From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My experience in wikipedia has not been a pleasant one.

Let it be written that I nolonger believe in wikipedia. The policies that it is written, The Lack of Good-Faith, and Interpretations of sub-policy to justify content that should not be inserted in an article thru grey area material such as external links.

I judge Chris 73 and RadicalSubversiv as they judged me. Let it be clear that I do not have any good will toward them or their interpretations of conduct that is outlined throughout wikipedia.

Should I ever arrogant enough to the idealistic world of Wikipedia... let the following archive guide me back to sanity and how the real wikipedia really is.

External Links[edit] concerning

Please tell me how this is relevent with 2 posts from a corante that is a "news source". Explain to me how this is a cult examination and by who? How are they more relevent than the thousand of other bloggers - conservatives and liberals? I'm removing this link unless you can explain to me how this link is relevent from the thousand of other links from sites that are devoted to howard dean. --dis- 00:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link (which wasn't added by me) is to a lengthy piece by Clay Shirky, a fairly well-known commentator on social software. The article is an articulate, nuanced, and sympathetic argument for why the Dean campaign ultimately failed. So I think it pretty much qualifies as "high content", which is all Wikipedia:External links suggests -- it says nothing about being "authoritative". Also, please lose the self-righteous tone; acting outraged doesn't help your arguments. Finally, take note of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. RadicalSubversiv E 00:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this still doesn't fall under 2 posts concerning the fall of dean campaign is not "high content". How is this different from other commentators? Andrew sullivan made a nice commentary as well. Should I add that as a link? In the end this is just assumptions. There's no real proof. Also if this link is allowed.. how do you govern the similar links? There are litterally dozens. So the fact remains to me that it has to be authoritative. If howard dean himself posts how he believes the dean campaign failed then alright but until he does... these links fail to fall under external links rules. --dis- 01:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Incorect. I did not revert the last edit and I'm not being self-righteous. External links are not to be added just because you think they should be added. An external link on a commentary on the fall of the dean campaign to me fails to even be relevant to an NPOV article about Howard Dean - The man. --dis- 01:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please spend some more time poking around Wikipedia -- you'll find that most articles include external links to a variety of perspectives on the subject. In fact, this very article includes links to a half dozen other pointed commentaries on Dean, so I'm not at all clear why you're picking on this one. There's not a lot in the way of firm policy on external links, and there's definitely no requirement that material being linked to is NPOV. If you'd like to propose some sort of change in policy, the appropriate venue to start a discussion is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). RadicalSubversiv E 01:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, if Andrew Sullivan wrote a detailed postmortem on the Dean campaign, please do add a link -- that would be valuable. RadicalSubversiv E 01:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sir. We are talking about this article and it's external links. If I was a machine I would go thru all the articles and delete all unncessary links. since I came to this article with existing links than by virtue I should leave it alone as I should assume noone objected. The external links policy is clear to me that you shouldn't be posting links without a reason. Links should be posted RARELY as it clearly states... so I'm actually not quite sure why you are arguing with me. I havn't heard a reason why this link should be an exception other than the fact that wikipedia seems to have an excessive amount of external links <- which has been clearly stated that it's a problem at --dis- 02:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Meta is primarily a place for discussion of "meta" issues, not a repository for official policy. The governing policy here is Wikipedia:External links. You have offered no justification of your removal under that policy, and your actions runs counter to well-established community practice. The link was posted with a clear reason -- to refer readers to a specific resource offering a unique perspective on the Dean campaign, just the same as the half-dozen links included just above it. You came to this article and decided to remove this speific link for some reason you still have yet to explain. RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 25 Feb 2005

Inaccurate and Wrong. The link was added at 2/21/2005 with no reason. There was no justification for the adding of the link. it may be a unique perspective but fails under "high content". commentary is not necessary information and is not a reference so does not past the restrictions on external links. You are all telling me what the rules are but I have yet to hear the justification for the link in the beginning as since you two have not admitted to adding the link... exactly what standards are you talking about?

I can't speak for the anonymous user who added the article, but as someone who's presently writing a thesis in large part about the Dean campaign, I found the article to be a very useful resource, covering quite a lot of ground in discussing the gap between the aura of invincibility the campaign built on the internet, and the very different reality that emerged when it came time to cast votes. If a well-cited article with 4,000+ words and dozens of comments attached isn't "high content", I have no what is. When I find the time to rewrite the campaign section of the article, I fully intend to use it as a reference. The date that it was added is completely irrelevant.

On another note -- as a new user, you are making a very bad impression by picking a pointless fight over an external link for no discernible reason. Wikipedia works as a community governed by coooperation and consensus-building, and you will quickly find yourself running afoul of many editors (not just me) if you continue to behave like this.

RadicalSubversiv E 02:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not picking a pointless fight. You are trying to fight me on clear external links rules. You should be aware there are rules against picking on "new users". Whether the link has help you with your issues is one thing but the content of a commentary is argumentative and is no "reference'. When you make a statement you should provide proof or evidence of your position. Commentary/Editorials do not ahere necessarily to facts. if you make an article about the dean campaign and post your link there, then it would be appropriate. Otherwise, I doubt you succesfully argue the "high content" link you refer to on a Howard Dean article as following the external links rule.
I'm not exactly sure your reference of a pointless fight is advantagous to such an avid editor you imply to be and the community that consists exclusively of you. --dis- 03:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the millionth time, the "clear external links rules" you claim to be enforcing exist only in your head. We have very little in the way of official policy in the way of external links, which is exactly why a new policy is being developed.

I'm particularly confused at your suggestion that I should add a link to a commentary I've written on the Dean campaign. That would be self-promotion, which is explicitly prohibited, and I haven't written anything nearly as significant as Shirky's piece (I'd give my right arm for public accolades from the likes of Jay Rosen).

You clearly have no interest in participating in a reasonable discussion (your sarcasm and personal attacks are particularly unproductive), so I'm going to stop responding and restore the link (removing it again would be a violation of the three revert rule. I will rejoin discussion if someone besides you argues that the link should be removed. RadicalSubversiv E 03:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear sir. The policy states exactly: Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article. This restriction does not apply to sites used as references. Commentary does not contain information that is not available in the article. Commentary consists of opinions and viewpoints. If you want to add any specific information from that commetnary into the howard dean article. OK. However the policy is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Also I won't be reverting the link. I will be clearly removing that link since it fails to follow external links policy. --dis- 03:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dis, you're being a crank. Radical is explaining to you in quite polite informative terms why he, a person who did *not* post the link believes that the link is pertinent and conformative to the rules. I agree with him: I think it's entirely on point to post a link to a writeup which attempts to explain how a frontrunning presidential candidate flamed out. So, we're two. How many more will come to the aid of this poor, defenseless link. I am verting it back in. Since, clearly, there is dispute, and the link in question does not violate law or copyright, let us err on the side of inclusion and informativeness, and if necessary, have the dispute arbitrated, before pulling the link, back out. Might we? Baylink 04:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no policy against linking to an opinion piece. There's no policy against linking to material that, by itself, would be inappropriate for direct inclusion because of its bias. I've looked at this particular article in response to the RfC. We shouldn't try to link to every published article about Dean, but this one is worth including. It provides the reader with more detail about one specific aspect of Dean's career (how did he go from front-runner to the back of the pack so quickly). It's not a subject that's worth going into at such length in the Wikipedia article, but it is a subject about which some readers would want more information; that's an appropriate circumstance for an external link. This particular link is not a rant, not a partisan apologia for Dean, not a hit piece criticizing him, but presents a thoughtful analysis that's worth calling to the reader's attention, whether or not you agree with it. I think an alternative view is that Dean's campaign tanked because people looked more closely at him and discovered him to be from the extreme far left of the Democratic Party. I don't think he was from the extreme far left -- if he were, I might have voted for him! -- but I'd guess plenty of people hold that view. If that view is presented in something we can link to that's of similar quality to the Shirky piece, let's include that, too.
If someone has time and energy, though, the ext links section could be improved by the addition of better descriptions of each link. For example, I'd present the Shirky link this way:
That makes it easier for the reader to decide whether to click through to it. JamesMLane 06:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh Good Lord. I posted the link, and if it violates policy, then remove it, and if it doesn't, leave it in situ. I'm not a Dean supporter, I'm not the author of the article, I'm not even in the same political party as either of them - I just thought that it was a fascinating and informative article that cogently makes logical and rational suggestions about how a campaign that looked unstoppable in December 2003 collpased within a matter of weeks. The only reason it's posted anonymously was that my user account is snookered. Simon Dodd 14:20, 25 Feb 2005

3RR on Howard Dean[edit]

You have been blocked for a 3RR on Howard Dean. Please see details on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The block will expire in 24 hours. The 3 revert rule limits user to 3 reperts within 24 hours, trying to prohibit edit wars. You are very welcome to edit again after the block expires, and more discussion on the talk page may be helpful. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

For clarification: The 3RR allows 3 reverts in 24 hours. Only the fourth revert may get an user (in this case you) blocked. At the time of blocking, Radicalsubversiv had only 3 reverts, whereas you had four. Hence you got blocked, and he did not. On a side note, about 7 hours after the 22:31, 24 Feb 2005 edit, Radicalsubversiv did another edit, his 4th edit in a 24 hour period. This happened after I blocked you, so I did not see it at that time. However, this edit removes only a single word, so it can be disputed if this is a revert. You may list it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As the last edit may or may not be a revert, i am not sure if he will be blocked for 24 hours, 12 hours, or not at all. You may give it a try if you want, possibly with refering to your case on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive8. In any case, a 3RR block does not support one version or another, but just tries to stop an edit war. hence, I have nothing against or for your edits. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 12:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)