Talk:Wikipediocracy

Phd thesis not a preferred source

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. " NE Ent 23:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I find it problematic that your reverted a source written by a woman, as you know WP has a problem with denigrating the contributions of women and this is just another example among many. Not good. Also, the dissertation in question is an expert-level opinion (because it's for a doctorate degree, which is an advanced academic standard) and thus qualifies as an academic expert source, which is what we want in these kind of articles. The University of Oxford is a world class university. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do than to ascribe sexist labels when they don't exist except in your head? And who's the IP whose sole contribution was to restore your edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looked like a Verizon Wireless user in Arizona. Enhance your suspicions based on that, and carry on. Signed, - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:F439:4EFB:4A25:30C0 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's simple. Doctoral thesis = NOT an acceptable, published, reliable source. That Cla68 would bring the supposed gender of the author into the discussion is silly; that they would suggest the revert was done because Ent and Bbb are sexists is despicable, besides a violation of AGF and NPA. Come on Cla68. Don't sink to this level. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious (as an observer of this discussion) how "can be used" turned into "NOT...acceptable"? Can you explain that, Drmies? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:A035:EAC4:B6DE:71BF (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that Cla68 called anyone 'sexist.' I do see where Drmies called Cla68's writing 'despicable,' however, and where Bbb23 said Cla68 'ascribed sexist labels' in their reply. Who sunk to what level is easy to see, as I am looking down at them.→StaniStani 02:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's special. Perhaps you can explain where the "reverted a source written by a woman" comes from. Such interesting literalism! Well, I didn't call their writing despicable. Cla is a respected editor of FAs and DYKs; I have complete faith in their ability to make themselves understood. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The PhD dissertation is not 'cited in the literature' and thus is probably not usable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.→StaniStani 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies is wrong, dissertations are in fact academic and juried by experts and published and available. Maybe not READILY available, admittedly, but that would be the one and only possible objection to using them as a published source of presumed reliability. They are actually of higher academic merit than your typical double blind journal article. So please do stop making shit up on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Carrite, you also employing the straw man of IDONTLIKEIT? Tsk tsk. I actually wrote a dissertation; it's gathering dust somewhere on a shelf (it's readily available, of course, on microfilm--not sure you knew that sort of thing) even though its prose is breathtaking and its topic still relevant. It was reviewed, I suppose, but to state that it's reviewed in the way a book or a journal article is reviewed means you simply don't know how this works. I wrote a few of those articles as well, and I suppose you didn't know that "double blind" is not very common. The last article I got accepted was reviewed by five readers, and while that high a number is unusual, it's not that uncommon. No, the standards for editing and reviewing for journal articles and published books is much, much higher than for theses and dissertations (I'm directing one, and am a second reader on two others). You are welcome to state your "opinion", it's just that your opinion is surprisingly uninformed, and that you throw in IDONTLIKE it, well, that's just the hot sauce on the hot air. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• No not usable, which is a shame as there is material re paid editing that is interesting. The use of it here is not only objectionable on source grounds but also is UNDUE, as others have noted. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you're the one making shit up on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. I call your attention to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, one clause of which reads: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Carrite (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that "I don't like" but that COI editors are rampaging over this article, and stuffing it with puffery, rules out the window. As usual. I'm waiting for the site co-founder to step in and edit the article, as she has done in the past. But no "connected contributor" tag on this article. Why? 'Cause the COI editors no like. Funny. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A doctoral thesis may be a good source in some circumstances, but not in all. (The sex of its author is, of course, irrelevant.) What has been missed in the above discussion is that the thesis is being cited not primarily for factual information, but for the subjective opinions of the thesis-writer. Thus, the most relevant question is not whether dissertations are or are not valid sources for Wikipedia, but whether quoting a paragraph of Ms. Ford's opinions in this article would give them undue weight. Assuming it is, it still might be appropriate to (for example) cite the thesis for factual context, or offer it as an external link, or the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Although I will add that at this point what usually happens is people have a discussion as to if the person is notable enough for their opinion to be included. Given Heather Ford is a nobody I would say not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

*cough* Brustopher (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah saw that. Stand by my comments. The list of puffy BLP articles of WMF/Wikipedia affiliated persons is getting longer... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RS policy is clear secondary sources are clear; ironically, if someone had read the thesis in greater attention, they would have realized it references a Wikipedia preferred secondary source Washington Post in describing Wikipediocracy's role [1]. (I'd support inclusion even though it's written by a gurl, as the likelihood of catching Cooties over the Internet is very low). NE Ent 00:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on Dr Ford's talk page asking for her opinion on this whole matter. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can add, but thank you, Brustopher for pinging me about this :) I agree with Newyorkbrad (but definitely not with Only in death ;)). Theses are used pretty often on Wikipedia (so too are social media sources!) What matters is whether the statement in the article is accurately being reflected by the citation and the context of its arguments (without undue weight, as Newyorkbrad notes). This may be more clearly decided as the chapters of the dissertation are published in journals in the coming months, but there's no reason to dismiss a citation merely because it is a PhD thesis, nor is this the reason to automatically accept it. I'm curious about what you decide because I can't find what statement in particular is being argued about. (Maybe someone could let me know?) Thanks :) hfordsa (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hfordsa This is the edit which inserted a few thoughts from your dissertation. This edit, twice added, has been twice reverted, and the argument here ensued: [2]. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NYB and others in general, and in particular with Hfordsa about wanting specifics pointed out. I've seen several doctoral dissertations included in the bibliographies of articles in reference works, like encyclopedias, and I cannot see any reason to keep such items out, if they are considered reliable for information from other academic sources. This source is almost certainly at least acceptable for broadly noncontroversial information. In general, I would be very hesitant to use the opinions of any academic source for content in an article, with the exception, perhaps, of noncontroversial opinions. Regarding other material, as the material is discussed and referenced in published journals, that material would meet the same criteria as any other material published in peer reviewed journals. Having said all that, of course, if the material in question is both included in the source, is more or less describing the "purpose" of wikipediocracy, and is consistent with the opinions of the authorities at wikipediocracy, then it would to my eyes qualify as noncontroversial. Whether it might qualify on the basis of other criteria might be a separate issue. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Cla68's insertion of Ford's analysis from her Ph.D. dissertation. I think it's a benign and salient observation and I think it's a worthwhile academic opinion of Wikipediocracy's purpose and efficacy vis-à-vis a discussion of Wikipedia growth and the resulting growth of disaffection and criticism. It is just as valid as if Wired or The New York Times assessed Wikipediocracy's purpose. I compare it also to an academic's paper discussing a novel's or a medieval poem's merits and exploring it through the lens of objective analysis or critical reception (some are less than objective but still have valid points worth discussing or sharing and weighing against contrary ideas). We wouldn't dismiss an academic's opinion of Chaucer or Trollope, if a Ph.D. dissertation covered them (as many do), so why should we dismiss a Ph.D. dissertation that looks at the Wikipedia phenomenon and its critics. I discount the "undue weight" argument as there are other opinions equally represented in this article, and Ms. Ford's observation explained in a sentence or two doesn't tip the balance one way or the other when looking at the article as a whole. If FAs can use an occasional PhD dissertation, cautiously, this lesser quality article could benefit from one as well. You may disagree, but I think the inclusion of more information is always best and a net benefit. I fear some of the opposition is just a way to oppose anything that explains Wikipediocracy. That kind of opposition, to me, while ensconcing itself in the mantle of WP:UNDUE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which happens to support including publically accessible, completed Ph.D. dissertations as reliable sources) seems like a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the wizard saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Let the readers weigh Wikipediocracy's merits or not based on the article and its sources, we should agree to err on the side of inclusion when information improves an article. This is one of those times. Besides, we're talking about a dissertation by an Oxonian which I think would be rigorously reviewed and moreso than an opinion from The New York Times. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the author of that piece (with all due respect) is sufficiently notable as to warrant inclusion in this article. Yes there is a Wikipedia article on her, tagged, justifiably I believe, for notability. The article already has a puffy aroma, is top-heavy with "hot diggedy dog what a great website" stuff. Let's tone it down. Bad enough that half the people editing the article are regulars on the website, not excluding the website founder who occasionally pops in to update the piece, and not excluding the "Wikipediocracy trustee" who added the Ford material. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Most academics and journalists aren't notable in the way that a writer like David McCullough or Joseph Ellis is in that best-seller way. Most labor in relative anonymity and end up in oblivion. However, they do write reliable sources. Even a few hundred years later, most Dante scholarship relies on people who mine old not-really-notable books by not-really-notable Italians, many of them priests and monks. If you use your test, half the articles on Wikipedia need to be pruned of sources written by not-famous, barely notable, easily forgotten writers. I just added some geological information to an article about a state park. None of those geologists are "notable" by any means. There really are no geology superstars. Nevertheless, their lack of renown doesn't undermine the reliability or verifiability of their work and subject of their work. A lowly Ph.D. might drudge away teaching for 50 years and never "make it". That happens. However, a Ph.D. dissertation can be a reliable source and just as reliable as a book, magazine or newspaper article, or academic paper in a journal no one ever reads, and that is regardless of whether the academic who produced it goes on to fame and glory. Your argument is thus rather specious on its face. As for the Wikipediocracy connexion: this isn't the first time someone interested or associated with an article has added to an article. While it's alarming conduct it doesn't negate the validity of Ford's statement which adds to the information available in the article. Again, it is inconsequential...as someone not affiliated with Wikipediocracy, I would have added it and assessed it as a salient observation worth including. Would you have reverted it then had I inserted it? It is not a bad addition, but because it's Wikipediocracy, some people won't like it no matter what the circumstances. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• No, I think it's fairer to say that because it's Wikipediocracy, the usual fan club is out in force. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the person in this thread most identified with Wikipediocracy (StaniStani) has opined that the language quoted from the dissertation should not be used, even though on balance it is favorable to Wikipediocracy. We should always be mindful of COI issues, but we shouldn't typecast people either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, right. If it wasn't for a COI edit we wouldn't be having this conversation: If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Given that COI editors have been all over this article like a cheap suit since it was created, let's not kid ourselves. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the history of the article since the beginning of 2015, I'm not sure that I see that many edits from individuals who to my awareness have COI issues per se, acknowledging the IP edits might be, I dunno. Of course, that is at least partially depending on how one defines COI. And, certainly, as Brad has already pointed out, the most visible editor of that forum, Stanistani, along with at least me and Brad and a few others who have been known to post there, don't support inclusion of the material at least at this time. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rather than COI editors making either good, bad or indifferent edits to this article, the best solution is that regular contributors and, of course, the cofounder of the site, not edit this article. The COI rule is pretty clear on that. But as I said, this article exists in a kind of air pocket all its own. It's all about how the contributors are a helluva bunch of people, real watchdogs, real fine souls, and those fine souls are editing the article. Fancy that. COI? Wassat? Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• But, in all honesty, wouldn't any other individual editor here, who isn't necessarily at all involved there, potentially have some form of COI problems themselves, regarding a site which is regularly critical of this site? And, perhaps, particularly if at some time they as individuals may or may not have been discussed in a less than complimentary way there? That being the case, I might agree that this article does exist in kind of an air pocket of its own, maybe with Wikipedia Review, of being an article about which at least potentially every single person who edits here at all could be at least theoretically perceived to have a conflict of interests about? John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I've heard that position espoused before by the COI editors here. If we apply that rather self-serving standard, then anyone on Wikipediocracy could essentially veto participation of any editor here by simply starting a conversation about him or her and making uncomplimentary remarks. In that way, voila! Misconduct is jiu-jitsued into a kind of gaming of the system to let COI editors run rampant. So the answer to your question is no, this is like any other article. WP:COS applies. But yes, it is in an air pocket in that it is not enforced. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I find your dismissive refusal to address the validity of the point made, and attempt to equate a reasonable concern about at least implicitly assumed prior discussion with subsequent discussion in your comment above to be at best questionable. On the basis of the above comment, and some of your other comments, in all honestly, you seem to have cast yourself at least implicitly in the position of a foe of the site, which, honestly, would mean that there is good reason to believe that WP:COS could be reasonably seen to apply to you as well. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sure I've addressed the "validity of the point," by showing that it isn't valid. And yes, I know, the COI editors don't have COI and the non-COI editors have COI. Being critical of COI gives you a bad case of COI. As a matter of fact, pretty much everything except having a COI means that you have a COI, when it comes to this article. Black is white in this air pocket. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any proposed changes which you believe would solve this puffery problem? To my knowledge pretty much all sources covering WO are either positive or neutral, and Wikipedia is meant to reflect reliable sources. What exactly would you propose doing to remove so-called puffery? Brustopher (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the puffery that's been shoved into this article over the years by COI editors has been removed, a point that I did not make very clear in my remarks in this section (though I did say that in a previous section). Yes, this article does have a promotional tone, but I'm not sure what can be done about that in light of the reality of the editing atmosphere here. Yes, the article's sources are generally favorable. If I felt they were problematic, I'd have removed them some time ago. In the Ford instance I didn't have to, because other editors did so. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• (e-c) I agree with Coretheapple, insofar as in your eyes your black is white. Bluntly, I have seen very little but explicit assumptions of bad faith on the part of everyone other than yourself based simply on whether they have any activity at the site. Not everyone who posts there necessarily counts others as "friends" or "foes." You however, in what to my eyes may be among the most profound indicators of lack of self-awareness I have seen here, seem to believe that somehow, despite your clearly painting everyone who edits there is the broadest of brushes, that somehow you are more objective than others. I actually looked for RS's on the WO site elsewhere recently, admittedly in a cursory fashion, under the circumstances, and didn't find anything much by way of negative coverage of the WO site in reliable sources. And yet, you seem to be insisting on judging the material added by others, from RS, based on the fact that, to your eyes, there isn't sufficient negative coverage of it presented here. I have seen nothing from you to meet WP:BURDEN regarding your assertion, and, on that basis, reiterate my point that frankly, based on your comments here, you as an individual may well be personally among the least qualified to determine the content of this article. I will cease from further responses to your template repetition of "black is white," which I full well expect, until and unless you as an individual meet the accepted requirements here to demonstrate that the assumption of bad faith implicit in your negative comment about the history of editing here is substantiated by your producing material from RS which demonstrate that the negative coverage you apparently devoutly believe the site has had is in fact shown to exist. And, yes, FWIW, I'll probably check some of the subscription databanks myself regarding this topic later this week for what they might have, because, frankly, I am personally seeing a very strong almost absolute assertion of "White is black" from at least one editor here. Otherwise, I think WP:SOAPBOX or similar might apply to the comments made by at least one editor here. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's really a simple situation that I can reduce to one sentence: the COI editors, meaning the regular WO contributors, should stay away and leave this article to people who don't have a COI. We are having this discussion because a "Wikipediocracy trustee" added promotional material to this article. When I say "black is white," I'm referring to obvious COIs like that being shrugged off, and special categories of COI being created out of thin air to silence people who are opposed to genuine COI such as that. In response to the previous comment, over great and extremely strenuous objections and personal attacks, in edits some weeks ago I removed much of the puffery in this article. (see my comment above at 17:46, 29 September 2015) If there's more I'll certainly suggest its removal and yes, I know there will be top-of-the-lungs screaming. Why? Because this is a COI air pocket where black is white. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Coretheapple, what specifically is the conflicting interest that is inherent in a WO contributor editing this article? How is it different from a Reddit contributor editing the article on Reddit, or anyone here editing articles about WP? Or are those also COI violations in your mind? (I'm not a WO contributor, past or present, btw.) alanyst 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's any point in discussing how we can apply WP:COS to this article, how much participation in that site should constitute a COI, since people with undeniable, obvious COIs, such as the website co-founder, have edited the article with impunity. Reddit is the Atlantic Ocean compared to this tiny pond on the Internet, so I don't think that's an apt comparison. Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think that your not wanting to discuss this is because you as an individual, according to the material here, available to those of you who can see it, have not been particularly highly spoken of there, and that on that basis there is no I believe very good reason to believe that you who seem to count yourself among the site's enemies as per WP:COS should avoid editing the article as well. I believe that there are other editors, held in much higher regard by the community here, such as former arb User:Newyorkbrad, admin and arb clerk User:Liz, and others who have both occasionally posted to that site and been held in very high regard here and who may not have the possibly strong emotional objection to the site that you might be seen to have. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't think any current or former editor or admin is held in high regard at WO. No person is immune from ridicule and judgment. I've been a target some times. But I also find people there having certain discussions which don't happen on WP and so I do check in there to see what's on their minds. But this opinion is irrelevant to the subject of editing the article, I was just pinged so I thought I'd weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to indicate you were in high regard here, as an admin, and my apologies for the obviously dubiously competent phrasing. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think I'm in high regard, you weren't at my RfA! But, seriously, regarding WO, I'm often surprised by who shows up to discuss Wikipedia there, lots of familiar names. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of "familiar," this "they talk about you there so COI editing here is OK" trope is definitely a familiar theme on this page. Coretheapple (talk)

• Possibly because you as an individual maybe refuse to address it? And, if you are going to paraphrase others, at least make a reasonable attempt to get it right. I said WP:COS, because you seem to be a rather strong enemy of the site. COS and COI are not entirely the same thing. Refusing to directly address the concerns raised by others by saying "familiar theme on this page" is beginning to look to me like maybe being one of most frequent ways taken to refuse to deal with such concerns. And, like Liz indicated above, despite one individual's apparent absolute conviction that everybody who posts there is somehow supporting paid editing, which so far as I remember is one of Coretheapple's favorite topics of discussion, that isn't even remotely the only thing that is discussed there. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Possibly because this discussion is a waste of time, another familiar theme on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe what some people insistently call a "waste of time" is what other people call a case of WP:IDHT regarding the possible applicability of WP:COS to you as an individual. So, rather than rather vapidly repeating "common theme" on an almost post-by-post basis, it is worth noting you seem to above say that there is no point in discussing WP:COS because, some might say, it seems to so clearly apply to you and your rather long-standing almost single-minded obsession with opposition to paid editing in any form. So, why not stop wasting your time in such boring repetition on this page and maybe acknowledge that one of the reasons things might have to be repeated to you regarding COS and other matters so often is because you don't seem to be able to recognize that your COS driven by your personal crusade against paid editing in any and all forms might be stronger than that of many, if not most, of the non-banned editors who frequent that site, most if not all of whom you seem to, rather falsely in the eyes of most others, seem to rather irrationally insist on grouping together as a WP:CABAL of some sort? John Carter (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Getting to this level of talk page contributions is hard work. You have my admiration. Coretheapple (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I notice that a few people here who revert-warred with me said that Heather Ford wasn't notable, when she happens to have a WP bio, since 2007, which explains that she is an expert on Internet and open source issues. I purposely didn't wiki-link to her BLP as an experiment to see if the responders would automatically assume that, because she is a female doctoral student, that she "wasn't notable." And, some of you now contend that WP's notorious anti-female bias didn't have a play in what just occurred here? Ha, and I have a bridge to sell you all also. Notice that none of you even checked to see if she had a BLP before reverting. Great work, WP. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, gotcha! Brilliant scheme. I don't see anyone saying that "source is not acceptable because woman". That you would surmise that's the reason for rejecting it says more about you than about WP and its editors. Are we going to be up on some external website soon? Name and shame them, Cla, that's how we're living. Tweet me when you have more. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • In addition to the foregoing, the paper appears to be largely based on this article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Please post diffs of "a few" people saying that Heather Ford wasn't notable. (Actually if anyone feels that way, they should be commenting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heather_Ford, not here of course.) NE Ent 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

break

There's little in WP:RS to suggest the particular authorship of a source is highly relevant to its appropriateness (with exception for WP:SELFSOURCE). Given the total lack of secondary source mention of the paper [3], its inclusion here -- especially the perceived need to refer / peacock the author's "a specialist in Internet policy and law," suggests pursuing a POV rather than striving for an encyclopedic article. NE Ent 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Demur If the "publisher" is questioned, still the identity of the author does not appear to be in question. Opinions of persons noted in the field are citable as opinion whether it be in the Daily Mail or the New York Times - or in a Ph.D. dissertation. If she is a nobody, whose opinions are therefore not notable, then that should be what we are discussing. If she is a Jonathan Zittrain, then that is what we ought to discuss. All the rest is a bit of a sideshow here, especially with the non-utile charges about editors being made. If she is the current person at Leeds University with a number of publications per [4] then, within the sphere of Wikipedia research, she appears notable, in my opinion. Leeds University is a reasonably respected university, IIRC. That site does not list as having a doctorate, but definitely lists her as faculty (UAF in Communications in the School of Media and Communication). Collect (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Found: University Academic Fellowship which appears to be an internship for "associate Professorships" as far as I can determine. Significant salary, so not a "teaching assistant" type of job. Collect (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Investigate"

There's been some back and forth over my edit changing "investigate" to "discuss." "Investigate" is simply not supported by the given source, which is the home page of the article. The word "investigate" does not even appear on the home page, except for the sentence "...first brought to light by a piece of investigative journalism in The Daily Dot." Even if it was, it would be self-serving per WP:SELFSOURCE and not usable. So if the home page is changed to accommodate us based on this discussion, I don't think we can oblige. This seems pretty clear to me, so I'm surprised to see established users quibbling over this. We need other sources to say that. If so, then by all means, it can go back in. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually unless you want to get into an argument as to what defines an 'investigation', most of your arguments are meaningless. A brief look at any of the blog posts shows the authors investigate various issues for an OED definition of the word investigate. 'Reliable secondary sources' are not needed to justify use of a common English word in prose when describing something that is obvious. What you are arguing is a content issue over phrasing/using of language, which ultimately comes down to a consensus discussion to remove it given the status quo. As an aside - even if the homepage DID change to explicitly include the word investigate, you would still be wrong because primary sources are perfectly valid when describing what that source's stated aims/goals/motive/purpose etc is. But thats not required anyway to justify use of a common English word. The SELFSOURCE stuff is just irrelevant. Arguing that a website that has broken quite a few scandals within wikipedia would be self-serving by describing themselves as 'investigating' is ridiculous. How do you think they did their homework? Voodoo? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support "discuss," more neutral NPOV term. NE Ent 12:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "discuss" does not include a sense of "doing research into" - which is also clearly part of what that site does. "Investigate" has an air of "police detective" about it - which is also not super clear. What it seems to do is compile information about various issues, and discuss the results of the compiled information, and also ramble on any convenient tangent proffered. Collect (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe to you it does, but not by default. Webster's 1913:

To follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation; to trace or track mentally; to search into; to inquire and examine into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; as, to investigate the causes of natural phenomena.

wikt:investigate has it more simply as

To inquire into or study in order to ascertain facts or information.

As Only in death comments, investigate is a common and obvious English word to use in this context.  — Scott • talk 14:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Discuss" or "explore" are much more NPOV than "investigate," in the absence of independent sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As already explained, sourcing is not required for use of a common English word to describe a process that is clearly an investigation. Also in what way is the word 'investigate' non-neutral? Given that investigations can be both positive or negative in their outcomes, and positive or negative in their execution. It is inherantly a neutral description of a process. Feel free to go find some reliable sources that describe the word as not neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not neutral, indeed it is extravagant puffery, because this is an article about a bulletin board, not a police precinct or detective agency. A claim like that, being somewhat unusual, requires multiple third party sourcing. Here there is none, as conceded. Coretheapple (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well when you can come up with a source that says the word investigate is extravagant puffery and not a neutral common english word in everyday use, you might have a point. Since there isnt, you dont. Also please provide sources that show using the word investigate to describe a website devoted to uncovering misdeeds is 'somewhat unusual' again, common english word in everyday use everywhere to describe common investigatory practices. Unless you want to back up with some decent sources that state the word investigate is a non-neutral descriptor, you really have no argument other than 'I dont like it'.Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether it is accurate. For that we need something called "verifiable and reliable sources." The "reliable source" that someone so generously supplied for that assertion is the home page of the website, and the only thing on the home page that can be remotely construed as a "source" is the self-glorying "mission statement," which does not indicate that it conducts investigations. See your position is essentially "it's obviously investigations - hey look at the website!" In other words, original research. Not just puffery, but sheer fancruft. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys, it's a Friday night. How about you put on your fedoras and moleskin vests and go out and display your plumage for awhile? I'm sure the regulars and visitors at your local watering holes will immediately genuflect when you explain what a bigshot on WP you are. Cla68 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you up till the watering hole part. Some of us don't drink. Caloric, addictive. Just bad all around. Not being investigators, we are just pawns, tools of the Unseen Hand in the great conspiracy. (Not night either at the moment.) Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's as if an occult hand was moving us like pieces in some cosmic game of Battleship. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well what else could motivate total strangers to collaborate on someone else's encyclopedia? The intelligent ones among us are doing so for pay. The rest of us, unmotivated by anything but politics or vague interest in various subjects, willingly engage in honest labor to benefit a third party, The Big J. We do not draw a salary. The Big J does. Clearly an ominous, invisible force is driving us. One day I will write an essay on this, and if so, will the subject of this article publish it? I fear it is off-topic, or perhaps too on-topic. Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just to recapitulate, the sentence in question is "Wikipediocracy contributors have investigated problems, conflicts, and controversies associated with Wikipedia, some being reported by mainstream media." FON wanted to change to "discuss," which I think is OK but "explore" is better, and I've changed to that. That seems to be a more accurate summary statement of the section that follows, especially considering the way this sentence is structured. But I agree that "investigate" doesn't cut it. I guess if there's going to be adamant feelings to retain that word, we'll have to go an RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have undone your change. Explore has a completely different connotation to investigate. Don't claim any consensus for this change, because it doesn't exist.  — Scott • talk 09:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no strong opinion other than to agree that "investigate" is not the proper word. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Scott, I thought it was a compromise between "discuss" and "investigate." I can't see a clear consensus for either, so I guess we'll have to go to DR or RfC or LSMFT or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Wording at top of 'activism' section

At the top of the "Website user activism" section it says as follows: "Wikipediocracy contributors have investigated problems, conflicts, and controversies associated with Wikipedia, some being reported by mainstream media." Should "investigate" be changed to "discuss," "explore" or some other word? I request that editors with a close association with the subject matter (founders, co-founders, moderators, administrators and others with official titles at Wikipediocracy) declare that in their responses. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Discuss or explore. This passage is sourced to the home page of the website, which does not claim that the site's users investigate. Aside from being unsourced, it is non-neutral and a peacock term when applied to participants in bulletin board discussions. Proponents of "investigate" in the preceding discussion, when offering any argument at all, seem to be saying that the investigative nature of the website's users is obvious and that referring to them as "investigators" is clearly warranted. I think that's original research, and that claiming that bulletin board users "investigate" is self-serving, promotional, and needs to be sourced to multiple third-party sources. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Discuss or "compile information" per NPOV. I refuse to make any statements about my off-wiki activity per the WMF privacy policy. NE Ent 16:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• How about analyzed? That way, we don't get into the issue of whether or not they got it right, since investigation tends to imply getting it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Discuss or explore - Using investigate makes it sound like it is our job. Using discuss or explore is the right alternative. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Investigate, as explained above. Hey Coretheapple, how about you come clean about your ongoing grudge match with Wikipediocracy before asking people to disclose anything? Your frequent, tedious spats with Greg Kohs on Jimbo Wales' user talk page make it pretty obvious why you're trying to water down the language in this article.  — Scott • talk 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I raised this issue, and I have nothing but admiration for Wikipediocracy. Admiration for the site is not, however, a requirement for editing this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Discuss is the proper term for Wiki-voice, in my view. "Water down" is not a term I'd use to describe this action. This is simply proper encyclopedic terminology. Jusdafax 19:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What "action" is it, precisely, that you think you have the "proper encyclopedic terminology" for? Juscurious.  — Scott • talk 21:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Investigate As Coretheapple is on another of his anti-wikipediocracy crusades, this time attempting to portray neutral words as non-neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, appreciate the well-poisoning. Seems to be contagious. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Investigate: To investigate means to research or study into a topic or event of interest. Discuss gives the notion that Wikipediocracy is mainly a forum, analyze is fine but implies in-depth research with is slightly worse WP:OR than the term "investigate". Esquivalience ^t 01:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• “Investigate” seems to hit the nail on the head—unless we can say “Wikipediocracy contributors scrutinize and discuss the dysfunctional aspects of Wikipedia’s processes, administration and user behaviour, some of which are reported by mainstream media.” Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• “Investigate” - it already is a factual, neutral word and works perfectly fine in this context. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone with an agenda was trying to water down WO's remit. But they're not, of course :D - Alison ^❤ 08:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'm a co-founder of WO. We all know this.

  Surely just perception of it... I would be surprised if WO allows its article on Wikipedia to set its remit ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Alison: So what makes it factual? Your opinion of the site, neutral as I'm sure it is? (By the way, appreciate your disclosure that you are co-founder of the site. I guess the "connected contributor" template isn't very practical on this talk page, considering how immense it would be.) Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Alison, I hold your website in high regard and there was no intent on my part to "water down WO's remit." I appreciate your strong feelings on the subject, since you are co-founder though i would disagree that "we all know this." In an RfC persons unacquainted with the subject may either participate or close the discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Investigate. Let's call a spade a spade... WJBscribe (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Based on what exactly? I thought message boards discuss stuff. Really would like to know. Most of what I'm seeing in favor of "investigate" in this and the previous discussion is either monosyllabic "leave it alone," and various varieties of well-poisoning, personal attacks and innuendo, but not much in the way of policy-based argument as to why we are using a description that runs counter to the common-sense definition of a bulletin board discussion. What I do see from the article is that material produced in the discussions is utilized for investigations. Not quite the same thing as investigating. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Investigate Let's stick with language that is accurate. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Investigate They investigate stuff. When I was a participant at the website I helped along a few investigations. "Coretheapple" is editing with an agenda (he hates the website). Of course that's tolerated. It shouldn't be. Topic ban him and be done with it.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • So, that's it? You've used the site and that's what you see? Apart from poisoning the well and original research, do you have anything else to offer? Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Your well has been poisoned enough to kill a village by now given how much you insist on badgering people about it. How about accepting that other people don't agree with you and drop it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Well I'd have a hell of a time "dropping" an issue that was raised by another editor, in the section above me, and concurred in by three others there and two others here. Funny how every time someone tries to deal with either rampant COI in this article, or poor sourcing or (as in this case) puffery, the same editors trot out the same attacks and disruption. Hasn't worked in the past, but go ahead. Meanwhile, the refusal to discuss, the COI, the edit warring and the "IJUSTLIKEIT" responses speak for themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ranted about. I agree that we should stick with language that is accurate and let's not elide the facts here, it's not a service to the reader to do so. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Anything but "investigate" Considering that "To investigate means to research or study into a topic or event of interest." This would apply to me, and many others who contribute to WP. I investigated the BP oil spill for 2.5 years in order to help build the article. But this term gives an impression of importance that is undeserved. "Explore", "research", or similar terms are more appropriate, even if "investigate" is literally correct. [Ad hominem attacks on the OP and their supposed motivation have no place in this thread.] petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, researching and studying topics or events of interest is exactly what goes on at WO so I don't see what your problem is with "investigate" here. And to comment, as Dan Murphy did, on the very obvious fact that the OP has an anti-WO agenda is hardly a personal attack. It wouldn't surprise me to see the OP agree with that, as he seems quite ballsy. Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that WO partisans, including COI editors, appear to have veto power over the content of this article to an extent remarkable even by the usual COI standards. Terms that would be considered puffery anywhere on Wikipedia (or WO for that matter) get a pass here for that reason. And by the way, at the moment things are pretty even, purely on a numerical basis, not adjusting for the "WP:DONTYOUDARECHANGEIT" contingent, which might explain the tactics deployed here. Are you guys going to fabricate WP:OHGOLLYHEHATESWO bull arguments about everyone who prefers some term other than "investigate"?Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you seem to have misunderstood my first sentence above. It was not addressed to you. It was addressed to Petrarchan, as indicated by the indent. As for the substance of your post, with respect, I think maybe you don't see the disservice done to your cause by tactics here such as, most recently, the disparaging comment about a "dontyoudarchangeit contingent" and the equally ABF speculation about "fabricating bull arguments", which really aren't going to help you persuade people who dissent from your viewpoint that it's a sensible one. That's my final 2c :) Writegeist (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Except of course, his argument appears to be that using the word investigate is puffery. Which is laughable and doesn't really require a response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Writegeist, it is quite normal for other editors to weigh in even when not directly addressed; I'm not sure why this particular instance causes agitation. The truth is, hinting at a POV to undercut an RfC is not in keeping with the guidelines, and if arguments are valid, that tactic shouldn't be necessary. My problem with the term "investigate" is that although it is technically correct (and, full disclosure, I am a huge fan of Wikipediocracy, of transparency, and of independent journalism), I think the term would be misleading to our readers. It denotes a more serious status than is, to my knowledge, supported by secondary sources. I think the term "armchair investigative journalists" is fitting (and a compliment), but I'm sure a more eloquent presentation exists. petrarchan47คุก 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to instruct me in normal WP practice—I’m quite the newbie. You seem to have mistaken my attempt at clarity for an attempt at—or perhaps you meant a state of—“agitation”. And stating something is not at all the same as merely hinting at it. I doubt that relentless agenda-pushing in an RfC is in keeping with the guidelines, but of course as a noob I may be wrong about that. I agree that there exists a more eloquent presentation than “armchair investigative journalist” (which is perfect , nevertheless, for those admirable reporters who investigate the dangerous mechanical failures of cheap imported Pantouflard™ reclining chairs); namely the eloquent and apposite “investigate”. Writegeist (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that refer to the work done at WO as investigative journalism? If not what is there to discuss? This isn't about our opinions, as I have already shared with you that I highly honor the work they do. But we can't editorialize on WP, and without RS that's what we'd be doing. petrarchan47คุก

• Discuss per my previous comments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) If more detail required at this stage: in a nutshell, most neutral. "Investigate" cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice without sourcing. As covered in greater detail by Petrarchan above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Connected contributor template

Nothing productive here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Figureofnine: Ooh, are we playing this game again?  — Scott • talk 19:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) If you don't want the connected contributor template to appear, remove it and we'll go to dispute resolution I suppose. Sounds like a straightforward situation. The editor in question has edited the text and this RfC, as well as all three AfDs. Sounds right. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Take it easy, bucko. Don't make up things before people say them. It can be embarrassing when you get it wrong.  — Scott • talk 01:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC) If you add me to the template, I insist that you not alphabetize me. It's demeaning.→StaniStani 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Scott, the linked discussion is irrelevant as I am aware of no other persons with a COI. Alison is co-founder, participates in RfC and AfD discussions, edits the page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Looks like you didn't investigate the issue thoroughly enough.  — Scott • talk 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Perhaps, but your raising the issue was presumptuous. Only one COI has come to my attention. Site owners or founders clearly have a COI. Active participants, not. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (In my opinion.) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I like the fact that, even semi-retired with less than two-dozen edits a month, I can hold such sway with some people. Makes me feel powerful and important and significant an' stuff ^_^ - Alison ❤ 05:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC) No, you're just an editor with a conflict of interest. Everyday situation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Such big talk.  — Scott • talk 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) No, just the continuation of a pointless conversation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Aber dem Pilze gleich ist der kleine Gedanke: er kriecht und duckt sich und will nirgendswo sein—bis der ganze Leib morsch und welk ist vor kleinen Pilzen." Writegeist (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)