of transparency at its heart. "Evidence" as
a standard for proof and accountability in science, law, and politics
is based on the principle of open and free examination (Cf. Yaron
Ezrahi, "The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of
Contemporary Democracy"). Appeals to secret evidence can only be taken
on faith. I've seen no evidence to warrant such a leap of faith in
this instance, given the evidence against it. Of course, I know that
evidence can be problematic, requires interpretation to make sense of,
and other important epistemological points. So feel free to indicate
where I've gone astray in your eyes, if it is just a matter of
interpretation, and I'll be happy to think about it.
On the issue of "faith" -- I have a lot of faith in Jimbo, and even if
I didn't, I know this is largely his show and what he says goes. If he
wants to go outside of policy on something, it doesn't bug me too
much. It does bother me if others do so, though, without any explicit
allowance for that made by Jimbo. And I didn't see that in this case.
But I don't want to be told by you, TBSDY, or anyone else that I don't
have the right to ask perfectly reasonable questions. There is no
provisions either in Wikipedia's terms of use, or in general ethical
conduct, which prohibits the good faith asking of questions.
Frankly, I don't think I'm the one who needs to "show some self
control." I think you have been unfathomably rude to me and others on
this issue. You've treated me like I was some sort of common troll.
FF
P.S. I've decided to CC the list on this. I didn't judge it to contain
anything compromising, and I think this is still completely in line
with the discussion on transparency. Hope that isn't too irritating,
but I'd really rather you communicated with me on this subject via the
list, because I do, in the end, believe in openness.
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And I think I was aware of the facts
>
> Please accept that you were not, are not, and probably will not ever
> be aware of the facts of this case. Your criticism of Ta bu shi da yu
> was woefully misplaced, and your statement that I bent the fact was
> completely without foundation. Please show some self control.
>
On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > > That's an extreme interpretation of that rule. We should shy aware
> > > from removing information simply because it is unsourced. We should
> > > only remove it if it is unsourced *and* we find it suspect.
>
> >
> > In short, you do not agree with the verifiability policy, http://
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
>
> You may see comments from me on the talk page there. I actually think
> people reworded it more strongly than they meant to. Verifiability was
> never, IMHO, intended to mean "delete everything that isn't sourced",
> or else 95% of the encyclopaedia would be wiped tonight. It should be
> a way of resolving disputes about accuracy, and improving the quality
> of our material.
>
> If the verifiability policy currently says (I can't check it right
> now) that all unsourced material should be removed - end of story -
> then yes, I disagree with it.
That is very nearly exactly what it says:
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors
wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
(It doesn't say "should" yet.)
I added "3. If an editor adds something controversial, the obligation
to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include
the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
I can't stand "reputable" either, but that's another discussion.
What I'm interested in is the behavior that the new policy permits and
encourages--namely, aggressive deletion of other people's
contributions, which can be backed up by The Official Policy.
A couple of combative columnists, [[Johann Hari]] and [[Mark Steyn]].
I'll take Johann Hari first, since the issues are entry-level.
User:81.157.14.152 thought that his secondary schooling was not verifiable,
and cut it out (20 February); no edit summary, let alone discussion. One of
the schools in question is [[John Lyon School]]. The information that Hari
went there was added on 17 February by User:Epitome1, who had the same day
edited the page, [[John Lyon School]]. And then immediately gone on to add
the fat that Hari was an alumnus.
Reasonable presumption would take it that User:Epitome1 has a close enough
connection to John Lyon School; perhaps even was a pupil there with Hari, or
teaches there. Nothing to raise the slightest suspicion, anyway.
So User:81.157.14.152 cuts out this and another school. Objections from
User:Felix-felix, who puts it back in. Talk page discussion:
User:81.157.14.152 emails Hari to check, and comes back satisfied on the
John Lyon School, at least.
But under [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], of course, we cannot
accept this information, on the basis of a supposed email exchange.
Further, if someone actually was at school with Hari, we cannot accept that
testimony, at least until they point to a published school list (which in
effect displaces them as witness).
The article can get by, without the school information. But it is not
without interest: Hari went to Cambridge, and has had a spectacular career
while still young, from a background which was probably too poor to be
considered very middle class.
Charles
Hii all ,
We have developed a web mapping application . And would like to integrate it with Wikipedia . Our mapping application uses MapServer,Php/Mapscript , as the scripting language and MySql as the database. Our application accepts user clicks on the image provided by us .And points are plotted .We have developed a Php file to accomplish this. Could anybody tell us how to go about for creating a plug-in for Wikipedia ?
Thanks a lot for your help,
Apeksha
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Hi all,
I found Daniel Mayer's views about delayed updation interesting. In this connection, interested people may want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Defense_of_content, where discussion is happening on similar lines. Admittedly, it is still raw in places and needs further work but it is worth a dekko.
Warm regards,
Gurubrahma.
---------------------------------
Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.
Well,
I don't know if the article on Jordanhill railway station will make it to FA anytime soon, but my own commemoration was to put it on the DYK section in mainpage (and btw, the process was duly followed with the suggestion made at the template talk etc.). Does any one want to try for a featured pic or selected anniversary pertaining to Jordanhill railway station? That would be more fitting than a plaque, imo.
Regards,
Gurubrahma
p.s. This is my first post on the mailing list, so [[WP:BITE]] applies ;-)
---------------------------------
Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.