Talk:Ted Key

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Hazel book

That Hazel book that the authors or their publicists have tried to put in here with promotional language isn't even available yet -- not even for pre-order on Amazon, neither by full title, partial title, ISBN number, or even just "Shirley Booth." If/when this book comes out, Key's contribution might be notable, but as of now, this is both pre-publication publicity and WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that new user TedKey2 is upset over the removal of uncited content that can only be verified via a commercial sales page taking preorders for a particular book. He says in his edit summary, "Tenebrae ... claims its advertising since review of book not availabel online yet. You do a disservice to Mr. Key's memory. You defeat the whole purpose of wikipedia." (I'm hoping I can help TedKey2 understand the policies involved here, and more importantly, why.

I think it's an honest misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goals, first of all, and the reasoning behind not using original research. Without getting into a whole tutorial — there are links in this posting that can do that — I'd like to start by expressing that Wikipedia doesn't exist to do service or tribute to an individual's memory. It's not a fan site. It strives to be, as much as possible, as objective source of straight, factual material with a [{WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. That is the whole purpose of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does this through reliable print or online sources that can be independently verified. This is because there is no way to confirm any one editor's own research. I may have done an interview with Tennessee Williams, say, but I can't add material from that interview to the Tennessee Williams article since no one can verify what the interview says. Even if I put that interview online, there'd be no way to prove I'd really spoken to Tennessee Williams. You can see that since anybody can put anything up on the Internet, that it's important to have a high degree of certainty that material is valid and is what it says it is. A newspaper interview with Tennessee Williams, for instance, we can all agree is a confirmable, valid source of information. If theater buff John Doe, with no established journalistic background, puts what he claims is his exclusive Tennessee Williams interview on his Web site, with TW saying he stole the idea for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, well, would you have high certainty of its valildity?

The other policy in play is that Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising or promotion. There is a huuuuge temptation among some people or businesses to try to use Wikipedia in that way. Is advertising informative? Does it bring useful information to the public? Many times yes. But it's primary purpose is to sell a product, and using Wikipedia as free advertising is not fair or right or in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies. So, how does Wikipedia try to prevent this? One of the single most concrete ways is to disallow links to commercial sales sites. So if the only proof that a product exists is one Web site selling it, we can't link there. And without a citation, we can't state something as fact. There's a larger issue involved that speaks to the heart of Wikipedia's own validity and credibility -- we cannot allow claims without citations. I'm sure you see the importance in an encyclopedia not allowing claims without valid citation.

If the book is reviewed in a newspaper, for example, we can link to that objective, third-party source. I hope you see the reasoning now behind the Wikipedia policies — pretty basic ones, really — that I and other espouse and defend. I hope you'll read the Five Pillars of WIkipedia and contribute knowledge to this great endeavor. Honest to Betsy. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)