User talk:In the Stacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Just which critics are citable

I notice you removed a rather well-known critique of ANSWER on the basis that it is unsigned. Question (and I promise this is not rhetorical): do you think Criticism of Wikipedia should leave out Wikitruth on the same basis? - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think any critic is citable – this is a "universal" encyclopedia by nature of its open editing functions. The issue with the links to these particular pieces on Infoshop.org (regarding not just ANSWER, but WWP, RCP, WCW, and the ISO) is that they are unsigned and unsourced... and are literally riddled with gross factual errors.

As they are unsigned, no one takes responsibility for their content. Beyond the obvious lack of intellectual integrity, original research, etc. – it is cowardly. Wikipedia is used to define a Wikiality, or what you call here a "well-known critique."

Regarding your very specific question, I do not have time to engage the myriald disputes on Wikipedia beyond those with which I have particular expertise. Insofar as there are consensed norms, I am interested. But I looked into that one enough to know it appears well-stocked with able partisans on the various sides.[[In the Stacks 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)]]

Fine. Your prerogative. But given your refusal to say whether this would apply to what appears to me a similar case, I don't understand the only slightly articulated principle behind your edit. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.In the Stacks 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I really don't care a lot about the one case. What I'm concerned with is the principles under which Wikipedia operates. (Excuse me if that sounds a bit Kantian.) We need principles as to what are and what are not acceptable sources: we cannot simply make case-by-case decisions without rules. I'm trying to understand if you are saying that you believe unsigned criticisms should never be citable, or if there is a different principle (or combination of principles) behind your removal of this link. The remark about anonymity sits oddly with your apparent assertion that you know exactly who wrote the piece. - Jmabel | Talk 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for categorical imperatives in the case of something Wikipedia, and now I'm getting your point a bit more. I was warned that you pull one thread on Wikipedia and you get pulled into the shag... It's been fascinating to me that, in the case I am involved, various folks have said they literally don't care if it contains truth or falsehood. That to me is stunningly irresponsible. That such a piece has no stated authors means liability for claims would not exist. Aside from its unverifiability in this case, there is no intellectual integrity to it. I suspect the author is involved in this dispute, but there the piece is unsigned – and what I suspect is, of course, just that. Are the links you placed above where the discussion of these general principles has taken place?

I haven't thought through the full implications of a universal rule along these lines, and would be interested to read thoughtful discussion of it. As an editor in my private life, I think the degree to which "truth" as a principle is sacrificed in "open" forums of various kinds surrenders to a relativist philosophy of narratives to such a degree that it fundamentally compromises the encyclopia. I try to imagine Voltaire working those years back and including nuggets like "some claim" or "it is widely known" to describe definite human collectivities. What it IS becomes irrelevant. What is CLAIMED becomes equally valid whether true or false. Weasel words become the common currency. All that said, Wikipedia is a fact – and insofar as it includes entries on living people and active organizations – I am interested in keeping those entries I have knowledge of as free from disinformation and unattributed (generally false) claims as possible.In the Stacks 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Man. I could write three or four essays in response (partly in agreement, partly not). I'll try to keep it short & to the point.

1. No, the discussion at Criticism of Wikipedia hasn't been particularly general or comprehesive on this matter. The exhaustive and exhausting discussion has been mainly at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, but I think it has mostly been too abstract: Wikipedia seems to have developed a cadre of policy wonks who think we can do far too much by formal rules and who do not grapple often enough with concrete cases. I picked the case of Wikitruth and Criticism of Wikipedia because it seems like a good test case, because it is reasonably parallel but presumably on an issue you are not as heavily invested in.
2. Yes, I think that many Wikipedians (especially said policy wonks) are a bit too unconcerned with facts. Wikipedia seems to have developed its own breed of scholasticism, with the Times, the Guardian, the New York Times and, God help us, World Net News standing in for Arisototle. While, of course, in many things we cannot know the truth, we can often know that something is a lie, and that should be a reason to steer clear of it, if not to refute it outright. I personally think "No original research" has been carried much too far. You might find Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle4#"Pillars", POV, and Power of more than passing interest.
3. Weasel words: actually, I think the proportion of weasel words has gone down over the three years I've been involved. Recently, I've actually had problems with over-citation in some articles (do we really need three citations for a particular neighborhood having numerous bars? I think not).

- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMC article

Thanks for you comments, re: my "good faith" towards the POV guy. I agree with you about his agenda, but the issue he is promoting is so highly emotionally charged that it requires extra tender loving care... :) Peace! --Bhuston 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very charitable way of looking at it.In the Stacks 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)