Talk:High IQ society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no wikipedia editor, so forgive me for forgoing format and for not editing this little problem myself, but I checked into the so-called IQ Society IQcuties only to find that it is no society at all. The site purports to be a dating/matchmaking site, but even this hasn't gotten off of the ground yet. Upon completion of the worst so-called IQ test I have ever seen, the site rewards you with a note saying that they don't exist yet, but they'll e-mail you when they do.

In any case, whether a matchmaking site qualifies for IQ society status or not, I would imagine that a nonfunctional site with no members is most decidedly NOT an IQ society. I move to have IQcuties stricken from the article.

Again . . . apologies for a lack of expertise here. I use wikipedia often, but have never ventured behind the scenes before.

I agree! I've removed it from the article and I'm also planning to propose that the article on it (IQcuties) is deleted. The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it; if you are interested in how to do so, see Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Regards, Ziggurat 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Regarding a few of the newly added external links / redlinks to the article; I believe that they need trimming, as several of the societies have no reliable sources (per WP:V and WP:RS) and are therefore inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm happy for the article to have them provided that such sources can be provided. Ziggurat 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed also from my side. However, Vinci, TOPS and OATH have existing websites and activities, to I thought it's worth to mention them, with the aim to have a complete overview. I fully agree to have deleted the IQcuties as they don't exist as per my knowledge (also they have no website or activity). --Mike2000 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually simply existing, performing activities, or having a website isn't enough; for any article to be included in Wikipedia it requires multiple third-party reliable sources, and quite a few of these organisations don't meet those criteria. Many of the organisations here have a hundred or fewer members: they're simply not large enough and well-known enough, and none of the sources about them are fact-checked (essential for reliability purposes). If there were mentions in books, newspapers, or journals they should definitely be included, but a lot of these don't meet these criteria. I'm planning to co-ordinate a cleanup of the IQ society pages in the next few days, so I'd like to see some solid referencing to ensure they're not just irrelevant microsocieties. Ziggurat 22:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many of these societies are "vanity" clubs, and in fact with respect to the Mega Society there has been litigation to protect the society's name (see http://www.megasociety.org/about.html). Canon 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a top-quality and reliable Wikipedia is our all aim. Observing amendments in the subject IQ and related topics it seems that they are often discussed emotionally and "political" matters play a role, also to self-represent where Wikipedia is obviously not a platform for. I fully support a neutral point of view and will gladly participate in possible cleanup discussions. I believe that the actual version is not too bad as there is a good and also neutral overview, but I'm very open to improvement. --Mike2000 23:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I removed the Criticisms section because it sounded too personal, like an individual was complaining. I haven't seen a Criticisms section in other articles. I think a Controversy section would be okay provided it contains legitimate public controversies. --Jagz 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Society Articles?

Colloquy is an online group that seems to have had intelligent discussions for the past five or six years. In the history of Intelligence groups this seems significant. I'm not a member but I wrote an article for Colloquy and kept an eye on it. It was a short, accurate article suitable for the subject. The article vanished. What happened?

Most likely it was considered non-notable. Jefffire 10:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can merge the Colloquy article (if you can find it) into this article. The smaller articles about individual high IQ groups can be merged into this article.--Jagz 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's aggravating and futile to contribute to Wikipedia on this matter. Wikipedia seems biased towards presenting very detailed articles and tiny stubs about tv shows and music (well over a hundred articles detail the buffyverse, see also the countless articles on inane musical bands, their songs, their albums, ad infinitum - Bowling for Soup (album), for example), but actively deletes articles about a compelling topic: the long, splintered history of IQ groups and their qualifications. I'm not a member of any IQ group but I find the facts about them fascinating. It's a shame that Wikipedia is discouraging input by deleting articles. Sigh.

The question is always one of verifiability - we can only use facts and information that has been presented in reliable sources (reliable sources in this case usually constituting something peer-reviewed, independent, and as unopinionated as possible). It's unfortunate if the 'outside' world focuses on pop minutiae more than IQ groups, but, until someone is willing to add information that isn't just hearsay, unsourced articles like the one on Colloquy are effectively impossible to distinguish from advertising, promotion attempts, or self-aggrandizement. A good article written according to WP's policies won't get deleted. Ziggurat 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ziggurat, for your considerate reply. I guess I was responding to the above response that "most likely it [the article I wrote on Colloquy] was considered non-notable." And I still sense a Wikipedian culture bias against these groups. But if verifiability is the issue, then maybe I need to do homework on what this means - and your links will help me do that. When I wrote the article I included a link to the group itself and a link from another online source. The material I used paraphrased information there. Anyway, enough ranting from me. Thanks again, Ziggurat, for your reply.

No probs - essentially, the best link is the one to reliable sources, because that's the baseline standard for what can be used. If no-one has written about a subject in any book, newspaper or magazine article, or other relatively authentic source, then it's basically impossible to get to the objective standard essential for an encyclopedia article. Fortunately this means that sources are a very good defence against deletion - they do the talking, rather than debating whether an organisation has enough 'notability' (a nebulous comment that some of us Wikipedians don't particularly like). All the best in finding sources for some good articles! Ziggurat 08:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In what book, newspaper or magazine article will I find the information used for this article, High IQ society? None are cited.

That's true, and hopefully people will improve and build on this article by adding such sources. I don't think anyone is in doubt that sources do exist for this topic, however, and it's when there is such a doubt that articles are usually nominated for deletion - and then sources are either found and it's kept, or they're not, and it's deleted. Ziggurat 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy this discussion and you obviously are smart and good-humored so I say this in the spirit of happy debate (and because these double standards aggravate me). In your last reply you justify leaving content that isn't cited but three replies ago you said, "we can only use facts and information that has been presented in reliable sources." So, where are the reliable sources? You also said, "unsourced articles like the one on Colloquy are effectively impossible to distinguish from advertising, promotion attempts, or self-aggrandizement." So, where are the sources for this article?

No probs, I'm always happy to try to explain the intricacies of Wikipedia's often-convoluted practices! Optimally, all articles require sources, but people often add improperly sourced information, or (as is the case here) syntheses of information presented in other Wikipedia articles. People tend to be quite forgiving of such articles, because the potential for sources is the key; it's a question of adding them, not whether they exist or not, and the overall philosophy is that sources will be added eventually. When an article comes up and it's apparent that there's little to no possibility of there being good sources, then the deletion brigade really jumps in. It's not a double standard so much as an eventualist one (that page on Eventualism, by the way, is a pretty good explanation of the distinction). Additionally, I've dropped in a source for at least one of the claims in the article (the founding date for Mensa); hopefully others will add more. Ziggurat 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy says this:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or 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.

On the other hand, eventualism is a "tendancy" among a faction of Wikipedians and the word "source" never appears in the description of its philosophy [1]. So your citing "eventualism" fails on at least two grounds: (1) eventualism does not immediately extend to sourcing and (2) even if it did extend to sourcing (as you have it) it's a "tendancy" that would clearly contradict "policy."

The fact that it doesn't mention sourcing does not mean that it doesn't extend to sourcing (the reasoning is logically flawed), but in any case I'm attempting to describe the editing practices as they currently stand. Certainly sources are required according to policy, but opinions differ on how to approach this goal. Some people hold that articles should be deleted and rebuilt strictly according to the policy (and indeed that happens with controversial or contentious articles, usually as a result of the threat of a lawsuit); most often people are happy to have unsourced information remain on a page as long as it's fairly evident and not controversial, with the understanding that sources will be added eventually. The goal is to build a good encyclopedia, not policy wonking. Creating an article about an obscure organisation (often with the intent to advertise or promote that organisation) is controversial, which is why it draws deletion ire and the hard scrutiny of WP:V. In any case, I'm attempting to explain why there appears to be a 'double standard', as you describe it. If you feel that my explanation is insufficient the best place to ask is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - this is, after all, supposed to be a talk page about this article rather than a broad critique of the application of policy! Ziggurat 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and good humor. And, thanks for keeping the discussion relevant to the article.