Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-01/Features and admins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Hurricanehink's rationale: "My choice of the week is the December 1964 South Vietnamese coup, since high school kids might well come across that in their curricula." Um, how about the rest of the world, Hink? Don't think kids in the UK, for example, are at all likely to have this on their curricula. Yep, you guessed it - I'm coming out with that old cry of 'US bias in selection procedures'. 81.147.150.57 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on the judge. I'd be very partial to Pedro II because I am interested in modern Latin American history (and because of the ridiculous amount of sources they consulted!) We also had a German judge a couple weeks ago. Overall, I'd say Tony and Dabomb are doing an excellent job. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would U.S. students be more likely to come across an article on South Vietnam than students in the UK? Powers T 13:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed anyone would ask this, but, since you did ... because Vietnam plays a massive part in US history; not so in UK history. We didn't fight that one. Just like I doubt the Falklands War would get as much of a look-in in US curricula as it would in UK ones. History studies are always slanted towards the national and international policies of the country that is teaching the history. 86.133.55.218 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my own curriculum didn't cover this particular coup, so I didn't realize its importance to the war. Powers T 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that very well known; in many general books on the VN War such as by Karnow and Langguth only 1-3 pages in 700 touch on that particular incident. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, good and featured topics aren't demoted for "not enough work done on them", it's because one or more of the articles lose their GA or FA status and don't get re-promoted within 3 months. --PresN 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; fixed. Tony (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does Moreno remind you of hurricanes? Nice week for admins, too. 68.98.31.172 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He sees a similarity between WP:OMT and WP:WPTC Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay phenom[edit]

I raised concerns on the talk page here, and with HaeB, that The Signpost not go down the Essjay slippery slope by printing unverified credentials of admins. Concerns about this slippery slope realized: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redthoreau in a recently closed RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the reason that your concerns were discounted is that they aren't important. So Leyo says he has a Master's of Science; my high school chemistry teacher had an M.S. in chemistry, & once told us that the only other work his degree qualified him for was being a lab tech. As long as Leyo makes his content-related arguments based on common sense & secondary sources that can be verified -- which is what everyone should do, & someone with an M.S. ought to know the secondary literature well enough to do that -- & doesn't try to pass himself off as an authority, what's the problem? Essjay wouldn't have been forced to leave Wikipedia in disgrace had he not attempted to use his unverified credentials not only to win discussions, but also to misrepresent himself to a journalist writing about Wikipedia. Doing so not only made him look bad, but more importantly hurt Wikipedia. As you were told, that fact fills out a little bit about who Leyo says he is; it's simply a part of his online persona. Please give the matter a rest & move on. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me to "give the matter a rest and move on" might work (doubt it, though), if the facts didn't stand in my way. The Signpost article says: "Leyo (nom) has a Masters of Science degree ..." That is asserted as fact; nowhere is it clarified in this article that "that fact fills out a little bit about who Leyo says he is", and with the reward culture on Wiki, we may see other RFA candidates alleging credentials they don't have, and other RFA !voters Supporting on that basis (I have no doubt Leyo is who he says he is, or ElenoftheRoads is who she says she is, and that is not the issue here). Learn from history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Learn from what history? Essjay? While I'm tempted to respond with something along the lines of "one sparrow does not make it spring", a more nuanced response is that Essjay shows why lying about one's qualifications (or anything on Wikipedia) in order to boost one's stature is a bad idea: eventually the deception will be found out, & the fallout will force the liar to leave. (And maybe even those who associated with the liar.) Looking at the RfA you linked to, three people voted "oppose" because of that statement -- you were one of them -- & only one person voting in support of RedThoreau mentioned his academic credentials -- which was in response to your comment. Everyone with more than minimal experience on Wikipedia knows to handle claims about qualifications with a grain of salt; all that's needed is one interaction with someone who claims to be an authority in a given field. In fact, the average level of skepticism towards experts -- both alleged & proven -- is so high that we drive away far more real authorities than the fakes. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-01/Features_and_admins&oldid=1089925841"