Talk:Ars Technica/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Full attribution “criticism”

A criticism section should contain notable criticisms of an article’s topic. The criticism of the search performance is a perfect example because it is commonly made and can be documented without question. Another editor raised the question of whether or not the “plagiarism” criticism is appropriate for the criticism section. It’s not a common criticism, so I think its presence there is questionable. The story of events behind it is a little misrepresented, too. So I have two questions. Is the criticism worded in the most accurate and neutral manner? 2, is this really the sort of criticism that is appropriate for this section? My own answers are: no and no, but I have an open mind. Tsetna 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In reading the comments, the IP Democracy author referred to DSLreports noting a similar issue. Also, see Doris_Kearns_Goodwin for a similar incident which is a major part of that article (involving a famous historian). As for wording, I can't see a problem with it. They were accused, they claimed it was an oversight, and they apologized for the mistake, whether in action or judgement. It is a simple way of presenting both sides of the criticism. Of course, I am open to improvement.--216.227.82.35 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DSLReports claim is hearsay, there is no documentation, and the DSLReports claim itself is vague. DK Goodwin is not comparable: she is accused of lifting large sections of her book from the work of others and presenting it as her own. The incident with Ars Technica is not similar, and the current wording is not NPOV. Ars Technica did not attempt to represent someone else’s work as their own, they represented it as someone else’s work but forgot the link. This is clear from their formatting and from the woman's comments. There’s a huge difference. Current wording ignores that while trying to sneak in accusations of dishonesty in the parentheses.Tsetna 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement seems as plain as it can be. They were accused. Not convicted and thrown out of Internet School. I used Goodwin as one example that came to mind, since your original argument was that it wasn't a "common criticism" of the site. The statement gives only the facts of what happened, presents both sides of the story, and allows the reader to draw their own conclusion. My conclusion, as a reader, is that it was a mistake. However, to make that decision on behalf of another reader would not be NPOV at all. It is a criticism, it is documented. The DSLReports reference is on the very same page, in the comment section below (right below Eric Bangeman's comments).

I do not agree that it presents, as you say, “both sides of the story.” A better wording in my opinion would be:

  • In March of 2006, IP Democracy blogger Cynthia Brumfield complained of Ars Technica not linking to her website when Nate Anderson quoted material from her site, but did not include a link. Brumfield wrote that the incident “doesn’t technically qualify as plagiarism,” because the materials were presented in a manner making it clear it was not Anderson’s own work. Ars Editor Eric Bangeman apologized for the oversight. [1]

That is more NPOV, and filled with verifiable facts. What do you think of that?

Still I think that it is not appropriate as a criticism, as it is not a common criticism against the site. The reference to DK Goodwin that you keep making makes no sense to me. She’s a famous author who plagiarized sections of her book. How does that relate at all? I didn’t say that such criticisms are foreign to Wikipedia. I said that accusations of misattribution are not common to Ars Technica. Reading the EN Wikipedia list, it seems very clear that criticism sections are supposed to reflect wide, general criticisms. This isn’t one that I can see. The DSL Reports claim still qualifies as hearsay. Tsetna 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to post criticisms like this, then the proposed change looks better. However, I question the need for having such a section in the first place. I mean, how necessary is it point out that an Ars writer forgot to link to a source one time, and anyway, what news site doesn't make the occasional error? Reindeer Flotilla 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am going to make the change. Tsetna 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving this for now. However, the previous phrasing was not incorrect, and it also seems more clear to me. She wasn't just complaining; she accused the author of the article of at the very least being careless (I would say more than that, given the title of the journal entry "Dubious Blogosphere Web Journalism Ethics?". She also implies an attempt at covering up the scale of non-attribution, which lacks mention in the new version. I would appreciate if you could point out what in the previous version was incorrect.--205.231.151.88 03:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous phrasing was not NPOV. The new version sticks to the facts. Another editor agrees. Tsetna 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The "other editor" being Reindeer_Flotilla, I am not surprised. He has previously supported removal of criticism that was documented. I assume you mean non-NPOV, and this is where I think you are wrong. The entire statement was factually correct, and documented "both sides of the story". It seems that I am not alone in this, as El Jefe has apparently edited it back to something more accurate, in my opinion (though I still prefer the non-truncated version).--205.231.151.88 03:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is fine now, even with the word change. I don't care what you think of other editors, though. You should really be able to contribute without constantly trying to muckrake. Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Tsetna, the only thing you do seem to care about is removing criticism from the article. It has been your main concern as far back as I have seen. In order to rake up some muck, the muck needs to exist. You getting another editor who is bent on protecting a website from criticism to agree with you is no great achievement.--216.227.83.118 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could repeat your accusations five or six more times for added affect? Each time be sure to fail to note that I have added criticisms and documented them[2], clearly demonstrated how completely false several others of them have been (dude getting banned for asking for a refund), and I have contributed to the rest of the article as well. Tsetna 15:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's time to seek outside arbitration to settle the issue. It'll force people to either find proper citation that actually supports the point being made or allow the criticism to be removed. Particularly, I'm bothered by "Forum moderators and site administrators are not required to adhere to forum rules with regards to personal attacks and/or posting personal information." The citation is bogus. One link is to comments on Ken Fishers personal blog, which isn't part of the fora (and wouldn't have violated the PG anyway if it had been). The other is to a link where a former moderator posted links to pre-existing threads and a picture (now broken) of APK that APK himself publicly posted, which is not a violation of the forum guidelines, and never has been. Debuskjt 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm up for arbitration or whatever. The situation remains one where the citations make no sense, like you note here. Two of the criticisms look solid, the Blumfeld and the search performance. The "science" one still makes no sense, the "links" show no one making the claim in criticism. The "members gather" thing has been objected to since it was posted, and right now it links to Ken Fishers personal blog too. That link shows up a few other places. Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And Wiki guidelines clearly put the onus on those who wish to keep the criticism to find a proper citation and then readd the criticism. The problem with the MWNH citation and the blog citation were both pointed out when they citations were added and yet reversion wars have allowed them to stand without being addressed. No one should expect improperly cited criticism to stand in hopes that someone at some future time will actually find a proper cite. Debuskjt 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think before you request arbitration you are supposed to make a good faith effort to resolve these issues. Would you be interested in going through the criticisms ourselves for a first round? We will need to document the various viewpoints anyway, I think. I have time to do them like I did the other two above. Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to go through a first round effort to resolve the problems before seeking outside abritration. How should we go about this? My suggestion is to list all contested criticism as the page exists now (and keep reverting all changes to criticism until the issue is resolved to as it exists now), breaking them down individually and clearly explaining why the citations don't support the claim being made and why they don't meet current Wiki standards. Then wait for any rebuttals for some period of time? And if we try this, I implore everyone to please, please, please remember to assume good faith and follow Wiki guidelines on citing sources and verifiability (anyone wishing to be involved in either removing or keeping criticism should be reading those articles in their entirity!). Debuskjt 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on those points. I think we should wait at least a week for all viewpoints. I’m going to be looking at LCD monitors all night so I can begin this. I will proceed as I did with “Alleged Subscription Problems” and just list out the problems with the criticisms that have them. I thought it worked for the last one. Some other reading suggestions for editors would be the guidelines on avoiding masked POV and the neutral point of view's undue weight guideline. Tsetna 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Addressing reversion of all changes to the criticism: I think that this is a bad idea. Many errors in the wording and content of the criticisms have been fixed and should continue to be fixed. That is the process by which articles are improved, and halting that progress just to argue over various points should be avoided (imo). I would not like to go back to the article as of 1.5 months ago. Halting all modification would be the same as reverting to that. My most recent additions (as of a few weeks ago I think) to the citations all seemed to apply to the criticisms at the time. I would appreciate that if you disagree, you post one citation that you do not feel meets the standard and we can examine/discuss that one. No offense, but I don't relish hours of reading and typing all at once, and I think the most simple way of resolving these disagreements is if we take each disputed citation separately. If the citations are part of a group, I don't mind lumping them in to analyze. But let's not have every single section all at once.--216.227.83.118 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The problems with part of the criticism section (the only section being halted, not the entire article as you try to argue) have been documented, but this is not the first time. For records sake, “Cliques & Punitive Action” was identified as questionable on March 15, 3.5 months ago [3]. “Forum Rules and Enforcement issues” was raised as questionable on May 5, practically 2 months ago. You were there for all of it, and I do not think that your schedule should dictate this process, especially since you ignored these issues in the past when it suited you. Tsetna 15:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The reading suggestion of undue weight is funny, as it describes exactly what the "Members gather into subgroups" criticism was about. Some viewpoints will always be in a minority, and basically this is a thinly veiled attempt to deflate criticism by stating "There aren't enough people who complained" or "There aren't enough citations; they are in the minority". If you are interested in an example of this in action, feel free to examine my comment above regarding the "only 2 times" argument.--216.227.83.118 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
More accusations, I see. WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia guideline. Maybe the most important one! When the founder of Wikipedia says that undue weight is a concern, then it's a concern. If you read the guideline, you would see that minority viewpoints are not automatically excluded, but there should be a consensus on what is a minority viewpoint of merit and how it should be related in the article. This is all addressed in the guidelines, which all make it clear that articles are a collaborative effort, and that when disputes arise these guidelines should be used. Tsetna 15:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Criticisms

Debuskjt and I agreed above that the criticism section is in a bad state, and needs work. Arbitration may be the only solution, but a sincere effort to address everything one more time should be undertaken first. The list below is not complete, it reflects the issues that I see or have been acknowledged by other editors. Add your own! We should all assume good faith and follow Wiki guidelines on citing sources and verifiability, if we really want to improve the article. I propose that we use the material below to start a discussion, all parties welcome of course, but please sign comments. Tsetna 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote that criticisms A, B, and C, be removed. Case made below is damning. Jdario
And there hasn't been a single defense of them in 10 days. I'm going to remove them. If the reverts kick back up, they should be removed and outside arbitration pursued, I think. Debuskjt 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of us have lives, and jobs, and families. I am back now, for a while at least, and just put those criticisms back in. Regarding the arguments below, to someone with your POV, of course they look damning. You agreed with their premise before any evidence was presented. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to access episteme.arstechnica.com at the moment, so specific replies will have to wait. Heck, in one of the "damning" points made below, the editor claims that an editor needs to point out the exact spots in which the incidents occur. Now, I will check the link later to see if it can be modified to go right to the instance (I actually thought it already did), but if someone takes a couple of minutes to review the thread, they will find the incident(s) in question. "Angry words and hurt feelings" are not the focus of what is being presented.--216.227.122.185 20:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a family, two jobs, and a life. Our personal schedules are irrelevant. Objections to all of these criticisms were raised in March. 3.5 months is more than enough time for anyone to contributed to the debate. You can still respond to the discussion whenever you get around to it, but Debuskjt, Jdario, Reindeer Flotilla and Tsetna (me) have all agreed that these should be removed, and the reasons have been documented. We agreed to an editing truce and did not remove anything for 12 days. WP:RS indicates that the burden’s on you to provide reliable documentation that is not original research and is verifiable and neutral with regards to POV. A case has been made against these specific criticisms, and no substantive reply has been offered. Tsetna 00:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing the removal of the second criticism "In March of 2006, IP Democracy blogger Cynthia Brumfield accused Ars Technica of using material from her site without attribution. Eric Bangeman and Nate Anderson apologized for the incident.[22]" If this was a recurrent problem with Ars Technica, I think that would be an appropriate thing to have, along with extra citations as appropriate. As it stands now, it appears that someone is trying to single Ars Technica out for something that really appears to be nothing more than an honest mistake on Ars' part, if it really happened as Brumfield claims. Reindeer Flotilla 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
From a Wiki guideline standpoint, it's safe to keep I think, since the criticism doesn't claim that Ars regularly lifts quotations without full attribution. I can't read the IP Democracy website until I am at home, so I can't say one way or the other from a fairness standpoint how I feel. Anyway, my point is that maybe it should be discussed in a separate section of talk, since this one is devoted to criticism that clearly doesn't meet Wiki guidelines? Debuskjt 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has complained about this criticism before, I see your point Reindeer Flotilla, but I’m not sure it would be right to remove it. I agree that a new section should be devoted to it if you want to talk about it. I think the citation now is neutral, verifiable, and from a reliable source generally. There is some doubt that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, however. See Wikipedia:Criticism. Tsetna 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Cliques & Punitive Action

Criticism A: Members can gather into subgroups based on political philosophies and world views. Staff and moderators of the site have been seen to take punitive action against those who express opposing views as fervently as the moderators or majority of the Ars Technica population (which leans strongly to the "left" in political opinion) or question the fairness of moderation.[4]

Primary Problem:

  • This criticism is original research and should be removed according to Wikipedia guidelines. It is OR because:
  • The citation is “messages left on blogs,” which “should not be used as primary or secondary sources.” By definition, without a valid primary or secondary source, this is original research.
  • The criticism also violates the NOR rules because it is a new interpretation advancing a position. The guidelines says that editors should completely exclude anything that “introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.” This is not a reputable source by definition.

Secondary Problems:

  • WP:VERIFY: Citation does not provide verifiability. Citation has nothing to do with cliques, punitive action, or anyone questioning moderation. Note this “citation” was added by Maramba to three different criticisms [5].
  • WP:NPOV: this criticism lacks neutral point of view. The presence of cliques and their political orientation is a matter of POV, because there are no formal cliques or groups on Ars Technica, except maybe “subscribers.” This criticism attempts to assert POV as fact to the exclusion of other POVs. If there are subgroups, they should be easily documented. If they are not, then this criticism is trying to push a minority viewpoint as fact. It is someone’s opinion that there are subgroups, that they gather based on philosophy, that moderators do bad things, etc..
  • WP:RS issue: WP says that “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.” The criticism charges Ars Technica moderators and site administrators with “taking action” against people who express views they don’t like. This is an exceptional accusation without exceptional proof.
  • WP:WEASEL: the wording “can gather” violates the guidelines on weasel words. Inserting “can” is an attempt to make the criticism NPOV, but as the guidelines says this is not OK.
  • Status: challenged, defended, no consensus. This criticism was one of the first challenged [6]. There is a big debate on this topic in the archive under POV[7]. None of the arguments to keep this are convincing. They are mostly “if you look at the forum you will see it is true” in nature, which is by definition not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Forum Rules and Enforcement issues

Criticism B: Forum moderators and site administrators are not required to adhere to forum rules with regards to personal attacks and/or posting personal information. [8] [9]

Primary Problem:

  • This criticism is original research and should be removed according to Wikipedia guidelines. Like the one above, it is OR because:
  • The citation is “Posts to bulletin boards,” which “should not be used as primary or secondary sources.” Again, without a valid primary or secondary source, this is original research.
  • The criticism also violates the NOR rules because it is an interpretation advancing a position.

Secondary Problems:

  • WP:VERIFY: The citation to the Ars forum does not support the claim. Nowhere does that page say that moderators and administrators are not required to follow rules. This is the first problem, because the criticism reads as though it is policy that they do not have to follows rules. I’d like to see proof of it being policy. AFAIK, the moderators are required to follow the rules.
  • WP:VERIFY: Same forum post reveals no private information. The poster “Man with no Head” is not a moderator at Ars, and has not been for several years. When the event happened four years ago the moderator posted a picture that was already public, and is not a violation of the Ars rules.
  • WP:VERIFY: The second citation is that same Ars Journal that is linked everywhere. It has nothing to do with the criticism.
  • Status: Never defended.

Selective Enforcement?

Criticism C: Forum moderators and site administrators may also be selective about the enforcement of forum rules regarding personal attack. [10][11]

Primary Problem:

  • The citation is “Posts to bulletin boards,” which “should not be used as primary or secondary sources.” By definition, without a primary or secondary source, this is original research, which is forbidden at Wkipedia.
  • The criticism also violates the Original Research rules because it is an interpretation advancing a position.

Secondary Problems:

  • WP:WEASEL: wording “may also be selective” violates the guidelines on weasel words. Note that the use of “may” to give something an air of fact is addressed in the guideline.
  • WP:VERIFY: First citation does not provide verification of any fact, and it’s not really possibly to verify what “may” be happening. A bunch of people were calling each other names. Name-calling is not forbidden at Ars Technica. An editor needs to demonstrate how this citation gives evidence about selective enforcement.
  • WP:VERIFY: Second citation is the Ars Journal post again but it shows up in the forum. An editor needs to demonstrate how this citation gives evidence about selective enforcement.
  • WP:VERIFY: Third citation does not provide verification of any fact. In a huge thread about Terry Schiavo, there’s angry words and hurt feelings. An editor needs to demonstrate how this citation gives evidence about selective enforcement.
  • This criticism has two major components, an accusation of intent and a reference to the forum rules. The accusation is weaseled and the violation of the forum rules is not clear. From what I know, moderation at Ars is selective, is it not?
  • Status: Never defended.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/s/Talk%7EArs_Technica_Archive_5_e058.html"