Talk:Bash.org/Archive 3

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

Blaxthos

Blaxthos is sitting on this article and trying to make sure that any criticism of bash.org is marked up as POV. If you want an unbiased article, you need to find a way to stop him editing it -- he's obviously incapable of being objective about the issue. 81.1.73.247 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

He claims on his comment on this edit that "criticism is not encyclopedic content", and that therefore he feels the need to tag the section. However, anyone who looks around Wikipedia can clearly see that very, very many articles have criticism sections, yet are not marked up this way. 81.1.73.247 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will assume in good faith that your deletion of my response to your first paragraph was either accidental, or you just don't know any better...
One, thanks for participating in talk instead of just unliaterally making changes.  :-) Next step: join the wikipedia community by registering!
Two, "criticism" is not usually considered encyclopaedic content. However, after some back and forth (which was resolved years ago and has since been archived), the criticism section remained in place, along with an explaination section. Due to the unencyclopaedic nature, an off-topic notice is apppropriate tag.
Three, I think you're confusing POV and appropriate content... open up the encyclopedia britannica... I seriously doubt you'll see a criticism section in any article at all. One, criticism is often leveled by people of unknown identity and uncertain motives. It would be very easy for a Ford exec to go and mark up a Toyota article with criticism... but once one weighs the source of the criticism it loses credibility. Likewise, the guidelines of wikipedia on appropriate material are fairly clear. There is no "why toyota sucks" section on the toyota page. That one resides here is, in some peoples' opinions, a violation of wiki guidelines in and of itself. At the very least, it deserves an off-topic notice.
Four, Just because it exists on other pages does not mean it is encyclopaedic content. Go look in an actual encyclopedia instead of justifying your viewpoint by pointing to other articles.
Hope this helps.  :-)
P.S. -- doesn't criticism necessarily introduce bias?
/Blaxthos 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, Wikipedia DOES include criticism. The reason it does this is to maintain NPOV. Articles can end up as big puff pieces, and having criticism avoids that -- but criticism can also overwhelm an article, which it's why it's often kept to that one section if there is enough to warrant it. What Britannica does is hardly relevant here.
And I never intended to get involved in this, really -- this is a public IP and I prefer it that way. But I think marking up criticism of yourself on Wikipedia as being somehow 'irrelevant' is very, very wrong.
Take a look at this Google search. There are many, many ENTIRE ARTICLES devoted to criticism of something or other. If you're right, why haven't all these articles been deleted? 81.1.73.247 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
does and should are two seperate animals. Wikipedia articles include criticism because anyone can edit them and add their opinion (unencyclopedic) without accounting for their motives, revealing their bias and relation to the subject (*COUGH*).
Also, please note that there is a difference between information that strays from an articles topic (as in an off-topic notice) and challenging the validity or truthfulness of information (there is a completely seperate tag for that). In fact, how can you even claim criticism is "true" or "false" -- it's all opinion, which is necessarily biased!
Britanica is the premier encyclopedia, and it is very telling that there is absolutely no "criticism" in a true encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are a catalogues of information, not places for people to air their petty bitches, spite, or anger over how a website is run. It's absolutely ludacris that you want to call this information "encyclopedic."
I did not write the bash.org article. I do not remove criticism. I also do not hide behind anonymous logins and web proxies to pretend like I'm another user, josh (see also: meat puppet -- wiki violation). Instead of continually using seperate wiki logins and hiding behind proxies to cause strife over bash.org related articles, why don't you tell everyone who you are and what your real motives are?  ;-)
/Blaxthos 12:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoever you think I am, I can assure you that I'm not. You seem a little paranoid. Like I say, why haven't all those criticism articles been deleted if Wikipedia isn't for criticism? You didn't address that point at all. Wikipedia does, in fact, include criticism -- to deny this is what is 'ludacris' (ha).
Wikipedia has very many things Britannica doesn't. Does Britannica have hyperlinks? Does it have talk pages? I think you're just being daft, to be honest, and I think anyone who knows the first thing about Wikipedia can see that. I suggest you read up on it before you edit further. 81.1.73.247 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Just chiming in to say that Blaxthos' rant on 'bias' is humorous since he's the administrator of bash.org. View his contributions to the article over the years to get a living example of the definition of hypocrisy. Also, yeah, you're almost as insecure and petty as you are paranoid, Blaxthos. I'm not 81.1.73.247, and I only knew of this stuff after having your accusations brought to my attention (by yourself and others). Just relax, dude. It's a website. I mean, seriously. Think about that for a minute. Try not being so confrontational and pretending like you're mister wikipedia by linking everyone to policy and their assumed violations of it every 5 minutes. Woooosa. -Markusbradley 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies if you are not josh... wouldn't be the first time he has used meatpuppets to start shit regarding bash.org... Britannica does not have hyperlinks because it utilizes a print medium. The comparison there is laughable... Britannica is an encyclopedia (probably the most prestegious one in the world). It does not contain criticism because criticism is unencyclopaedic content. Wikipedeia aims/claims to be an encyclopedia, and has guidelines dictating what encyclopaedic content is. I would imagine that criticism is so rampant because of the sheer volume of people who want to criticize various topics... however, you bypass my main point: criticism is necessarily biased, and as such, deserves an off-topic tag (if not removed entirely). If your only point is "it should be here because other articles have criticism too" then your logic would also rationalize that posession of drugs is okay because other people possess them. Either way, that doesn't address that (1) criticism is unencyclopaedic, (2) criticism is necessarily biased, and (3) it is not "on-topic." Let's keep in mind here the issue is an off-topic tag, not the existance of criticism. /Blaxthos 05:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, nice presumed need to throw in the accusation. Before I give you credence, I'll ask that you learn how to spell "unencyclopedic" and "prestigious." At any rate, now that I'm here, many pages on Wikipedia have criticism sections -- even whole articles dedicated to criticism of a particular topic. View Microsoft's article, any page on religion, any page on a politician, any page on an artist, etc. The better articles don't have a 'criticism' section, but they do incorporate popular criticisms with the relevant content.
Whether or not wikipedia should have criticism at all is a matter of personal belief and vision; it is not, in any way, the official standard of the project. Read Wikipedia:Criticism and relax your overzealous quest for the perfect utopian purely positive article on the project you admin. -Markusbradley 12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines, not personal beliefs. Did you even read the proposed policy? It is ironic you reference the it, because it says that there should not be a criticism section. I would also like to direct you to the Village Pump, where uninvolved observers have said in no uncertain terms that the criticism section on this article is quite inappropriate, does not meet wiki guidelines for several reasons (research, sources, NPOV), and should be removed immediately. Finally, please note that I do not desire a "pristine" article; I desire what we should all be striving for -- an encyclopaedic article, not a place to air criticism and spite.
P.S. -- "encyclpaedic" is the old english spelling. Google for it. Please forgive my misspelling of "prestigious", it's not a word I often use.  :-) /Blaxthos 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read my post? I said: "The better articles don't have a 'criticism' section, but they do incorporate popular criticisms with the relevant content." What's ironic is that I summarized the proposed policy in that sentence, yet you accuse me of not reading it. I'll say again, I'm all for removing the criticism section, but not for removing the criticism content. Work it into the article's content.
I also believe you meant to say observer instead of observers when you referenced the Village pump policy. I also believe that observer stated that both the criticism and your response section were POV'd. I also believe that observer went on to say that it was his opinion, and that the article has been tagged for more work -- not that the content should be "removed immediately." If you immediately start trying to spin some trivial reply in another discussion -- replying here with outright lies -- then how can you be NPOV on an article about a project you admin? This is a pretty glaring example of your inability to be NPOV. Your spin machine is off the hook, seriously.
Whether motivated by pretentiousness or downright stupidity, I still find your spelling to be totally wrong and unjustified. The logo on the top left even says "encyclopedia," and I'd assume that's kind of the official way to spell it here. In the interest of consistency, at least you could convert all of your posts to the Old English language. Twould be most intearsting, forsooth. -Markusbradley 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I tagged this article as Original Research for items mainly in the criticism section but on the whole the article needs to be on a more solid footing in regards to reliable sources. In the Criticism sections all the "References" are actually examples of quotes from the website. This is a red flag for OR because it reads as a research paper with the examples highlighting a particular point. There is also some hints of "weasel words" which I will tag with a source request. Agne 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Observer

I have no vested interest in the subject of this article, in fact I never even heard of Bash.org till the discussion on Criticism section. My interest lies in having quality, sourced and verified articles in Wikipedia. Here is what I observe with the articles.

  1. Above all it needs to be better sourced. From the Criticism section throughout, you need more then just examples from postings from the website. In every way those are Self published sources that fails WP:RS. An example can be presented as just that--an example but it will not back up and verify a claim by itself. It needs to be connected with an independent secondary source-not personal user blogs. Look for things more along the lines of C-net and maybe a student newspaper like MIT's The Tech.
  2. The Criticism section, if properly sourced, should be intergrated throughout the article. It serves as a lightening rod as a section on it's own. Anything that can't be sourced should not be in the article.
  3. The Response section would probably need to go. This is completely Original Research--even the title sets it up to be that. Now if the independent sources that verify the criticms also verify the response, then it is appropriate to mention that in the article. However, like with the criticism section, anything that can't be sourced should not be in the article.
  • I know I'm sounding like a broken record at this point but the key is Sources! Sources! Sources!. Flame wars start over personal opinion because it invites emotions to take part. Being diligent in attaching reliable, independent sources to your edits encourages you to take a step back and see how the "Outside World" views your subject and it makes it easier to keep level heads.
My Recomendation Everyone take a week to work on putting reliable sources in the article--no massive deletes, no unsourced addition. After that week, any unsourced comments (be they positive or negative) should be deleted.Agne 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like no one has tried to add any reliable sources to the article. Tomorrow, I will review the article and edit it to conform to NPOV standards in accordance to what is reliably sourced. Agne 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Sections

I spent an extra couple of days pondering if there was anyway to clean up the Criticism and Response section with a NPOV tone and reliable sources. The big stumbling block was the sources and despite my best Google Foo, I could not find any reliable independent sources to back up any of the claims in either section. Looking at the article's edit history, the only growth since the Criticism section was introduce has been to add more POV claims which the addition of the equally POV response section doesn't balance. Again, the area it falls flat in is with sources. For the time being, I think it's best for the sections to be removed from the article with no prejudice for recreation of a referenced, NPOV successor. However, I do think the more proper place for the criticism is to be intergrated in the article. As a side note, I was sorely tempted to remove the other other unsourced comments (or comments sourced with the unreliable blog/bash.org postings) but decided against for the time being because they were not POV oriented. Agne 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One wikipedia philosophy I don't agree with are source nazi deletionists. -Markusbradley 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm an inclusionist who values Verification and WP:NPOV very highly. As I said before, there is no prejudice for recreation and I do think the inclusions of referenced criticism is a very healthy component of the article. Agne 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Suggestion

If there is a site with a consolidated page or article detailing the criticism about bash.org, that link could be listed in External Link sections with a description to the effect of Users criticisms about bash.org, etc. Agne 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pure Vanity

I can see nothing noteworthy—and little (not nothing) that made me laugh—on or about this site. Is this not the kind of article which brings Wikipedia into disrepute? Ian Spackman 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's noteworthy, but not worthy of any intense article. It's been progressively trimmed from its former silly glory into something much more reasonable. I (and others) have removed a lot of the bias and PR sounding fluff. It could still be trimmed, but it's not a candidate for deletion. -Markusbradley 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

markusbradley again?!

wow... WP:POINT out of control. hey markus, why not check out some facts and add appropriate citations instead of deleting the entire content of the article. example: read the screen cap on the article itself. notice two counterstrike servers right there? children should be banned from editing wikipedia... /Blaxthos 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of this section is ridiculous. You can't instantly get support for your position by flailing your arms and screaming like a lunatic.
I revised my edit of 'server' back to 'servers.' I confused your singular quake server with your two previous counter strike servers. My apologies, but that's pretty minor, and certainly nothing that warrants such a huge assault on the talk page. Also, I did check the facts. And I did add a citation. -Markusbradley 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not just check the facts in the first place, instead of deleting information willy-nilly?
I think your previous edit comments/reasons/history speak for your motives just fine:
From all this, it's pretty obvious you went on several long-term deletion rampages to prove a point after a neutral party excised information you fought to have present (criticism section). By deleting a vast majority of the article (which was factually accurate, and for the most part referenced), you have done nothing but attempt to bring the rest of wikipedia down to your level when you don't get your way.
Again, children shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia... /Blaxthos 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Policy (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA) is that editors who can't edit without calling others names are not allowed to edit. Please reconsider your interaction strategy before you are blocked for incivility. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, yes, please cry to an admin and ask them to ban me for calling him childish. i'm sure that's the intent of the policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaxthos (talk • contribs) .
That is the intent of policy. If editors aren't willing to respect our user conduct policies, they will be asked politely to follow them. If they refuse or show further disrespect at the polite requests, they can be made unable to continue violating policy by blocking. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, what exactly are you trying to prove by copying the edit history to the talk page? That I edited the article? The edit summary in the first example is probably less than optimal, I agree. The rest are completely true and verifiable. I didn't add anything malicious or biased, I did not delete anything notable, and I reworded a few sentences to not be so POV'd. The edits are totally fine and completely justified, and they do nothing to show any sort of bias.. sorry. You're really, really grasping at straws trying to make conclusions that are ridiculously absurd.
  • If deleting "Currently bash.org has been enjoying a virtually non-stop queue of submissions" shows that I have problems with POV, then so be it.
  • If changing "the site's popularity increased exponentially with the new management" (also an unverifiable claim) to "the site's popularity continued to increase" shows I'm out to defame the site in the article, then alright.
  • If deleting the link to the non-notable hosting company of www.bash.org (but leaving in the company name) means I'm vindictive, well, okay.
  • If deleting "with an approval rate of 5% being average" because it's verifiably false and misleading (the context of the excerpt came from a paragraph on the modapp, not the qdb itself) means that I'm being childish, then I guess I am.
  • If adding a citation for the use of the word "bash", then removing the OR and cite flags means that I'm "bringing wikipedia down to my level," well, I guess so..
But really, all the edits you cited improved the article -- they did no disservice to 'bash.org' or wikipedia. I will gladly wade through a peer review to see what edit were bad and good. Your mudslinging ignores the reality of my edits and the current state of the article. I'm not really sure why my edits have caused such a controversy, but, again, I'll gladly have them be reviewed to determine if they're as horrible as you claim. -Markusbradley 23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If by improving you mean removing information that does not adhere strictly to the source rules of wikipedia, then perhaps it was an improvement. However, the comments as well as the content of your edits seem more like a case of "turnabout is fair play" -- information you fought to retain (criticism) was removed due to original research, inappropriate tone, and point of view problems by an uninvolved party. So therefore, you use that same reasoning to remove a vast majority of the article's content (most of which was correct, and verifiable had you done a little digging or asking instead of swinging the axe). Using a rule to defeat a policy... where have i heard that before...? also, keep in mind you didn't object to this content until someone gave us a week to clean it up, and then, after you neither did nothing nor raised content onjections, cleaned it up himself (removing truely POV section). /Blaxthos 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The things I removed were justifiable. Review them, get others to review them. I didn't just remove, I also added a source and revised the wording in a few locations. Instead of the overly glamorous 'enjoying the success,' I made it a bit more encyclopedic. The article still has criticism, but it's worked into the body -- something I suggested be done.
If you can verify what you're claiming, then edit the article and do so, since it only takes "a little digging or asking." Everything that I removed was just not a big deal. Everything I reworded made the article less POV'd. Instead of more wild accusations, get the input of other members. I don't think a few sentences is hardly "the vast majority of the article's content." If you want to dispute my edits, then prove me wrong. -Markusbradley 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add any of the content you deleted -- other users did, obviously thinking it was noteworthy. It only became unnoteworthy (nor did you make effort to reword things you feel are POV issues until) after a week's break and a proper cleanup by an uninvovled party. Let's not forget, you removed information on a blatantly false pretense that, if you'd bothered to simply add in the citation and read the research, would have stood. In fact, you even went so far as to remove citations that would have clarified issues that might have been confusing. I believe one should improve an article by doing research and adding citations/clarifications, not just removing everything you can (which, as others have cautioned you, looks like a WP:POINT). Feel free to take the last word, further discussion is moot. /Blaxthos 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please specifically show me these things? What needed the cite and research that I deleted? What did I delete that was important, notable, and could have been confirmed with research? Can you please, seriously, show me specifically so we can craft a better article instead of have you spend your time talking bad about me and claiming I'm a horrible person? -Markusbradley 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
also don't go forging my signature. That is VERY bad form. /Blaxthos 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment was unsigned. -Markusbradley 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. May I suggest you read the Welcome page and Five pillars of Wikipedia, as well as the following policies that are becoming increasingly relevant to your behaviour and editing: verifiability, assume good faith, and, for good measure in case you feel the need to go in that direction, no personal attacks. All of those are policy, and all of them are not negotiable here. If you disagree with them, you are welcome to take it to the respective policy Talk pages to try to get them changed. Until then, you will please abide by them.
Note that I offer this as advice: if you remain unaware of these policies or willfully dismissive of them, your ability to contribute will be abruptly curtailed. I am doing you a favour—please take advantage of it. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, when they start banning people for calling one's actions childish, ring me up and let me know. Until then, the threats are unnecessary... afaict you are not an admin, nor are you handling this in the way an admin would. Thanks.  ;-) /Blaxthos 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Throwing around insults is counterproductive and against policy. Simple as that. If you would like to test whether a non-admin can call you to account, you may do so. We have tidy processes in place that anyone may use to deal with those who think they are above policy. If you don't want to test it, wonderful—that means you're not being insulting anymore. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what's really counterproductive is a luser rolling up and trying to intimidate talk participants with threats of "I WILL GET YOUR ACCOUNT BANNED." What's even worse is that this is not over some horrible incivil insult, but someone being called childish. Regarding your actions, you will find me shaking in laughter, not fear. Please try to make yourself seem/feel important elsewhere -- though the conversation may have appeared heated, it was also civil and suspiciously devoid of insults (in either direction) and worked towards resolving a dispute. So, go whine to admins and try to sound important all you wish -- call me to account! I await the ban you so surely believe you can obtain. /Blaxthos 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, while you may not believe you were uncivil with Markus in calling him childish (Personally, I think that was borderline), you are being quite antagonistic and patronizing to Saxifrage. Please Assume Good Faith for another editor whose concern was the apparent tone of this conversation. (Remember, that the text base medium we deal with gives ways to many interpretation of how words come accross). A proper course would have been to acknowledge his concern, politely state that it wasn't your intent to be uncivil (which I garner was the case) and then go on with the conversation. Instead, we have you taunting and challenging Saxifrage, which admin or not, is not proper behavior. Agne 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is also full of curiosities. -Markusbradley 05:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Agne, but I don't react well to someone throwing down a warrantless threat of "banning an account" on first interaction. Neither am I easily intimidated, nor do I appreciate people who try to make themselves sound important via bullying and fear. It is one thing to have concern for the wikiway/wikicommunity, but it's another entirely to bust up with the "BE NICE OR I WILL HAVE YOU BANNED" over a "borderline" comment. Admittedly, antagonism was not the best reply, but I know the rules well enough to know where the line is. Sorry that I don't tolerate unwarranted and baseless threats from persons who don't participate in the conversation, but only jump in to throw them around. /Blaxthos 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As you seemed to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I was trying to impress upon you that behaving badly is a serious offense, enough that it can result in blocking. I think how I tried to convey that message wasn't effective: noting that it's a blocking offense, from my perspective, was just a measure of how little name-calling is tolerated; obviously, from the perspective of the person getting the "warning", it sounded like a threat. For that I'm sorry as I didn't mean to emphasise that part of it. And, on that note, I have to thank you for making me consider this, because I'll be able to better avoid miscommunicating that way in the future. It's also a relevant point that "blocking" isn't the same thing as "banning" at Wikipedia (blocks tend to be very short), and I have to keep in mind that someone I'm warning because I think they're unfamiliar with the rules is unlikely to appreciate the difference. So, thanks for that too. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT?

Blaxthos, if you have a problem with me, take it up with me. Don't go editing peoples talk pages to try and garner support. I'm an ex-mod, but I'm currently completely unaffiliated with the site. Be mature. I completely stand by my edits, and I think they're completely fair and more in line with what you desire: "a factually accurate article." For instance, here's plenty of examples of non-neutral tone:

  • bash.org has been enjoying a virtually non-stop queue of submissions
  • ...bash.org and offered all resources necessary to ensure the continued success of bash.org

And here's some examples of things that aren't true, which I fixed:

  • with an approval rate of 5% being average (the actual scores show the average being less than that -- the mod test notes are not a statistical document)
  • or X for a quote which they feel should be removed from the database entirely. If the latter option is selected, the quote is subject to re-moderation. (can you prove to me that this functionality exists?)

There's also things which are entirely non-notable themselves:

  • XML feed (we're going to list all sites that have xml feeds now? how is this uniquely important or notable?)
  • Mod app

If you disagree, then awesome, I'm all for hearing a different opinion, and I'll totally own up to being wrong about any of these assumptions (like the counterstrike/quake thing). Feel free to dispute these edits in a proper fashion, but don't presume to go around with completely libelous, incorrect stories and assumptions about me, Blaxthos. You're expected as an adult to resolve your own disputes and handle your own affairs, and as a wikipedian you're expected to limit the amount of times you cry wolf. (Copied to bash.org/Talk page since it discusses the edits), reply there. -Markusbradley 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/s/Talk%7EBash.org_Archive_3_e62c.html"