User talk:GordonWatts

On Wikipedia's reliability

In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing)

While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe:

On both the page where the dispute broke out and here on the main talk page, I point out that many feel that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants).

OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here.

I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider Wikipedia itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...--GordonWatts 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gordon

Hi. It ought to be clear, by now, that consensus is pretty set against the inclusion of your websites as external links on the Terri Schiavo article(s). You are both very knowledgeable and very committed about the topic, and I do not want to see this effort wasted.

However, your current activity, repeating the same points over and over, is becoming disruptive, and it's starting to exhaust everyone's patience. I don't want to see this happen - can we accept that the links will stay out for now, and you aim your energies in a more productive direction?

There's a lot of effort being wasted by numerous editors continually stating 'no, the links should not go back in'; I'm aware Patsw believes they should be reinstated, but 2 in favour and 7+ against doesn't look good for the links.

Try and edit in a different for a little while. Instead of wasting all that splendid, intelligent, and ultimately fruitless effort on fighting over those links, go find an article on somethig that interets you that is not as good as it could be, and improve it. There's plenty of work that could be done on topics relating to Terri Schiavo (such as euthanasia, assisted death, right to life, etc) that could do with some referencing and expansion. You're great at asking for suggestions on talk pages about changes, but I have noticed you sometimes do ignore what others are saying and make your point over and over and over and over ... this tends to make people more implacable, not less.

I don't want this message to come across as patronising, I'm trying to nip this in the bud, because I think Wikipedia is a better place with people of your energy and willingness to do the legwork, but if things go on the current course, I see problems looming with RFCs, arb com and the like. Just think about it, ok? Best, Proto ► 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis, Proto; You are quite correct that I would offend others if I kept it up, but I feel that the standards are arbitrarily applied (not just on links to my site, but, as you have noticed, regarding other links used as sources). It is lopsided in the consensus, and I accept the consensus, even if I don't agree with it. (You saw my statements to that effect in my message above, I trust, where I am mature and polite and accept the concensus.) However, since this issue is about a broader issue regarding the citing of sources on the whole, I felt that the examples I outlined in the talk pages about a deletionist slant to be a point worth review.

Although I am very irritated that some others don't see it my way on all issues, my plans to edit much less are simply because I am busy with other things. I certainly don't want to have any hard feelings with any editors if and when I decide to take a Wikibreak here shortly, not even those with whom I have disagreed, such as Calton, for example.

Well, thank you for writing back. A lot of work is out there to do on Wikipedia, but real life also has a lot of work for us. I hope that sets your mind to ease. After all, it is just one online encyclopedia; I think the worst that could happen to us now is a lawsuit against Wikipedia by some nut that thinks he was slandered, but I certainly hope Wikipedia can avoid any ill fortune like that. (I have done my part to contribute and avoid these type problems.) Others will have to figure it out in the future if and when I do indeed cut back on my editing; Best of luck and blessings to you all.--GordonWatts 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Disputes with editors intent on adding links to their own sites is one of the more common causes of friction. It's not personal, people just don't like it. Pressing things only ever makes it worse. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, I'd like to say that I agree with Proto, and I think he expressed it very well. I'd like to see an end to this dispute, because, quite frankly, you're not going to get consensus for the inclusion of those links, but I'd like to think that this could blow over and that you could do some valuable work at other articles (perhaps articles that you don't have such strong feelings about). I'm sorry I wasn't able to agree with you on this. I will tell you that I was personally very much opposed to the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, although that doesn't absolve me in any way from the responsibility of following what I believe to be Wikipedia policies. I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out. After you recover from your surprise, it actually seems a good idea. ElinorD (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)