Talk:Triple Nine Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triple Nine Society article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I don't see POV content in the article – it looks like a recitation of facts to me. — Kbh3rdtalk 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It has a tone of a commerical group appealing to interested applicants (by highlighting selectivity, emphasizing virtues and ending with price of admission).

I don't sense a POV problem in this article either.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, on second glance, I see what (s)he means. I've cleaned up the article a bit. I have:
  • removed the joining info; the organizations website has that for anyone who's interested.
  • removed the numbers comparing potential size of the membership pools; given the percentiles, I'm sure they can do the math.  ;->
  • removed irrelevant "informal" political leanings
  • tightened the prose a bit to be more to the point and read less like a brochure.
  • removed the link to the admissions sub-page of the society's website; interested parties are presumed intelligent enough to follow the links from the main page.
— Kbh3rdtalk 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mensa

Quickie note: Radomir, Mensa's threshold is around 130. The Mensa page lists a kids who got in with an IQ of 137. IQ requirements do not change based on age. You can find entrance requirements at Polymath [1] samwaltz 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete threat

There is an anti-Hi-IQ/Gifted Jihad in process at the moment. Already the Mega Society has been deleted and Ronald K. Hoeflin and The Ultranet are up for deletion. Who will be next? Marilyn vos Savant, Mensa? Don't take this lying down: the Mega Society deletion has been appealed, please go here and support its reinstatement with an overturn vote.

Possible articles under threat are:

Marilyn vos Savant, International High IQ Society, Mensa International, Intertel, Colloquy, CIVIQ Society, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, Triple Nine Society, Prometheus Society, HELLIQ Society, The Ultranet, OLYMPIQ Society, Giga Society

--Michael C. Price talk 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one with an interest in these articles, form the inside and out, I believe that Marilyn vos Savant, Intertel, and Mensa International are safe by my standards, at least, and I would vote to keep those. Although, I find your use of the word “jihad” unsettling. I am certain you are intelligent enough to have considered the ramifications of the connotations before you chose to use it. -- Avi 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Michael C. Price talk 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

  • Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
  • It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
  • When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.
The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)
If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes for TNS members

Editors who want to advertise their membership may use the {{User:UBX/TNS}} template to create a userbox on their page and add it to Category:Wikipedians in the Triple Nine Society ... then add {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User IQ}} if you really want to show off. —141.156.240.102 06:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)