Talk:Jason Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Jason Scott Sadofsky)
Jump to: navigation, search

Self references[edit]

About self-references...On the one hand, I would not expect to find Jason Scott's attitude towards Wikipedia in an encyclopaedia, not even an encyclopaedia as broad in scope as Wikipedia. On the other hand, you (User:Leif) are right that Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles in itself violates the self-ref rule in all but a few cases...But I think that's a discussion we should have about that category. User:Sverdrup already brought up the subject on Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. How about this for a compromise: Move some of JScott's quotes to wikiquote? — David Remahl 01:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought the sentence in question was notable enough for inclusion because, based on my prior knowledge of the subject, I was somewhat surprised to read the lengthy condemnation of wikipedia on his user page. In fact, I even emailed him to verify that User:Jscott was actually him (and it is). In email, he also expressed sentiments similar to the above about not being sure if the sentence had relevance in the article, and predicted it would probably be removed again eventually. Though I still think it's somewhat relevant, I won't push it further. Thanks for starting this article, David. ~leifHELO 06:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is he notable? The site yes, the nerd no. Gaining notoriety in Wikipedia itself doesn't count. There's no page on User:Wik.Dr Zen 03:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm unsure. I'm pretty sure this will be on VfD within a few hours. In my personal view, having been interviewed in Wired and created a successful site is enough for notability. If there also exists verifiable information about the person, then it fit for Wikipedia. And policy (see Wikipedia:Vanity_page) says that "There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be ignored in deletion debates.". This is obviously not de facto how VfD works, but non-the-less... — David Remahl 03:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My apologies for taking so long. This article is now listed for VfD. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Full name[edit]

I am uncertain as to the reasoning behind listing Jason's full legal name on this page, as he is not just "often known by the pseudonym Jason Scott", but probably "always known by the pseudonym Jason Scott (except to his lawyers)". This seems to be more of an involutary outing, and I'm not sure how this sort of divulgence of personal material can be handled. In short: He has chosen not to use his surname, so why should you? You might be able to look up his phone number as well, but that doesn't mean it ought to be part of his entry. --Golgo13 17:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that the subject has always been known almost exclusively by the pseudonym to the public. I did not include the full name in the article, �because that site is published solely under the name of Jason Scott. However, this article does not concern itself solely with Jason Scott, the pseudonym, but with the person behind too. The main reason I felt it important to include the legal name, was that the information about the legal case (brought by HarvardNet) would essentially be unverifiable without that information. Now, anyone who would like to verify that section of the article can access public documents from the court that handled the case, by searching for his name.
The practice of using legal names when known seems established, for example by Eric Corley and Eric Blair. Granted, these were both rather well-known when Wikipedia came along. The article should possibly be located at Jason Scott, as that is arguably how he is best known (in accordance with the Manual of Style). However, since Jason Scott is a disambig that is not possible in this case.
I would welcome a Request for Comments on the subject of how much personal information should be divulged. In fact, I'll start a WP:RFC now. — David Remahl 22:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's unclear to me where this information is coming from. If it is not public information published in a verifiable source, then it should be removed both because it is original research and because it may violate the person's right to privacy. Just pointing to court documents saying that there was a Jason Scott Sadofsky is a start, but not enough, unless those court documents also tie in that Jason Scott with the one who runs anthony 警告 16:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The whois records for match those of The defcon speech mentions But yes, I suppose in theory all those things could be orchestrated by someone unrelated to Jason Scott of to make it look as though Jason Scott Sadofsky and he are the same person. — David Remahl 16:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I would say basing an encyclopedia article on whois records constitutes original research, but please do note that I'm not arguing for removing this information at this point. What I've looked at suggests that this information is almost surely public knowledge (the speech, the whois records, the court documents). It seems to be verifiable enough, too. After writing that message above I looked into things, and everything seems to check out. I don't think we need an RFC on the underlying issue, because I think our verifiability and no orignal research policies are sufficient. On top of that, Wikipedia is not a phone book, so even if someone's phone number were public knowledge it wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. Jimbo's address, phone number, and even the assessed value of his house and how much he paid for it, is readily available through online public sources, but no one has seen this information encyclopedic enough to put into Jimbo Wales, not because of privacy concerns (it's already available on the internet), but because that information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (well, maybe the house value, as it's an interesting fact considering how much he's spent on Wikipedia). anthony 警告 17:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the personal details question is difficult and different enough from the original research policy to warrant separate discussion. For example, on WP:IFD (nov 30), a japanese child killer. Is it right to publish an image allegedly of her? (no other comparisons, of course). And as you note, the line between original research and direct observation can be blurry at times. Maybe only the regular rules should apply, but a RFC discussion that could clarify that that is consensus is good. And that, more or less, seems to be the case (see the rfc page). — David Remahl 17:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is it right to publish an image allegedly of her? Depends on who's making the allegation. But in my opinion, if another respectable source has already published it, then there's no moral or legal reason (based on privacy) for us not to, because it's already public information. I suppose if you disagree with this you could start an RFC, but otherwise I don't think one is necessary. anthony 警告 17:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, but the RFC was started a week or two ago: Wikipedia:Divulging personal details. And as I said, there seems to be some sort of consensus around the way things are now. Moving on :-). — David Remahl 17:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I removed several paragraphs, with the edit summary "removed unverifiable paragraphs added by the article subject (see Wikipedia:Auto-biography); Jason, you could write a detailed autobio on your own site and then link to it from this article..." Jason Scott then replied in another edit summary, "So if I write it here, it's "unverifiable", but if I put it on a webpage I created, it's verifiable? Why color is the sky in your world?", to which I am now replying here:

No. An autobiography on your own page wouldn't be verifiable either, but it would be clear to readers that they were reading an autobiography. Most wikipedia readers won't click the article history, and even if they do they probably wouldn't realize that large portions of the article were written by the subject. If you have published (on the web, or elsewhere) your own autobiography, facts from it could be repeated here (and it can be cited under References). But if you haven't published these facts elsewhere, I don't think you should put them in the Wikipedia article about yourself. Can anybody think of a good reason why the guidelines at Wikipedia:Auto-biography shouldn't apply here? I would appreciate comments from other people watching this page. I must admit that I feel like a bit of an asshole for being the one to bring this up, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be addressed. ~leif (talk)[[]] 01:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok, having now seen [1] I've linked it in the References section, and added a note about the article being partially autobiographical. I don't think this solves the problem, but it's an improvement as long as the material in question stays in the article. ~leif (talk)[[]] 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for doing your part to make Wikipedia a little more worthless, in the name of "theory". Jerk. -Jscott
Made more worthless because he's tamed rampant egotistical, self-indulgent self promotion? I think Wikipedia will get by. Sortned 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the autobiographical paragraphs (nice touch describing your own addition about yourself as "Untrue, possibly libelous statements"). I pointed out the Wikipedia:Auto-biography guidelines for real and practical reasons, not "theory". Hopefully most of the information which can be confirmed elsewhere will be added back into the article eventually by other people. I am sorry that you think I'm a jerk. ~leifHELO 09:53, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
1 year later... still thinkin' it! --Jscott 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: In August 2006 we kissed and made up :) ~leif(talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Format of article[edit]

I think this article needs to be reorganized- there should be a section for biography, merging in the education and the overly lengthy intro, with the speeches a sub-section; then move the Wikipedia section, which is rather close to self-reference, and not really important (I mean, let's get some perspective here- this isn't Daniel Brandt or Sanger of Encyclopedia Britannica criticizing Wikipedia here- criticizing Wikipedia is very much a minor sideline for Scott, he even says so) down to just above References/External links. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the word they use in Wikipedia? Be bold? Feel free to fuck with my life story as you see fit. It's all gone so well up to now. And thanks for the side-swipe about my apparent lack of status in the Wikipedia criticism stage; I guess I better get cracking! --Jscott 16:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles deleted by Wales[edit]

Do you have a list of these somewhere? *watching*Yeago 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Great Failure of Wikipedia[edit]

Could we get more info on this? Mathiastck 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Non-standard styling" on TinyTIM[edit]

This revert describes rendering TinyTIM as TinyTIM as "non-standard styling". No, it's really not; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) calls for TinyTIM to be italicized, as the title of a computer or video game. This convention is followed through most MUD-related articles. I see that it hasn't been applied to the TinyTIM article itself, though, so I will leave the instance in this article alone until I've fixed that, as obviously it's confusing to use a different convention than the destination article itself uses. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Presentations and Projects[edit]

Are we to add an entry to the "Presentations" section every time this prolific speaker gives a talk? Likewise, shall we add an entry every time this prolific technology evangelist takes on a new project, notable or not? Isn't both these sections nothing more than TRIVIA? Be honest, and you will accept that this is so. And we all know the official Wikipedia line on "trivia". Thus, both sections must either be rewritten or deleted. It's a fact, guys and dolls, simply an honest acceptance of the truth. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument here has several problems. First you are not using words as they are used here on Wikipeida. The first contribution on your account is four months ago. So I assume you haven't really read enough of the policies, guidelines, and essays to really understand what WP is about, and how we do things.
Content is not notable or not. Only the subjects of articles are. This article has been judged notable in an AfD, which is a process where an article is judged notable or not.
Content is encyclopaedic or not. That's a different standard.
Trivia on WP is a disconnected list of items about an article, that might be encyclopaedic, if added with the right support to the narrative of an article. Both of these lists are very focused on one kind of contribution by this person. So they are not Trivia in the Wikipedian sense of the word.
Of course, WP doesn't list all presentations or all projects. But a lot of those listed are encyclopaedic. Some probably aren't. This article needs serious work by an editor who does extensive in-depth research, and makes the judgement based on cited reliable sources as to what is encyclopaedic or not. That is why I added the Specific template, and am about to replace the Trivia template with the Cleanup-laundry template. They come closest to giving an editor the right guidance, and informing the reader what the article's problems are.
The best thing you could do for WP is to improve content according to our policies and guidelines. Not ask other editors to do so. Best. Lentower (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a fact, heathen. Squeaky says it, I believes it, that settles it! Johnny forbid that anyone coming to Wikipedia would actually find information about the subject of the biography. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Lewis Collard!: Not useful for improving the article. Humor??? Lentower (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


Per our titling conventions (by way of the naming conventions on nicknames and middle names), JS is universally referred to as "Jason Scott" in the reliable sources, never Sadofsky (though it's fine to stay bolded up top). The article title should be at "Jason Scott" (I'd argue) or else at "Jason Scott (archivist)"/historian. Thoughts? czar  01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ done czar  18:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jason Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)