User talk:Jasoncalacanis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:22, 12 April 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Jasoncalacanis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (Note: this welcome was added after the Xeni warning.) CMacMillan 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeni Jardin

Regarding Xeni Jardin, you are now in violation of the Three Revert Rule. I am now going to undo your changes and further reversions by you may result in an account blocking.

However, I'd like it not to get that far. A good number of people have discussed this, came to a concensus and are watching this page. Your changes -will- be reverted if you continue to bypass that concensus. --Kickstart70·Talk 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the wikipedia community i think including a hate/stalker site is not a good idea. I want to reopen the discussion... I am within my rights to bring up the discussion correct?

Yes! Fully within your "rights" and welcome to do so. There is a discussion area for the Xeni article, and while it has dealt with much of the controversy surrounding this, I'm sure there is room for constructive discussion. If you believe, and can prove, the site to be what you say it is, then it should be opened for discussion. However, keep in mind that I've looked at the site and it just looks pretty childish to me. CMacMillan 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this user is mentioned on the xeni jardin page as a former employer of her. Dstanfor 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that fact has much sway. We have a user who professes to hate the Irish and Roman Catholics, and he's allowed to edit articles mentioning both. (Not with much success, mind you.) Does working for her make him a subject-matter-expert or an editor with too much bias? CMacMillan 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When he's reverting edits in the criticism section, I'd say biased. When he's updating the career section, I'd say subject matter expert. Dstanfor 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that I've got a lot of knowledge about Xeni's career, and I know that the site mentioned is a) insignificant in her history, b) is a stalker site, and c) very low traffic. I think the wikipedia's attempts at inclusion--which I agree with--can sometimes lead to dangerous people and their personal attacks getting more historical significance then they deserve. If I start a Wikipediasucks.com page should I be included in the Wikipedia history page? Right now anyone who starts a *sucks.com site gets instant inclusion in wikipedia. It's a real backdoor into the history process in my mind.

edit to Jason Calacanis

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'd like to softy warn you that making autobiographical edits to your own page is extremely frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Your removal of the information describing you as the "father of podcasting" was both helpful and an example of the modesty that 99% of autobiographical Wikikedia edits lack. If you have further edits to your page, feel free to discuss them or lay out alternative versions of the text on the talk page and I or another editor will gladly incorporate them into the article, but please refrain from making the edits themselves (unless they are of a grammatical or spelling nature). That small buffer can prevent conflicts of interest that can comprimise the page. Glowimperial 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... if someone puts something totally false on my bio I shouldn't take it down? That doesn't make much sense to me!

It may not make sense to you because you see yourself as a reasonable person, and your edit was a simple matter of removing a sentence which falsely credited you with an accomplishment. Many edits are not as simple as that one and your action as an editor could be interpreted in a variety of ways, by a variety of editors. That is why editing a page of which you are the subject or which relates directly to your personal life or professional work is considered a conflict of interest here on Wikipedia. By not interacting directly with the page, and instead making contributions to articles that fall withing those criteria on their talk pages, a buffer is created which allows the larger population of Wikipedia editors to vet your contributions in areas where a conflict of interest could be present.

I realise that this it is not always convenient or pleasant for the subject of an article to be distanced from the article about themselves or their works. I'd like you to imagine if the edit to your article was reversed, if you were a vanity editor trying to falsely claim credit for the invention of podcasting, rather than a well-minded editor simply removing a statement which is untrue. That sort of situation, which can become quite emotional on the part of the autobiographical editor, is very common here on Wikipedia. I've had to deal with overzealous autobiographical editors on numerous occasions, it's often impossible to reason with the editor in that case. In many cases, they can't even understand that the relevant article is not "their page" and that their edits and contributions are held to the same standard as any other Wikipedia editor.

Another reason why it's unwise to edit one's own page, is that those edits often lead to the article being unfairly listed for deletion, as your page was. Your presence as an editor can comprimise the integrity of the page, as editors, unable to confirm your contributions either remove them wholesale or list the page for deletion under the criteria that it is a vanity page. The fact that all of your edits to Wikipedia under this account involve the article of which you are a subject, the article on a former employee (Xeni Jardin) and the article on Nick Denton who's company is described on the Jason Calacanis page as a competitor of yours could contribute to the impression that your sole interest in Wikipedia is to protect your interests. Having a broader portfolio of edits would assist you in any future efforts you might make to improve this or other pages about which you have personal knowledge.

I hope that explains a bit why we frown heavily upon autobiographical edits and related conflicts of interest here. I assure you that several users likely have any pages to which you might be advised to avoid editing on their watchlists and if you have contributions to make, and make them on the talk page with proper citation, they'll be implemented both quickly and well. Glowimperial 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 : Wait a second... if someone puts something totally false on my bio I shouldn't take it down? That doesn't make much sense to me!
+:: It may not make sense to you because you see yourself as a reasonable person, and your edit was a simple matter of removing a sentence which falsely credited you with an accomplishment.  Many edits are not as simple as that one and your action as an editor could be interpreted in a variety of ways, by a variety of editors.  That is why editing a page of which you are the subject or which relates directly to your personal life or professional work is considered a [[conflict of interest]] here on Wikipedia.  By not interacting directly with the page, and instead making contributions to articles that fall withing those criteria on their talk pages, a buffer is created which allows the larger population of Wikipedia editors to vet your contributions in areas where a conflict of interest could be present.
+:: I realise that this it is not always convenient or pleasant for the subject of an article to be distanced from the article about themselves or their works.  I'd like you to imagine if the edit to your article was reversed, if you were a vanity editor trying to falsely claim credit for the invention of podcasting, rather than a well-minded editor simply removing a statement which is untrue.   That sort of situation, which can become quite emotional on the part of the autobiographical editor, is very common here on Wikipedia.  I've had to deal with overzealous autobiographical editors on numerous occasions, it's often impossible to reason with the editor in that case.  In many cases, they can't even understand that the relevant article is not "their page" and that their edits and contributions are held to the same standard as any other Wikipedia editor.
+:: Another reason why it's unwise to edit one's own page, is that those edits often lead to the article being unfairly listed for deletion, as your page was.  Your presence as an editor can comprimise the integrity of the page, as editors, unable to confirm your contributions either remove them wholesale or list the page for deletion under the criteria that it is a vanity page.  The fact that all of your edits to Wikipedia under this account involve the article of which you are a subject, the article on a former employee ([[Xeni Jardin]]) and the article on [[Nick Denton]] who's company is described on the [[Jason Calacanis]] page as a competitor of yours could contribute to the impression that your sole interest in Wikipedia is to protect your interests.  Having a broader portfolio of edits would assist you in any future efforts you might make to improve this or other pages about which you have personal knowledge.
+:: I hope that explains a bit why we frown heavily upon autobiographical edits and related conflicts of interest here.  I assure you that several users likely have any pages to which you might be advised to avoid editing on their watchlists and if you have contributions to make, and make them on the talk page with proper citation, they'll be implemented both quickly and well. [[User:Glowimperial|Glowimperial]] 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)