Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SummerThunder (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 30 December 2006 (→Chinese-language Misplaced Pages presents different view of history). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• ]

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Misplaced Pages arbitration claims Spartacus.schoolnet.com is "propagandistic" and can't be cited

In an unusual turn of events, Misplaced Pages arbitration dispute has ended up with a factual finding that the well known UK encyclopedia Spartacus is "propagandistic" and too unreliable to even cite in Misplaced Pages. Citing a policy governing "extremist" organizations, the Misplaced Pages arbitration panel has banned Spartacus from use as a reliable source.

“Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, () and (). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.”

As background, a group of complaining editors are attempting to ban me on a quickly mutating set of charges which now include being guilty of citing Spartacus. The group of complaining editors seem to be ready to strip references to Spartacus from Misplaced Pages. As the defending editor in the arbitration, I was surprised to see this happen. The nature of the arbitration, in other respects, has been quite unusual but I am surprised at the intense hostility directed at myself and now Spartacus. Upon hearing of the charges against Spartacus, John Simkin, of Spartacus, sent a message to the arbitration panel stating among other things:

“At the time I created the Spartacus Educational website, I was a history teacher (11-18 year olds) in England. I was also a prolific writer of history books for students. As I still held the copyright for my books, I decided to put them on the web free of charge. Students, from all over the world, were therefore being provided with free teaching materials. This is especially useful for students in the Third World who do not have the money to purchase textbooks or to those who study in countries where the authorities use the political system to control the information they receive. On average, we get 6 million page impressions a month. A survey carried out by the Fischer Family Trust showed that the Spartacus Educational website was used by more history students in the UK than any other website, including that of the BBC. As you can see, I am a very dangerous person.” RPJ 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the Spartacus site, and have in the past found it quite useful. However, it is not NPOV and also has not gone through any sort of peer review process. For an issue like the JFK assassination, where there is a vast body of reputable material, and also a great deal of controversy, I would not consider the site a sufficiently reliable resource. The wording of the ArbCom finding, which I endorsed, might be a bit strong but I do feel that the site is not a reliable enough reference to be relied upon so heavily in the JFK article. I wouldn't support a blanket ban on Spartacus, but it should be used sparingly and with care. I would place it alongside the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance page, where we have similar guidelines worked out after a long debate. - SimonP 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Simonp is incorrect about Spartacus. First, it is a very reputable publication and it is surprising to hear someone imply otherwise. Second there is no "heavy " reliance on Spartacus in the Kennedy article and that is easy to check by the percentage time it is cited. Third, there were "no long debates" on guidelines finding Spartacus unreliable. In fact, when I formally questioned you arbitrators on why you considered Spartacus "propagandistic" and cited the "extremist organization" policy, I was merely told to go read it.

I did go read additional parts of Spartacus and found it well written and easy to use and wrote a short memo on it to the arbitrators. Simonp didn't even reply. No one replied.

Here is what you concluded:

"4) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see .

"Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, () and (). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

Support:

1. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

RPJ 18:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And why have you brought this here? There is nobody here who can overrule an ArbCom decision. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that all citations to Spartacus Schoolnet should now be considered invalid? I would imagine that there are several thousand. I'm not sure of the extent to which an ArbCom decision like this sets general policy, as against being a ruling on how a source was used in a particular article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note the clarification I posted at WP:RFAR, and appended discussion by other Arbitrators. As far as I'm concerned it is exactly that: a ruling on how a source was used in a particular article. Naturally editors need to take some note of what is said there. Charles Matthews 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell quotes Misplaced Pages in her ongoing feud with Donald Trump

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20005257,00.html User:Zoe|(talk) 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that article's impeccably well sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... Durova 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

she could be the one who edited that article. SummerThunder 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is clear who is on the moral high ground here. --Infrangible 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New posters in the store: "Think Free"

I'm running the Misplaced Pages Cafepress store for the moment, and we're making an attempt to bring it up to date. We've started a new line of posters with the tagline "Think Free" (an apple parody, kind of). Let us know what you think.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Think_Free

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added another poster: an astronaut floating above the Earth in a halo of wikitext. Here. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages founder to launch new search engine

According to this December 24, 2006 article in the Guardian, Jimmy Wales is "set to launch an internet search engine with amazon.com that he hopes will become a rival to Google and Yahoo!". Stevie is the man! 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Information Week posted another article about this today. The search engine is code-named Wikiasari. Stevie is the man! 21:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't called Wikiasari. That's the name of an old search project that pre-dated Wikicities. Angela. 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only repeating what the article stated. Do you know what it is supposed to be called? Stevie is the man! 04:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have a name. It's just search.wikia.com for now until we figure out what it is. Angela. 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New project, Misplaced Pages:Requested recordings

In order to reduce Misplaced Pages's reliance on fair use recordings of music which is in the public domain, Misplaced Pages:Requested recordings has been started. It works on the same principle as Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures, hopefully connecting musicians with music which needs to be recorded. Please sign up if you have resources which could be used, or propose a work to be recorded. Thanks, Mak (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Making new recordings which are licensed so we can use them is a good thing, but don't confuse people in the process! If a recording is in the public domain, it's available for use without restriction (in fact, it's as free or freer than any "free" license), and "fair use" has nothing to do with it. - Nunh-huh 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No,I think the issue is that the music is in the public domain (Bach, for example), but the recording is not (i.e. anything made in the past 70 years). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

100,000,000 edits

it looks like the edit count on the Special:Statistics page rolled over to 100,000,000 edits recently.. break open the champagne? 81.168.22.81 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Massive donation?

$186,648.00 has been donated to WikiMedia by an Anonymous Donor, with description "This person wishes to remain anonymous. Roger donation made with stocks." Wow. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are, thank you very much. Durova 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be the anonymous matching donation, which is the explanation I've heard for this $US 286,800. - BanyanTree 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The link is . And the story has made it to digg! utcursch | talk 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the 186k and 286k donations seperate? Was the 186k in stock? RHB 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales attacks Google, calling its results "spam and useless crap"

CIO-Today Report: Given the indirect support Google has obviously given Misplaced Pages and its ability to substantially reduce Misplaced Pages's traffic, could it be dangerous for Wales to use such rhetoric? Shouldn't Wales also be more cautious when connecting independent Misplaced Pages's "popularity" to a commercial venture supported by Amazon.com and positioned against Google? Tfine80 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

CIO-Today seems to be confused as to the distinction between Misplaced Pages; Wikimedia; and Wikia. Also, Wales didn't say Google's results were always spam and useless crap, he said you sometimes get spam and useless crap. There's a difference. Some Misplaced Pages articles are spam and useless crap too, and I bet he'd be the first to admit that. ~ ONUnicorn 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote:

"Google is very good at many types of search, but in many instances it produces nothing but spam and useless crap,"

The same can be said about Misplaced Pages; it has very many good articles, but many articles are nothing but spam and useless crap. ~ ONUnicorn 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In no short order... the search project is not supported by Amazon; it is not (as far as I am aware) a commercial venture; Jwales did not "connect Misplaced Pages" to the new project. What you have there is a slightly garbled version of the Times article, which itself got several important factors wrong... Shimgray | talk | 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Who hasn't run an occasional Google search and received a load of spam? Today I browsed Misplaced Pages and eventually reached sex symbol, which was tagged for lack of sources. So I thought I'd run a quick search for definitions and commentary from reputable sources. Surely Harper's or Vanity Fair occasionally run articles on the subject. There really wasn't much of use in the top 100 Google returns. Misplaced Pages was at the top, followed by an image gallery, then a Misplaced Pages mirror. The fourth return looked promising: a New York Times article. That discussed a current fad for bearded men - too specialized for a general article about sex symbols. Fifth was an online quiz; sixth, an overview of current Bollywood stars; seventh, a very short biography of Theda Bara. Then (and it surprised me that this sort of thing placed no higher) sex advice. Ninth was some avatar downloads. Then a blog about Jon Stewart. The rest were about the same: an algorithm's regurgitation based on superficial text analysis and website prominence rather than an intelligent human being's assessment. Some people would run this search more for personal amusement than research purposes, but even for that the results were quirky: none of the summaries mentioned Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, but Hillary Clinton and Pee-Wee Herman turned up. There's no accounting for taste... Durova 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy at Haditha

Discussion moved to Template talk:In the news#Redundancy at Haditha. - BanyanTree 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese-language Misplaced Pages presents different view of history

main article: Chinese Misplaced Pages and Blocking of Misplaced Pages in mainland China

I am not sure if those two are the same article, the titles are different. it is the same person who wrote for those two newspapers. On the other hand, the words seem to be different. I am not a paid member of nyt, so I don't know what is in the NY times article, the quoted text was the only thing that I read.

According to International Herald Tribune Asia-Pacific:"on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." Chinese-language Misplaced Pages presents different view of history

On December 1, 2006, The New York Times published another report by Howard W. French, titled as "Misplaced Pages lays bare two versions of China's past."

"Some say the object should be to spread reliable information as widely as possible, and that, in any case, self-censorship is pointless because the government still frequently blocks access to Misplaced Pages for most Chinese Internet users. 'There is a lot of confusion about whether they should obey the neutral point of view or offer some compromises to the government,' said Isaac Mao, a well-known Chinese blogger and user of the encyclopedia. 'To the local Wikipedians, the first objective is to make it well known among Chinese, to get people to understand the principles of Misplaced Pages step by step, and not to get the thing blocked by the government."

And "the articles are already pre-censored by party-leaning moderators and users."

This is already being discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#What is wrong with the people at the meta?. -- ran (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NO, it is a different story. On there, I was talking about my personal experience. This is the actual news article which is published by two different reputable newspapers. --SummerThunder 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that news article is already being discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Misplaced Pages editors. -- ran (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"The news section of the village pump is used for news or updates that are expected to require public discussion..." --SummerThunder 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then move the entirety of that discussion here if you feel that it is misfiled. -- ran (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am only posting the news. So tell us, have you posted the same news on the Chinese Misplaced Pages site? if not, when do you plan to tell the Chinese readers about this news? according to this site "...the articles are already pre-censored by party-leaning moderators and users. {Chinese} Misplaced Pages has turned into what MSN/Google/Yahoo have; a party piece." --SummerThunder 09:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning to Tjstrf don't follow me around on here, and STOP reverting all my postings! respect my freedom of speech, respect other users' comments! you are only 17, what do you know about what is proper what is not? --SummerThunder 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate of Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Misplaced Pages editors, please comment there. --tjstrf talk 09:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Even if when they cannot deny the obvious, they let out their emotions: Saddam Hussein 'passed away', insist Chinese Wiki editors --Uponsnow 14:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious why admins show no concern about fed meatpuppets: User:Fred_Bauder, User:MONGO, User:Tjstrf, User:AudeVivere, User:Tom_harrison, User:Tbeatty, User:Regebro...

... User:NuclearUmpf, User:StuffOfInterest, User:Morton_devonshire. I know Durova would say where's the evidence. Well it's been presented over and over again in the history of Misplaced Pages; in the contributions of each of these editors (ignore MONGO's remarks here; he just tells others to behave civilly here on the noticeboards while doing the exact opposite elsewhere)). Yet the standard of evidence bar has been raised so high for these meatpuppets. And at the same time we see the most bizarre list of evidence presented for Cplot sockpuppets:

• the account starts with a legitimate edit
• the account doesn't start with a legitimate edit
• the account starts with establishing a user page
• the account does not start with establishing a user page
• the account commented on some guy's page
• the account did not comment on some guy's page
• this sock uses an IP registered in the same city as Cplot
• this sock does not use an IP registered in the same city as Cplot (that's just the kind of thing Cplot does)

Many of the feds will imply this user seems smarter than me so it must be a Cplot sockpuppet. Well with that logic you'd have to block every user on wikipedia. --ShoutToTheTop 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the User:Tjstrf, he constantly reverting my contribs. he has reverted this news article that I just posted above at least 3 times already. I don't see anything wrong posting a relevant news article on this page, do you? i am glad that someone has noticed his disruptive behavior. --SummerThunder 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages community forums
• Misplaced Pages news
• To Village Pump (policy)
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot