Talk:Shower (juggling)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Toss jugling[edit]
The shower as a juggling pattern can only be for 3 or more objects. By definition (toss) juggling is throwing and catching more objects than the number of hands that are doing the throwing and catching Robynthehode (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Reliability[edit]
The videos may show the numbers that the site says they show, but that does not make these verified records. Wikia links and self-made YouTube videos are not reliable sources - see WP:USERG. We don't have (and I can't find) any reliable source saying that these are actual world records. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that sources should follow reliability and verifiability criteria. However juggling records are generally not published extensively anywhere. JISCON which oversees number juggling records uses publicly available video evidence (e.g. Youtube) as the basis for listing records. See the page on numbers juggling records. However JISCON is not a source of the same quality as the Guiness Book of (World) Records. This leads to a dilemma for listing any juggling records. Are records listed that are available from GBR (GBWR), from GBR and JISCON, from sources that use the same criteria as JISCON? According to Wikipedia reliable sources should follow 'Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment.' I agree that home made videos aren't the best sources but this is most often the way juggling records are currently recorded. Are these excluded as sources just because they are home made, or does the context of the way jugglers currently record their feats of juggling mean that they are the only sources available. If these sources can be verified as genuine (on a reasonable basis) then shouldn't they be used to support the records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- If a reliable source like GBR reports these records, then we can include them; if no reliable source reports them, though, they must be excluded, because there is simply no way to verify that these are actual records. See WP:V and also WP:BURDEN - since there is currently no RS included, the material should be removed unless and until one can be provided. Furthermore, as these assertions deal with individuals, WP:BLPSOURCES applies: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding re Shower juggling but the point I am making is that there are some records that stand on video evidence alone. They will never be authenticated by GBR because they cannot verify every record (although they do take video evidence now). So if we are to exclude video (youtube) evidence provided via a wiki the logical thing to do is remove all evidence that is youtube video evidence. This will essentially remove the whole article on juggling records as most records are authenticated by JISCON (an 'organisation' set up by jugglers for jugglers to make sure video evidence is supplied for juggling records and those records are not based on hearsay or claims in books, articles or newspapers) It would seem JISCON has a higher burden of proof than Wikipedia because sources for juggling records prior to video were often books, articles etc that could be used as references. To be clear I am not suggesting that the juggling records article should be removed but that there is consistency about using video evidence. Video evidence is by and large far better as a reference than a book, even a book by a respected author who may base 'fact' on previous books or other references. Let's not be pedantic about wikis or other sources as long as the original material (i.e the video) is available publicly (verifiable) and is as far as is known genuine.
- And [WP:USERG] does not 'ban' the use of self made youtube videos its says 'Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable'
- Largely not acceptable does not mean that some self published videos are without merit and may be able to be used carefully.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- But the point I am making is that even if these videos are authentic, that does not verify that they show records. If some actual authority, such as JISCON, has concluded based on these videos that these are records, we can report their conclusions; however, reporting them as records based on another wiki would constitute original research, as the wiki cites no secondary source and is not reliable in and of itself. WP:USERG goes on to explain that "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources", which itself states that "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" and that "material [published by the subject him/herself] may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving" (among other provisions). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about original research. One of the points I was making is that JISCON is not an authority of a standard that Wikipedia and you want it to be. It has been set up by jugglers for jugglers to settle disputes about juggling records. It uses self published video evidence (youtube and others) as its evidence. Therefore the only 'authority' it has is it making the decision to only list records where there are publicly available videos of these records. Beyond that they do not have any authority or status to be an arbiter of juggling records. So what is the difference between me setting up a separate 'organisation' and calling it World Juggling Records 'WJR' and listing all the records with publicly available self made videos of juggling records that are missing from the JISCON list. If you can explain the difference and your answer is both logical and credible then I am happy to agree with your Wikipedia stance. If not then there are questions to be answered about the inclusion of some sources on Wikipedia and it would mean that some severe editing would have to be done. Robynthehode (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- JISCON is more reliable than Wikia because it is not publicly editable and has some public recognition as a 'curator' of sorts for juggling records. Even if it didn't, that would not be a rationale for accepting Wikia as a reliable source, but only for excluding JISCON. If you'd like to argue for all JISCON records to be removed from Wikipedia articles, I'm not going to stand against it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are missing my point. First as I said earlier on this talk page I am not suggesting that the juggling records on the relevant page be removed. Second my argument is about using the publicly available self made videos as a source. This is what JISCON does. It is not logical to exclude other self made publicly available videos. Your argument seems to be that the videos for the Shower records are available through a Wikia rather than via JISCON. I can concede that Wikia are not a good source because they often include unreliable evidence but this is not the case always. To have a blanket ban on Wikia sources brings up issues like the one I am arguing about. The reliability and verifiability of the base evidence for juggling records is the same from both JISCON and the Wikia for the Shower juggling records. What's the difference? I am arguing a special case not for a blanket inclusion of Wikia material. Finally JISCON may have a limited credibility within the juggling community but it is still using the same self published videos as the contested sources and you have not made a convincing argument against my suggestion that I should set up a rival organisation to be another 'curator' of juggling records. To be able to do that I only need to: know something about juggling (tick that box as I have been involved in the juggling community for 25 years), be able to source and watch videos (tick that box I have a computer and can watch youtube) and finally make clear headed assessments about the quality of the video evidence (reasonably sure I can do that). Maybe that is what I will do Robynthehode (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is, if JISCON recognizes the records based on the videos, then they act as a secondary source for us to cite: "According to JISCON, the records are...". If we cited the videos directly, that would be an original synthesis of primary source material. Wikia in this case is also a secondary source, but because it can be changed by anyone at any time, we don't consider it a reliable one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Now we come to the crux. And you have also changed the basis of your argument. At the start of this discussion you stated that self made videos are not reliable sources but you now state that they are as long as someone else tells you that they are. And as long as that someone is supposedly credible. Fine. But it still remains whether those sources are credible themselves. JISCON is not a credible enough source according to the Wikipedia guidelines I have read especially as they rely on unreliable sources (or so is claimed). What you say it comes down to is whether we judge one secondary source to be credible or not. But by believing one source over another when the underlying source material is clearly the same is illogical and merely begs the question of verifiability and reliability. It is not a complex chain of verifiability. This is quite a simple special case. It is simple nonsense to say 'I' will cite one group over another even though the underlying source material is the same for both groups. The same source material that 'I' will call unreliable when it suits me and call reliable when it suits 'me' at another time. This discussion is getting nowhere really as I fundamentally disagree with the the inconsistent nature of the argument from your/Wikipedia's side. Thanks for the discussion we will no doubt agree to disagree.Robynthehode (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I've changed my argument, although I see the potential for confusion: self-made videos are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, particularly as in this case we would need to perform original research to use them; if a source makes claims based on those videos, we can report what that source says, so long as that source is a reliable one. Again, if you'd like to argue that JISCON is not a reliable source, that's fine; the determination that it is or is not won't change that Wikia is not a reliable source, because it is openly editable. Indeed, the Wikia site would still be an unreliable source even if it cited GBR or something else clearly reliable, because of its open nature. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Now we come to the crux. And you have also changed the basis of your argument. At the start of this discussion you stated that self made videos are not reliable sources but you now state that they are as long as someone else tells you that they are. And as long as that someone is supposedly credible. Fine. But it still remains whether those sources are credible themselves. JISCON is not a credible enough source according to the Wikipedia guidelines I have read especially as they rely on unreliable sources (or so is claimed). What you say it comes down to is whether we judge one secondary source to be credible or not. But by believing one source over another when the underlying source material is clearly the same is illogical and merely begs the question of verifiability and reliability. It is not a complex chain of verifiability. This is quite a simple special case. It is simple nonsense to say 'I' will cite one group over another even though the underlying source material is the same for both groups. The same source material that 'I' will call unreliable when it suits me and call reliable when it suits 'me' at another time. This discussion is getting nowhere really as I fundamentally disagree with the the inconsistent nature of the argument from your/Wikipedia's side. Thanks for the discussion we will no doubt agree to disagree.Robynthehode (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is, if JISCON recognizes the records based on the videos, then they act as a secondary source for us to cite: "According to JISCON, the records are...". If we cited the videos directly, that would be an original synthesis of primary source material. Wikia in this case is also a secondary source, but because it can be changed by anyone at any time, we don't consider it a reliable one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are missing my point. First as I said earlier on this talk page I am not suggesting that the juggling records on the relevant page be removed. Second my argument is about using the publicly available self made videos as a source. This is what JISCON does. It is not logical to exclude other self made publicly available videos. Your argument seems to be that the videos for the Shower records are available through a Wikia rather than via JISCON. I can concede that Wikia are not a good source because they often include unreliable evidence but this is not the case always. To have a blanket ban on Wikia sources brings up issues like the one I am arguing about. The reliability and verifiability of the base evidence for juggling records is the same from both JISCON and the Wikia for the Shower juggling records. What's the difference? I am arguing a special case not for a blanket inclusion of Wikia material. Finally JISCON may have a limited credibility within the juggling community but it is still using the same self published videos as the contested sources and you have not made a convincing argument against my suggestion that I should set up a rival organisation to be another 'curator' of juggling records. To be able to do that I only need to: know something about juggling (tick that box as I have been involved in the juggling community for 25 years), be able to source and watch videos (tick that box I have a computer and can watch youtube) and finally make clear headed assessments about the quality of the video evidence (reasonably sure I can do that). Maybe that is what I will do Robynthehode (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- JISCON is more reliable than Wikia because it is not publicly editable and has some public recognition as a 'curator' of sorts for juggling records. Even if it didn't, that would not be a rationale for accepting Wikia as a reliable source, but only for excluding JISCON. If you'd like to argue for all JISCON records to be removed from Wikipedia articles, I'm not going to stand against it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about original research. One of the points I was making is that JISCON is not an authority of a standard that Wikipedia and you want it to be. It has been set up by jugglers for jugglers to settle disputes about juggling records. It uses self published video evidence (youtube and others) as its evidence. Therefore the only 'authority' it has is it making the decision to only list records where there are publicly available videos of these records. Beyond that they do not have any authority or status to be an arbiter of juggling records. So what is the difference between me setting up a separate 'organisation' and calling it World Juggling Records 'WJR' and listing all the records with publicly available self made videos of juggling records that are missing from the JISCON list. If you can explain the difference and your answer is both logical and credible then I am happy to agree with your Wikipedia stance. If not then there are questions to be answered about the inclusion of some sources on Wikipedia and it would mean that some severe editing would have to be done. Robynthehode (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- But the point I am making is that even if these videos are authentic, that does not verify that they show records. If some actual authority, such as JISCON, has concluded based on these videos that these are records, we can report their conclusions; however, reporting them as records based on another wiki would constitute original research, as the wiki cites no secondary source and is not reliable in and of itself. WP:USERG goes on to explain that "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources", which itself states that "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" and that "material [published by the subject him/herself] may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving" (among other provisions). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- If a reliable source like GBR reports these records, then we can include them; if no reliable source reports them, though, they must be excluded, because there is simply no way to verify that these are actual records. See WP:V and also WP:BURDEN - since there is currently no RS included, the material should be removed unless and until one can be provided. Furthermore, as these assertions deal with individuals, WP:BLPSOURCES applies: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
THATS RIGHT WIKIA IS OPENLY EDITABLE....GUESS WHAT...SO IS WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.10.47 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- ...which means that Wikipedia has to have guideines for what is acceptable content. If such guidelines don't exist, and anybody can add anything, the website becomes completely useless as an encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 12:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Well Im sure many many more people feel that these " Guidelines" wikipedia uses are unreliable in themselves....Especially when you have high schools across the nation personally telling students not to use such an unreliable information source such as wikipedia. I would still like to know the reasoning behind RecordSetter not being a reliable source of information....What specific special "wikipedia guideline" did they not follow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.10.47 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Needless to say, it's when unreliable information is added to Wikipedia that Wikipedia becomes unreliable - and since the guidelines are in place to prevent that, the only possible reason is that 1) the guidelines may not be sufficiently strict or 2) people ignore them. Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source of information - everything here should build on what other, reliable, sources have already published. It is an ideal that is very imperfectly met, but that is always going to be the case. (Also: "the nation?" Wikipedia is not limited to any one nation. It is hopefully a worldwide thing.) I certainly forbid my students from using Wikipedia as a reference in their papers, but it can be a good starting point to find the actual sources of information. As for why RecordSetter is unreliable, here is where there was a consensus in favour of not accepting it as a source for records. If you disagree, please feel free to open a new discussion at this noticeboard. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)