Talk:Paul Thurrott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Contents

[edit] Help

Hi, I need some help on expanding this article, Please help me. Please!!!!!

- Windows72106 13:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get onto it as soon as I have time - probably within a day or so, since it's approaching midnight here. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hangon

Paul Thurrott is a very well known technology pundit, and has made the news a number of times. He is definitely notable - so, rather than speedying this, I propose we actually add some content explaining his significance.

His Internet Nexus and WinSuperSite pages are, after all, the first two hits on a Google search for Paul Thurrott... among more than half a million other hits. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a short piece on his notability. It's midnight: hopefully, this will be enough to avoid this article being speedied before morning. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion

Out of interest, why is this still be proposed for deletion? It contains the minimal information that was requested, and is currently under speedy construction: it would be far more valuable to simply list some primary concerns to be addressed, and remove the tag. Considering that Thurrott is a significant individual, deleting this article achieves nothing; listing it as needing expansion and/or proposing solutions to its current state do.

I've therefore removed the deletion tag, in good faith. I simply believe that it already meets the requested criteria, and now needs specific criticism (and a hearty dose of expansion). RandyWang (raves/rants) 15:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

no problem here... some minor POV cleanup, a couple sources citing his notability/popularity, and some expansion, and it could be a good article... - Adolphus79 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Apple x86 references

I removed the above-mentioned reference due to the fact that the source is highly dubious...The "many technology critics" are just a bunch of forum users responding to a thread. Also the fact that he was right should make the entire point of the critcism moot... Scott 110 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed "Criticisms" section

I have removed that section. If the criticism isn't carried in non-trivial sources it isn't notable or important enough to be carried on Wikipedia. Including it would give undue weight and create a POV slant in the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott has been criticized by a significant number of people of varying notability. I've restored the Criticisms section for this reason. If you Google him you'll find that there is a lot of information out there, some supportive of Thurrott, some critical of him. I believe that those critical of Thurrott represent a "significant viewpoint" and merit inclusion under the NPOV policy. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You've once again removed the Criticisms section, this time with the comment "This section sucks royally, and the subject has complained. These are pretty small beer and in at least one case long in the past."

No offense, but I can't know whether or not Paul Thurrott has actually complained without evidence. Please show me where he has complained about the information in this article. However, even so, we do not remove negative information from biographies simply because the person who the biography is about objects. We can't ignore the significant group of people who do not like Thurrott's reviews. A good example is Asa Dotzler, who found Thurrott's review of Firefox 2.0 to be misleading and inaccurate (though Asa Dotzler has not criticized Thurrott's other works). —Remember the dot (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy and myself are a members of the WP:OTRS Team. The OTRS reference to the complaint here is Ticket#: 2007040710013944 If you doubt me, feel free to ask any member of the OTRS team to verify it for you. We can't republish his email verbatim, but suffice it to say that the section was poorly received. The section was not a neutral accounting of criticism as it should be... it was a smear job boarding on libel. Blogs make terrible sources in most regular situation and they are especially bad when dealing with articles that fall under the umbrella of WP:BLP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. So: you should believe us because we are admins, we are OTRS volunteers, and because you assume good faith when people state that there are WP:BLP issues in an article. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. So, how would you suggest that we improve the criticisms section? Asa Dotzler identified an extremely misleading statement in one of Thurrott's reviews. Thurrott's review leads the reader to believe that Firefox's phishing filter is not automatically updated, and that's just not true.
This is a prime example of what people don't like about Thurrott's reviews. We can't just ignore the critics in this article; that would create a POV slant in favor of Thurrott. I'm open to suggestions about how to improve the criticisms section. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If the article is 60% criticisms then it's the definition of bias. I would be fine leaving the section in if it was pruned down to a sentence or two for each. Leave the details out, but give the reader enough information to find out more if they care. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That Mozilla thing - seems he made a small error, someone let him know, so he fixed it. I have a hard time seeing how that is a criticism, or even significant. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was a pretty significant error, and he didn't exactly correct it. Here are the problematic sentences:
"It uses a blacklist of known dangerous sites, which isn't an effective protection against modern electronic attacks that rely on social engineering as well as technical vulnerabilities in the underlying products you're using online. What you need is something that can adapt to threats and update itself automatically."
This is a softer review than the original, which called Firefox's phishing protection "a joke". But still, it's not until 4 paragraphs down from that that the reader learns that Firefox's phishing protection is indeed dynamically updated. Thus, the review is still misleading and quite a few readers might not even see that paragraph.
In any case, whoever reads this article will be fully able to make a judgment for themselves. The Criticisms paragraph gives them enough information to understand the issue and to make their own decision about whether Thurrott acted appropriately. By all means, let's represent the criticisms as fairly and accurately as we can, but failing to mention it at all creates a POV slant in favor of Thurrott. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Readers of this section may walk away thinking that Thurrott's critics don't have much going for them. Or, they may walk away thinking that the critics made a valid point. By presenting the facts and maintaining a neutral tone, we enable the readers to make their own judgments. This seems to me to be exactly what WP:NPOV asks for. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Except that this is a very minor issue in light of an entire life/career and they way YOU originally presented it ignored the fact he made a correction of the error being mentioned. Lets also look at how minor the criticism is... this is the blog of a tech writer... fine... but it's so minor that it didn't make it into a real edited publication. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How I originally presented it doesn't really matter at this point. I've accepted the constructive criticism and improved how the information is presented in this article. You and every other reader are entitled to your opinion of whether or not the criticism was valid. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but the issue is so unimportant that real secondary news sources have ignored it. That typically means wikipedia should do the same. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable criticism. Why on Earth is this an issue? -- Ned Scott 05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. It's non-notable. I can understand that. However, I wish you would follow Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying "heh" in an edit summary is not uncivil... And what consensus am I breaking? -- Ned Scott 02:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
We already discussed the issue and came to a conclusion. You should have voiced your opinion here before removing the section. Your removal of the section was inappropriate only in that you circumvented the discussion process.
I'll ask for a third opinion about whether the "heh" was out of line. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How can it be out of line? It's not even a word, it's like a sound a person makes, like "huh". As for the discussion, you seemed to be the only one wanting to include the section.. We are bold on Wikipedia, especially when something is obvious. Dot, don't over-react because we disagree about some unrelated image issue. I'm a nice guy, and I don't hold grudges. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello there friends, just a disinterested Wikipedian dropping in from an invite on the Third Opinions page. My quick take -- "heh" is not always a proper edit summary, and the "Criticisms" section in question is relatively long and so perhaps assumes Undue Weight. RomaC 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm OK with leaving the criticisms section out due to notability concerns (the criticisms mentioned were not included in acceptable third-party publications). I just think that it should have been discussed more before being removed, and that removing it without discussion, especially with the edit summary "heh", was not a good idea. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you guys want, I can post actual emails from Thurrott where he criticizes Spotlight for using third-party plug-ins for new file formats while praising Microsoft's desktop search, oblivious that Microsoft's works the exact same way. Or I can show you where he claims SP2 brought more system changes than OS X Tiger. There's a ton more I can post that shows Thurrott's lack of technical knowledge. A lot of people feel that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. 216.167.160.34 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The question is whether it's notable enough to talk about in Wikipedia, or whether we should just let people Google around to find out this information. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion'

  • The sources cited in the criticism section under dispute are not reliable sources per WP:RS. Therefore, the section was rightfully deleted.
  • User:Ned Scott violated WP:CIVIL. Whether he should burn in hell because of it, or given a second chance, is up to the other editors. Being uncivil is generally not good if one wants others to assume good faith.

--User:Krator (t c) 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your application of WP:CIVIL in this case is questionable at best. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
According to policy this nonsense needs to stay out. It's only source is of the primary type... and if the only kind of source is primary then the information isn't important enough to be included. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with J.S. here, still think the criticisms do not warrant a section but dissenting views can be noted and linked. Am also recently watching a lame edit war around a sort of criticisms section in another article, (have been drawn to such discussions for awhile now) anyway the thing I've noticed is that editors who come to an article with a critical view tend to argue that the "other side" has to be represented on Wiki. Problem is that if I have a unique/personal opinion regarding, say, the origins of modern jazz or the Kennedy assassination, it isn't really "the other side," it's a unique/personal view and so I believe clearly assumes Undue Weight if given a word count in some cases equal to that of the body of the article. RomaC 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)