Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 118: Line 118:


:Very clever, {{u|Fuzheado}}, but no one actually denies that the incident occurred, so the O'Dwyer piece alone is enough to establish the factuality of the statement. Nobody here thinks that Kohs was scheduled to give a talk, either. The fact that the NYMag piece cites the O'Dwyer piece adds credibility to the interest of the outside world in the incident. The fact that the NYMag has factual errors is not reason not to use it, since our purpose here is not to describe facts, which are known from the uncontested O'Dwyer piece, but to establish enough interest by RS in the incident to justify including it in the list. Your theories about why the author used it are, of course, fascinating, but they essentially constitute original research. Your statement that a source is less reliable because it cites unreliable sources is, as pointed out ad infinitum, nonsense. That's what historians and journalists do for a living. They use unreliable sources as material to manufacture reliable sources. Every secondary source cites unreliable sources.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 15:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:Very clever, {{u|Fuzheado}}, but no one actually denies that the incident occurred, so the O'Dwyer piece alone is enough to establish the factuality of the statement. Nobody here thinks that Kohs was scheduled to give a talk, either. The fact that the NYMag piece cites the O'Dwyer piece adds credibility to the interest of the outside world in the incident. The fact that the NYMag has factual errors is not reason not to use it, since our purpose here is not to describe facts, which are known from the uncontested O'Dwyer piece, but to establish enough interest by RS in the incident to justify including it in the list. Your theories about why the author used it are, of course, fascinating, but they essentially constitute original research. Your statement that a source is less reliable because it cites unreliable sources is, as pointed out ad infinitum, nonsense. That's what historians and journalists do for a living. They use unreliable sources as material to manufacture reliable sources. Every secondary source cites unreliable sources.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 15:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

== Protected edit request on 7 June 2014 ==

{{edit protected|List of Wikipedia controversies|answered=no}}
<!-- Begin request -->
In the section labeled 2002, can someone please replace the text {{xt|("fork")}} with the wikitext {{xt|<nowiki>[[Fork (software development)|fork]]</nowiki>}}, as this term ought to be wikilinked.
<!-- End request -->
&mdash; [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:57, 7 June 2014

Template:Copied multi

Misogyny at Wikipedia and WMF

Alleged "outing"

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, decide to waive Wikipedia's strict "outing" policy when he asked other editors to post their suspicions about Edward Snowden's activities on Wikipedia to Wales' talk page.

Sources do not indicate Wales had decided to "waive" any policies; in fact, he was quoted as:

"I do not seek, and have not sought, any exception of any kind, not at any point"[1]

which seems to indicate precisely the opposite. Hopefully this is a net improvement, though. GregorB (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul

The Rand Paul affair of October 2013 is not really a Wikipedia controversy. GregorB (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Manning?

Sure the controversy over the Chelsea Manning article needs to be here - the move to Bradley Manning and back again, as well as the aftermath with editors receiving topic bans.[2][3] StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Exclusion of a Participant by WikiConference USA 2014

My apologies, I'm not sure what is appropriate for this page, since it's my first edit here. It seems like the incident involving the exclusion of Greg Kohs at WikiConference USA 2014 is noteworthy enough to include on this list, but it has been reverted. Could someone please tell me what criteria this incident doesn't meet for inclusion in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllm (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wil: I'm going to drop you an email shortly. But to answer your direct query here: on a list of this nature, we generally don't include entries unless they have been referenced by multiple reliable sources. Your addition wasn't referenced by multiple reliable sources; I'd go as far as to state that it wasn't referenced by one reliable source, given that the PR piece you referenced is from an outlet that (a) isn't incredibly well-respected, even among the PR trade press, (b) the entry at O'Dwyers had to have misspellings including "Widipedia" and "Wikipendia" corrected multiple times before they fixed them as well as multiple other factual errors, (c) the article was editorial in nature, coming from a source fairly well known to not like us. Even though the list criteria aren't well-defined here, from the lede, "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - preventing a banned WP critic who had posed an active disruption before the event from attending from attending clearly doesn't meet that standard, especially when it's only covered in O'Dwyer. Moreover, since the post essentially alleges wrongdoing using only the shakiest of sources on the part of conference organizers - even though they aren't explicitly named - I'd also suggest that including this content in the article represents a WP:BLP issue until it receives more substantial (and more accurate, one would hope) coverage from somewhere other than O'Dwyer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what happened is noteworthy, but it does have to wait for the news media out there to catch up to it. Publications like the Daily Dot and others usually have their ear closer to the ground on things to do with the Wikipedia and such, so we'll keep an eye out. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The O'Dwyer article was inane, and I agree that more sources are required. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York (magazine) just mentioned it here, so we now have our RS. I will readd it. Cla68 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we mentioned everything in this article that received a tangential one sentence mention in a RS about Wikipedia that was vaguely controversial, this would be an awfully long article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sleepy and retract my last edit summary (been a while since I've looked at the guideline,) but the point still stands. Come back when it's received more than a sentence in an RS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop ordering us around. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I found a RS so, it should not be removed unless a consensus is established here for its removal. WP doesn't belong to you. It belongs to all of us. Cla68 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it smacks of self-censorship and cover up - Alison ❤ 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alison: you know that suggesting that removing an item in a list potentially this long that is currently only supported by one sentence in a RS represents censorship is hyperbole, which isn't something terribly useful here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A modified version of criteria #1 as found here is pretty clearly a roughly appropriate criteria for inclusion here and a single sentence found in a RS clearly doesn't meet that. Can you imagine how long this list would be if we included every WP related "controversy" every that received a SINGLE sentence in any RS? Please point me to any guideline or policy that suggests that absolute consensus needs to be established before content sourced to a single sentence in a RS is removed... especially when, currently, the balance of this talk page favors removal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NYmag article (which only gives a couple of lines to the Kohs incident) gets its info about Kohs from O'Dwyer's. So citing that really isn't any different than citing O'Dwyer's piece a second time. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: I was talking about the NYM piece only, I don't consider the O'Dwyer's piece an RS. Since NYM does meet the relevant RS guidelines, it's okay to use NYM as a source, even if they got it from O'Dwyer's - we grant them the assumption of good faith that they've factchecked, etc. But, since it's still a single bloody sentence in one RS, there's no way it's an incident worth including in this list, unless significant further coverage develops. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NYmag piece only gives it one sentence as an alleged event, so there's still a WP:DUE issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. That policy is about opposing points of view being represented in proportion to their representation in RS. It is completely beside the point here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... Stating that Ktr's edit summary violated BLP is more or less just looking for a reason to use BLP to smack him. I agree his argument doesn't speak directly to whether or not Kohs should be included, but it's hardly an egregious BLP violation. If we included every single Wikipedia-related thing on this list that received one sentence of coverage in one reliable source, the list would look positively ridiculous. Re: everything else, see my post below. Kevin Gorman (talk)

I am all for equal representation and whatnot here, but what concerns me is that we're reporting on something that goes with the event's Friendly space policy. There was a legitimate reason to remove Greg from the conference (people were not going to go if he was there), and there is nothing controversial about it if you go along those lines. He was not removed for his paid editing work, and would have been accepted if he wasn't banned for the above reason. Each organization has a right to implement a Friendly space policy and enforce it as they see fit. If you are banned for a legitimate concern, then that is not so much a scandal as the active attempt at including people who would not feel comfortable with that person around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Everybody stop edit-warring. Gorman, you're an administrator, so you're supposed to know better. Furthermore, the incident is mentioned in a New York Magazine blog, so it's reliably sourced and is thus inclusable. The balance of the talk page doesn't "favor removal." Furthermore, your edit summaries seem to indicate that you think that items on a list need to be notable. They specifically do not need to be notable. They just need to be sourceable, to fall within the scope of the list, and to meet the selection criteria. This incident does all three. the NYMag mention is a source, the scope of the list includes this: " hostile interactions between Wikipedia editors and public figures," and we're discussing now whether it meets the selection criteria, which are essentially up to the editors on the page, not the MOS. Finally, this edit summary by Ktr101 is barely believable: "this is not a controversy. greg legitimately made people feel uncomfortable and there was a reason he was banned." First of all, it's a BLP violation. Second of all, whether or not "there was a reason he was banned" is irrelevant. The only thing that determines whether it is a controversy is that reliable sources identify it as controversial. The actor's rationale for the action is beyond immaterial. The NYMag source uses this incident as a primary concrete example of the claim that "Over the years there have been power struggles, schisms, defections, accusations of abuse, censorship, libel, and just plain-old bickering." See, the source identifies it as controversial? That's how we decide what goes in articles, not whether some people think they have a rational reason for the controversial things they do. Ktr101, you are violating BLP right and left. You should stop it. Not only that, but your arguments are completely beside the point, as explained above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware there was an edit conflict, but just in case you don't see it, my comment was that the NYmag piece is merely repeating O'Dwyer's regarding Kohs. And if we are going to cite the NYmag, we should follow their wording, "allegedly," instead of taking the O'Dwyer's claims at face value. Ian.thomson (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Ian is correct that if we were to include this based on the NYM piece, we should include a disclaiming word such as NYM used one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Ian.thomson: The fact that the NYMag piece cites the PR piece is not the same as citing the PR piece. NYMag is a reliable source, so when it choses to cite an unreliable source we may rely on their judgment that the incident is controversial. That is the only question at stake here: Do reliable sources see it as controversial? Your last edit summary indicates that you too think that list entries need to be independently notable. They do not. You should revert yourself for shame as there is an ongoing discussion and you're removing sourced material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the number of people who are trying to get Kohs included as a controversy on an article with a scope this large who are not bothering to make any policy-based comment on this talk page (or frequently, any comment at all.) Here's my argument: this is a list with a major scope that could include thousands of items, which would make it nearly useless - thus, we need to limit the scope of items included in this list. I would suggest that a modified version of the first criteria included here would be a good starting point - not necessarily requiring enough RS coverage to establish independent notability, but at a bare minimum requiring more than one RS - or at least substantial coverage in one good RS (and one line is not substantial.) And, on top of that, anything on this list should almost certainly be described as a controversy - otherwise, we're injecting our own opinion. Also.. that whole WP:RECENTISM thing.. yeah. I'd encourage anyone in favor of including Kohs as it currently stands to respond to this post with something other than "AHHH! CENSORSHIP!" Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Ian.thomson: The fact that the NYMag piece cites the PR piece is not the same as citing the PR piece. NYMag is a reliable source, so when it choses to cite an unreliable source we may rely on their judgment that the incident is controversial. That is the only question at stake here: Do reliable sources see it as controversial? Your last edit summary indicates that you too think that list entries need to be independently notable. They do not. You should revert yourself for shame as there is an ongoing discussion and you're removing sourced material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 6:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Wow, "for shame," really? Such judgmental language. And what about my other comment? That if we are going to leave it in there per just the NYmag piece, we should, as even NYmag does, treat it as a one sentence alleged incident? Unless we're also going to include a bit the effect that Sumana Harihareswara of the Wikimedia foundation noted that "For many people in the Wikipedia movement, free speech is, as John Scalzi put it, the ability to be a dick in every possible circumstance." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the qualifier, by all means put it in as it's in the source. You still haven't explained why you think it's OK to remove sourced material that a number of editors think meets the inclusion criteria. And as for your piping of WP:CIVIL to "judgmental language," why don't you just knock it off and say what you mean, whatever that is? If you won't revert yourself for unqualified shame, consider reverting yourself because you're perpetuating an edit-war when there's ongoing discussion, something which many competent editors of Wikipedia would be ashamed of doing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me put it this way: treating an editor you disagree with about policy like a misbehaving child by telling them to revert themselves instead of being a grown up and doing it yourself) makes it look like you have some kind of m:Dick-ish superiority complex (which would be an indication you need to leave this alone for cooler heads). Also, it's WP:BRD, not "WP:Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss." In other words, material is added, reverted (removed), discussed, and then added back in after the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Including sourced material that's on-topic is not a "bold" edit, so your invocation of the essay BRD is off-point. If anything, removing sourced on-topic material is being bold. That's why you ought to revert yourself, because your reversion of the edit supported edit-warriors who were ignoring the very essay you now invoke to support your removal of sourced material. Plus, your ridiculous piped easter eggs are uninterpretable. Why don't you say what you mean?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding content isn't a bold edit? What? Where is BRD does begin to make that sort of qualification? That sheer misinterpretation of both the letter and the spirit of BRD is nothing but Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, further evidence of you don't have the right attitude for this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hahahahaha.....00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
How is that not m:Dick-ish? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't. Do you have an argument to make beyond calling me names? I already agreed with your only substantive point, which is that the material should use the same qualifier as the source it comes from. Have you bothered to reply to a single argument I've made? By the way, did you notice this sentence from the metapedian non-policy you keep waving at me like a stick? The one that says "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say."?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been plenty of points made, which you hypocritically either ignore, insult, or wikilawyer around. And all my posts have focused on behavior and attitude, per "Focus on behaviour, not on individuals. Say what you want and why you want it. Say why you think the other person's behaviour is counter-productive." I have assumed that you were acting in good faith, but with a inclustionist bent, while you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that those with the slightlest exclusionist tendencies could be anything but idiots who shouldn't be anywhere near the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Your points focus on "behavior and attitude." Why don't you try focusing on content? Now, I conceded your point about the qualifier in the source. Why don't you try explaining why you reverted the sourced material? Do you even have a reason? Why don't you address my counterpoint to your puerile argument that citing a reliable source that cites an unreliable source is the same as citing the unreliable source?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made other statements, as have other editors, you've chosen to ignore or dismiss them. Don't twist my words. Your behavior does not contribute to a cooperative discussion, it is purely a distraction meant to establish a chilling effect on anything you disagree with. You want to play that way? Fine, see you at ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Kevin Gorman: You have no policy based reason for removal, *and* you're edit-warring, and you're ignoring substantive arguments. The NYMag source gives it as a prominent example of Wikipedia's "power struggles, schisms, defections, accusations of abuse, censorship, libel, and just plain-old bickering." How is that not saying it's controversial? Or are you, I hate to imagine, suggesting that sources must actually use the word "controversy" before an item can be included on this list?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alf, unless you're making a completely arbitrary difference between guideline and policy (which seems odd in this case,) I certainly do have justifiable reasons for removing the content - see my last post. This would be a ridiculously long list if we included every possible controversy that had received one sentence of coverage in a reliable source. See WP:LISTN//WP:LSC, as I've previously linked (not to mention the WP:RECENTISM issues involved in including a one sentence one week old piece...) Even from the inclusion criteria included at the beginning of this list - "This list is a collection of the more notable instances" - the material doesn't qualify for inclusion on the list, until/unless more significant coverage emerges. There are plenty of times when it's perfectly okay to remove reliably sourced information from an article as you should be well aware, and this is one of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN is a red herring. It's a notability guideline and has nothing to do with what's included on a list. There is nothing in that guideline that has to do with whether or not an item should be included on a list. LSC is more on point. As it says, one question to be asked is "Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" Now, the NYMag article singled out this incident as a concrete example of the bitter controversies Wikipedia generates. Thus, according to a reliable source, the answer to that question is "yes." Furthermore, obviously there are times when it's OK to remove sourced material from a list. This may or may not be one of them, and that's what we're discussing. However, there are never times when it's OK to edit-war over it, which you were doing. That's not OK, and as an administrator, you ought to know better. Now, as to your argument that this list would be ridiculously long if we included items like the one under discussion. That's a valid argument, but is it sound? I don't believe you. Give me a few examples of things that would be included on this list but are not currently included. I don't think there are enough to make the list ridiculously long. In fact, I think there are zero to few of them. Please, find three such items and I will concede the truth of your premise and therefore the soundness of your argument.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The banning was a blatant act of gutless cowardice, no one but the most dyed-in-the-wool Wiki-Slurper can see that. But there are still standards to meet here for sourcing; an NY Mag entry that doesn't mention the subject by name, and even that only references the problematic O'Dwyer ref. Give it more time to see if other outlets pick it up. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable point of view, but reasonable people can disagree. The source doesn't mention Kohs by name, but it's hyperlinked in such a way that we can assume that not mentioning his name was a stylistic choice rather than a comment on his relevance. The fact that it only references the PR thing is not a problem. That's what reliable sources do; they take information from unreliable sources and, like a Wikipedian king Midas, make it golden with their touch. Let's put it in shan't we, Tarc?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

alf laylah wa laylah Sorry for the late reply in this, but the major issue that I have with this article is that it completely misrepresented what Alex and I said to her. Yes we talked candidly about the movement, but I never said that some editors have pizza stains on their shirts and rambled on for a few minutes after I messed up my conversation with a friend. She wrote that to reinforce her own preconceptions about us, as evidenced by her mentioning of braces (which I had for a surgery I received a year ago, and is totally irrelevant to me being twenty-three) and her stating that Alex had John Lennon glasses (he doesn't, just check any photo of him out there). To tie this back in to what Kevin has been saying above about Greg, she was on the mailing list when Greg commented on his banning and got the same e-mail that we did. At the same time, she is trying to make our movement look more scandalous than it is in that we supposedly are banning people on flimsy grounds. Granted, I am not going to edit war here, but I wanted to let people know that that article is not an accurate representation of what was said, as there was an incredible amount of editing that was put on those quotes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Philip Roth doesn't get to contradict reliable sources based just on his say-so, I don't see why you should get to do so either. We go by what reliable sources say, and your recollections and your narrative are not reliable sources, now, are they? Get NYMag to issue a correction and your version can go in. Your speculations on the motivation of the author of the article aren't relevant either. By the way, "braces" in that context almost certainly means "suspenders." You didn't happen to be wearing suspenders, did you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this - There is no American on either side of the Mississippi that would think that "braces" meant "suspenders". Since this was an American event(Wikiconference USA) and the source is an American source(NY Mag), written by an American, I highly doubt "braces in that context almost certainly means suspenders". In fact, that's far fetched. Also, looking at the photos from the event, braces may have meant leg braces. Which is most certainly a misleading innuendo the way it was worded. If that's the case. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, do you have something to add to the discussion regarding the content, or are you just here to show off your remarkable lack of knowledge of the American language?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did just add something. The source seems misleading, and it barely mentions the "banned" editor. It definitely doesn't seem worth a mention. Oh, and I think you mean your astonishing lack of knowledge of the American language. Suspenders -- Suspenders (American English, Canadian English) or braces (other English usage, chiefly British) are fabric or leather straps worn over the shoulders to hold up trousers. For anyone to make a declarative of "almost certainly means" with the explanation/excuse you gave, has no idea what they are declaring. Dave Dial (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what you have to add is OR and the use of Wikipedia as a reliable source? Thanks, but no thanks. Let's stick to WP:RS, if you don't mind. That means that NYMag is reliable and your interpretations or personal experiences are not. Also, let's look up the word "chiefly" and see if it means "always." Jesus Christ, can't anyone here discuss the actual content of the article with reference to policy? Do we have to search through 8 zillion photos on commons to see who has pizza stains on their shirts in order to decide if an article is a reliable source? That's really not how it's usually done.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the piece is written like a gossip blog and only mentions "a banned editor" in passing. There is no way it should be inserted in this article with the OR in the edit that was removed. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At last you will comment on content. You say the piece is "written like a gossip blog." I will charitably interpret that as an attempt to argue against the use of the source on the basis of WP:RS. Unfortunately, NYMag is not a "gossip blog" and there's nothing in WP:RS about the tone of sources. It's straightforward reporting from a reliable source. It's not an opinion piece, and your feelings about the prose style are irrelevant. So that's a fail. Now you say it "only mentions 'a banned editor' in passing." I will charitably interpret this as an attempt to argue against the inclusion of the material because it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria of the list. But there are no explicit inclusion criteria for this article, and this item falls well within normal inclusion criteria for lists, so your argument, while it may not fail, certainly needs some elaboration to convince. Furthermore, you seem to think it matters that the NYMag piece calls Kohs "a banned editor" rather than stating his name. This is a red herring. His name is in the hyperlink. It's a stylistic trope on the part of the author, obviously, rather than a comment on the importance of the episode. Next you say there was WP:OR removed. What was that? What was the WP:OR in the edit that was removed? Just a second ago you were arguing about the meaning of the word "braces" in the article based on your examination of a bunch of photographs, showing that you're perfectly willing to do OR if it supports your position. Now that you've finally condescended to discuss content, I hope you will take the time to make more cogent arguments in favor of your position. Please keep in mind that the material that was removed was perfectly well supported by a reliable source. No one doubts that the removed material was accurate. The only, *only*, sensible argument for removing it must be based on list inclusion criteria.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A much simpler explanation for non-inclusion

While the above discussion is an interesting deconstruction of our policies, there is a much simpler explanation for why, at this point, the "June 2014" incident cannot be included:

  1. The O'Dwyer piece is unreliable, as it is not a widely regarded outlet. It also contains a factual error that the "Paid Editing Moderated Discussion" session was the only one that "made it to the WP conference," when the preceding session on PR and paid editing was in fact the primary session about the issue.
  2. The New York Magazine is factually incorrect. It says, "At this year’s conference, one former Wikipedian scheduled to give a talk critical of its processes was allegedly banned from attending." Greg Kohs was not "scheduled to give a talk" at the conference. The proposal had not been accepted. Therefore, the reporting is incorrect and an erroneous understanding of the situation is very likely to have caused the writer to put this incident forth as an example of the community problems, or as some contributors here feel -- a controversy. Reliable source or not, Wikipedia does have standards on factual accuracy. Given this line from NY Magazine contains both an error and a dependence on an unreliable source, it cannot be taken as a credible provable reference.

For now, there are no verifiable references that show this is a "controversy" of the same significance as the others shown in the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love that the NYM source also specifies that we have 22k registered users :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever, Fuzheado, but no one actually denies that the incident occurred, so the O'Dwyer piece alone is enough to establish the factuality of the statement. Nobody here thinks that Kohs was scheduled to give a talk, either. The fact that the NYMag piece cites the O'Dwyer piece adds credibility to the interest of the outside world in the incident. The fact that the NYMag has factual errors is not reason not to use it, since our purpose here is not to describe facts, which are known from the uncontested O'Dwyer piece, but to establish enough interest by RS in the incident to justify including it in the list. Your theories about why the author used it are, of course, fascinating, but they essentially constitute original research. Your statement that a source is less reliable because it cites unreliable sources is, as pointed out ad infinitum, nonsense. That's what historians and journalists do for a living. They use unreliable sources as material to manufacture reliable sources. Every secondary source cites unreliable sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 7 June 2014

In the section labeled 2002, can someone please replace the text ("fork") with the wikitext [[Fork (software development)|fork]], as this term ought to be wikilinked. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&diff=611961348&oldid=611957213

Leave a Reply