Talk:Derek Smart/Archive3

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

Verifiability not Truth

According to Verifiability not Truth, "one of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". Users wanting the werewolves linked included are inappropriately discussing whether the information is true, which is completely irrelevant. The only area of meaningful discussion is whether the site is a reliable source. Addhoc 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can limit the discussion that way. If the link falls under any of the WP:EL's five criteria for 'What should be linked to' (I think arguments can be made for it falling under 3 or 5) then whether the site is a reliable source is a moot point. Ehheh 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fansites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Werewolves is the major BC3K/Derek Smart fansite. 75.11.185.48 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, people are confused because the guideline as written is confusing. We are bringing truth into this because the guideline does not state that verifiability applies to external links, it only says that they must be factually accurate. Nor does it state that external links must be reliable sources. It does not say that WP:RS applies 100% to WP:EL. It only says that they may not contain original research, or at least those with original research are normally to be avoided. If reliability were to apply to external links, it would says so clearly. Unfortunately it doesn't. That said, I am inclined to be conservative because of the controversial nature of the article.--Beaker342 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

According to WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.
1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"

The werewolves site contains unverified original research and consequently should not be included. Addhoc 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, Do you think that this is an article 'with multiple points of view' and that the werewolves link is a prominent site dedicated to one of those points of view?
Do you think that the werewolves site contains 'meaningful, relevant content'?
Ehheh 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the werewolves article contains unverified original research not meaningful, relevant content. Addhoc 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll just note that I disagree that the two things are mutually exclusive and leave it at that. Ehheh 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The wording of WP:EL seems to have changed recently, so as to seem to collapse WP:RS into WP:EL. I'll note that the gamespy article, itself a reliable source, calls the werewolves site a "good summary" of the flamewar. Of course that itself doesn't mean that werewolves is reliable, but it does provide independent verification of its notability. Perhaps that's the best that supporters of including the link can hope for -- linking to a page that links to the werewolves site. What I'd really like to return our attention to is rebuilding a balanced and well-sourced account of the flamewar. In the revert war over the werewolves link it was an unfortunate casualty. Obviously we can't link to the flamewar itself, but there is literally tons of reliable websites that talk about it. We should be able to construct something out of the pieces of those articles.--Beaker342 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
uhm, no. While Gamespot is a reliable source, it does not in any way, shape or form endorse the Werewolves link. In fact, the Werewolves link is not a summary of the flamewar. It is Derek Smart attack site. It may have been a summary of the flamewar at one point, but I suspect that when the Gamespot article was written, the site (after having been shut down at various ISPs by Smart's attorneys) was probably going through one of its many transitions whereby materials were added, removed, revised, edited etc. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Beaker342 cited the gamespy article (not gamespot). Here is the line from the article, verbatim: "The intricacies of the flame war are very complicated, but there's a good summary of them here." and the word "here" is linked to "http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/". - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons

According to WP:BLP, "be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article...". I would charecterize the werewolves link as a low quality reference containing poorly sourced negative material and consequently should not be included.

Also according to WP:BLP, "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist". From this discussion, I would suggest the inclusion of the werewolves link is borderline and consequently, according to the guidance of WP:BLP, should not be included. Addhoc 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I have already cited both these sources before - verbatim - but these folks just choose to conveniently ignore them. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet again: I am not ignoring it. You are confusing the issue. That policy applies to content of the encyclopedia, not to external links. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are. You are ignoring the standards required by WP:BLP, which has clear guidelines which trump even WP:EL and WP:CS, hence the reason it even exists and is an entire guideline all by itself. You might want to go read it again. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Which part? The only part of WP:BLP that even mentions external links merely says that Derek's blog can be included. I see lots of guff about libel, which is presumably what you mean, but none of that applies to external links. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not have to second-guess whether or not Derek Smart will bother trying to sue some offsite webpage for libel or not--Aim Here 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask Addhoc and supreme_cmdr who have conviniently doged the issue of Jerry Falwell [1], who is a far more noted and controversial figure than Derek Smart. Falwell's page contains a link to a site critical of him "Fallwell.com – Christopher Lamparello's webpage critical of Falwell", which can again be argued to contain unverified material on Falwell. However that has not precluded it being linked to in the article.

[2] explicitly says "including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."
Yep that settles it. 68.79.53.95 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Only a blind gerbil on acid would make that assumption. Especially since the Werewolves site is neither a fansite, nor WP:RS. Not to mention that WP:BLP already addresses the inclusion of negative material which may be suspect and outside the scope of WP:BLP. You're obviously not a blind gerbil on acid, but do try to pay attention. m'kay?
Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil and post constructively. Discussing a hypothetical "blind gerbil on acid" adds nothing to the discussion. The WP:RS is not the same as WP:EL (that is why Wikipedia has WP:EL and WP:BLP discusses the inclusion of negative information and facts, but does not mention external links in any way, whereas WP:EL does explicitly mention correctly annotation external links for fansites and stresses that the number positive (or negative) links must not overwhelm the other. Thank you.68.79.53.95 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Derek Smart is better known than either Erich Schaefer (the designer of Diablo) or John Smedley (a designer of Everquest) although those games have sold dozens more copies than most of the BC3K or Universal Combat titles. But Derek Smart is a household name while their names are trivia items. The reason for this is that Derek Smart is a much more charismatic communicator. So much so that fans have written plays about him A Battlecruiser Named Desire, have written interactive games based on his persona Derek Smart fighting game, and even a movie about his game BC3K Desktop Commander. A Derek Smart History has been archived: History. The WP:EL explicitly states that linking to the largest fan site is preferred, which is what the Werewolves site is. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia to omit the link. So, what VERIFIABLE text do you suggest? (Please don't claim that Derek Smart "vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination" unless you have a source for such a claim - the link text must be verifiable).68.79.53.95 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest "Unofficial Derek Smart Fan Page" although the "Unofficial" adjective may be unneeded. There is no "Official Derek Smart Fan Page" (I believe this is common for fan pages - no one offers a toast for themselves, so there are likewise no "Official" fan pages), so possibly "A Derek Smart Fan Page" or "The Major Derek Smart Fan Page" would be more descriptive (as well as Neutral (as in NPOV)). I believe that this is a neutral description that both neutral Derek Smart fans and neutral Wikipedia editors can agree on, although the Official/Unofficial phrasing may take some discussion - perhaps Nonofficial would be best. 68.79.53.95 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Take Pat Robertson [3], note that at the end a site which contains "Anti-gay quotes from Pat Robertson" which is extremely critical of him, and analogues to the werewolves is linked from the main Robertson article.

The Mel Gibson[4] article contains a external link "How to boycott mel gibson http://media.slate.com/podcast/Explainers/060804-BoycottMel.mp3"

So why are we having double standards, external links critical of smart are not allowed to be published but for others like Fallwell and Roberston such external links critical of them are allowed. So why are we having double standards for Smart and Fallwell. As allways we see supreme_cmdr twisting the wiki guidlines to his own advantage to remove comments critical of smart.

220.247.250.95 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. There are over a million articles and about two thousand article which are good or very good. So about 99.8% is crud, which proves Sturgeon's Law. Addhoc 17:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Apart from that, they are calling for a boycott of Mel. Falwell's views are also controversial. If someone were posting that Mel was gay or that Falwell suffered from AIDS, had NPD etc, it would never stand. That is what is going on with the Werewolves link and the big difference that you are conveniently ignoring. The Werewolves link is a blatantly libelous site which, unlike the others cited, has no merits in terms of Smart's actions in society or in the public eye. If it was writing about his games or his actions, thats fine. But it goes beyond that. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Am i correct in assuming that Addhoc's definition of a good article is one which implements wiki guidlines 100% in a draconian style, which is butchered mercilessly. In that case Smart's article would contain only the text , "Derek Smart is a game developer who developed bc3000ad now universal combat". supreme_cmdr should not be allowed to add any other masturbatory excesses (like driving around in a mercedes sl convertible, winning lawsuits etc), and the detractors should not be allowed to post a single negative text either. As you can see if this was rigorously implemented it would make most articles uninteresting and bland.
However the straw poll reveals that most of the users want the link included in the biography and we have to respect that. Since USENET is not a valid source for a wiki, i am off now to edit the torvalds article and remove the USENET posting link for linux, lets see what happens. I want to see what kind of input it generates.220.247.250.221 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, according to the quality scale, which is also linked to at the top of this page. Also straw polls are not binding, see Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Addhoc 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Page Discussion

75.30.203.153 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart is better known than either Erich Schaefer (the designer of Diablo) or John Smedley (a designer of Everquest) although those games have sold dozens more copies than most of the BC3K or Universal Combat titles. But Derek Smart is a household name while their names are trivia items. The reason for this is that Derek Smart is a much more charismatic communicator. So much so that fans have written plays about him A Battlecruiser Named Desire, have written interactive games based on his persona Derek Smart fighting game, and even a movie about his game BC3K Desktop Commander. A Derek Smart History has been archived: History.

The WP:EL explicitly states that linking to the largest fan site is preferred, which is what the Werewolves site is. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia to omit the link.

I suggest that the link be captioned: "Unofficial Derek Smart Fan Page" although the "Unofficial" adjective may be unneeded. There is no "Official Derek Smart Fan Page" (I believe this is common for fan pages - no one offers a toast for themselves, so there are likewise no "Official" fan pages), so possibly "A Derek Smart Fan Page" or "The Major Derek Smart Fan Page" would be more descriptive (as well as Neutral (as in NPOV)). I believe that this is a neutral description that both neutral Derek Smart fans and neutral Wikipedia editors can agree on, although the Official/Unofficial phrasing may take some discussion - perhaps Nonofficial would be best.

To get an idea of what the concensus view for the link description should be, I would like to take a straw poll after we have a few ideas for the link text.

The current suggestions are: 1) Unofficial Derek Smart Fan Page 2) Derek Smart Fan Page (Unofficial)

Please add other good faith suggestions to the list above 68.79.53.95 02:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. And how is the Werewolves link a fan page? Nice try though. It'll never happen.Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Welcome!

I have used the Wikipedia Fan Page definition [5] to help you see fans here for Derek Smart. I believe that the owner of theWerewolves page may actually fit the "Big Name Fan" definition below. [Note that I am not saying that you or others are also not big fans, but that ~technically~ I don't believe that the ~definition~ for "Big Name Fan" applies to you.

Here is the Wikipedia definition for fan: There are certain common characteristics to be found in fans interested in different topics and that these characteristics influence the behaviors of those involved in fan behavior (Thorne&Bruner 2006).

Those common characteristics include (Thorne&Bruner 2006):

  • internal involvement. Fans focus more of their time and resources intently on a specific area of interest than a non-fan would, and are not significantly concerned if non-fans (including family or friends) don't derive pleasure from the area of interest. Fans usually have a strong enough interest that small to major changes in their lifestyles are made to accommodate devotion to the focal object.
  • desire for external involvement - are motivated to demonstrate their involvement with the area of interest through certain behaviors (attending conventions, posting online, etc.)
  • wish to acquire - fans tend to express a strong desire to possess material objects related to the area of interest.
  • desire for social interaction with other fans. This again may take many forms, from casual conversation, e-mail, chat rooms, and electronic mailing lists to regular face-to-face meetings such as fan club meetings and organized conventions.

There are several groups of fans that can be differentiated by the intensity level of their level of involvement or interest in the hobby (level of fanaticism) (Thorne&Bruner 2006).

For more details on this topic, see Big Name Fan.

A Big Name Fan is a term for a fan who has achieved notoriety and respect within a fandom, usually for their fan fiction or fan art contributions. Big Name fans may have fans of their own and be asked for autographs.

I hope this helps. 68.79.53.95 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Its nonsense and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about and are just once again distorting a definition to suit an meaningless agenda. Nice try though but no cigar. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


What supreme_cmdr or anyone else cant deny is that there is no prohibition in the wiki for adding a link to the werewolves site as a external link. 220.247.251.203 11:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently you are correct, including the link would only be against the guidance of several procedures including WP:BLP and WP:EL. However, if a lawyer gave an opinion the inclusion of the link was libellous, then, in that instance, including the link would be prohibited. Addhoc 17:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, actually, that would be insufficient, if a lawyer gave that opinion. Lawyers are not judges, the description as libel would only matter if the opinion came from the Wiki Foundation's own legal counsel, or a bona fide court decision. Lawyers claim things all the time, and, by the very nature of their profession, disagree on almost everything
Fox1 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I meant if Wikipedia's lawyers gave that opinion, then including the link would be prohibited according to policy. Addhoc 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Libel Discussion

75.30.203.153 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) This section is intended for any legal opinions about the Derek Smart page and its links. 75.30.203.153 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/r/Talk%7EDerek_Smart_Archive3_09fe.html"