Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note: I believe that Kitteneatkitten is a sockpuppet. He's only had his account for a few weeks and apparently has a lot of vitriol for me that is unexplainable. It could even be infinity0 for all we know. RJII 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Anarchist FAQ is not a credible source on Wikipedia
He's talking about me "distorting" policy on sourcing. Maybe this interchange on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources] under "Query" will makes things clearer:
-
- "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them.
-
- Why only in *articles* about them? What if there is a section about them, in an article on a different subject? For example, on Wage labour there is a section about its criticisms and its criticisers. Is it OK if sources originating from those criticisers are used, to cite the sentence "criticisers think that wage labour..."? That to me, seems no different that citing their own opinion in an article about themselves. -- infinity0 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because the subject of the article is "wage labor." The subject is not the source itself. If you're stating what "An Anarchist FAQ" and "marxists.org" think about wage labor, then you would be using them as credible authorities on the subject. And, that wouldn't be allowed. RJII 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't be stating them as credible authorities on wage labour. I would only be stating what they think about wage labour. There is nothing which says what they think is the "correct" definition. -- infinity0 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Stating what they think about wage labor, assumes that what they think about wage labor matters. RJII 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- And why don't the opinions of the opponents of wage labour matter? -- infinity0 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The views of some opponents of wage labor matters, and the views of other opponents of wage labor don't. For example, your opinion on wage labor doesn't matter (as far as we know). Your work, if you have any, has never been published and you have no academic credentials. That's why Wikipedia doesn't allow you to put your "original research" into an article. You're relegated to only bringing in the views of others who are credible sources that have been published (preferably in a peer reviewed journal). If a you or you, and your friends, put up a website and "self-publish" things on it, it's not a credible source by Wikipedia standards. RJII 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- AFAQ and Marxists.org are not me, however, so you are arguing based on a wild technicality. You're also using Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a guide for notability, which is not what it's for. WP:RS says those sources can be used as primary sources. However, the fact that An Anarchist FAQ and Marxists.org both have articles means they are both notable, and that their opinions do matter. Again, I emphasise that they are being used as primary sources. -- infinity0 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The policy against using self-published sources is hardly a "technicality." It's a central part of keeping the information in Wikipedia verifiable. Sure, you can use them as "primary sources" and only as primary sources. That means you can only use them in articles about "An Anarchist FAQ" and "Marxists.org." You cannot use them as sources for other articles. An Anarchist FAQ may have a modicum of notability, but it does not does not meet the standards of a credible source. WP:V says: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." The same goes for Marxists.org or the Geocities.com site that creates and hosts the "An Anarchist FAQ." RJII 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why only their own articles is the question I am asking. -- infinity0 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The policy against using self-published sources is hardly a "technicality." It's a central part of keeping the information in Wikipedia verifiable. Sure, you can use them as "primary sources" and only as primary sources. That means you can only use them in articles about "An Anarchist FAQ" and "Marxists.org." You cannot use them as sources for other articles. An Anarchist FAQ may have a modicum of notability, but it does not does not meet the standards of a credible source. WP:V says: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." The same goes for Marxists.org or the Geocities.com site that creates and hosts the "An Anarchist FAQ." RJII 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- AFAQ and Marxists.org are not me, however, so you are arguing based on a wild technicality. You're also using Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a guide for notability, which is not what it's for. WP:RS says those sources can be used as primary sources. However, the fact that An Anarchist FAQ and Marxists.org both have articles means they are both notable, and that their opinions do matter. Again, I emphasise that they are being used as primary sources. -- infinity0 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The views of some opponents of wage labor matters, and the views of other opponents of wage labor don't. For example, your opinion on wage labor doesn't matter (as far as we know). Your work, if you have any, has never been published and you have no academic credentials. That's why Wikipedia doesn't allow you to put your "original research" into an article. You're relegated to only bringing in the views of others who are credible sources that have been published (preferably in a peer reviewed journal). If a you or you, and your friends, put up a website and "self-publish" things on it, it's not a credible source by Wikipedia standards. RJII 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- And why don't the opinions of the opponents of wage labour matter? -- infinity0 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because the subject of the article is "wage labor." The subject is not the source itself. If you're stating what "An Anarchist FAQ" and "marxists.org" think about wage labor, then you would be using them as credible authorities on the subject. And, that wouldn't be allowed. RJII 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why only in *articles* about them? What if there is a section about them, in an article on a different subject? For example, on Wage labour there is a section about its criticisms and its criticisers. Is it OK if sources originating from those criticisers are used, to cite the sentence "criticisers think that wage labour..."? That to me, seems no different that citing their own opinion in an article about themselves. -- infinity0 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Because the subject of the article is "wage labor." The subject is not the source itself. If you're stating what "An Anarchist FAQ" and "marxists.org" think about wage labor in an article about wage labor, then you would be using them as a secondary source about wage labor. By citing them in an article about wage labor, you are giving them more credit than they deserve. They have no qualifications to comment on the subject. What they have to say about wage labor does not matter, in a reliable encyclopedia. RJII 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
User:RJII is offering a clear explanation in the above. Jkelly 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)"
[edit] Proposed findings of fact
Fred, I don't understand your comment to alternative C of the AFAQ finding, unless you are really objecting to alternatives A and B. I also had in mind another version ("D" I guess) which I didn't want to post, but I'll put it here in case anyone is interested.
- An Anarchist FAQ may be cited as a secondary source in articles on anarchist topics, keeping in mind the limitations that all sources have, especially regarding controversial topics (i.e. they usually reflect the authors' preferred views, interpretations and sources, and may under-represent or ignore contrary facts, interpretations, and sources). Thatcher131 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Fred, you seem to get the impression I have pushed an Anarchist POV onto unrelated articles. Please let me assure this is not the case. Look through my edits and you will find that I have only made anarchist edits to anarchist articles. The series of edits on wage labour I believed were appropriate as they are a common criticism against it. -- infinity0 11:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's why this is the Workshop, rather tentative. Fred Bauder 12:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hope that you look into RJII's activities as thoroughly as you have looked into mine. -- infinity0 13:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- ditto that. The Ungovernable Force 15:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I can assure that it is the case that infinity0 pushes anarchist views into unrelated articles. For example, I had a little skirmish with him because he was removing the names of well known critics of capitalism from the capitalism article and replacing them with the names of obscure anarchists. RJII 15:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought pushing anarchist POV involved writing anarchist POV into the capitalism article. I have not done that AFAIK. Also, "well-known" is your interpretation. -- infinity0 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
