Jump to content

Talk:Skin in the Game (book)

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

Book controversies

[edit]

Books are controversial but wikipedia policy is to wait to develop an argument on both sides otherwise it is a violation of neutral point of view, which entails rebuttals by recipients of criticism. So far the book is not even out in the U. S. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This book has just need released in the U.S. More time is needed before a fair and balanced “reception” can be included. In the meantime, editors eager to post should focus on building out the theme and core ideas of the book. Before any “reception” is added, please discuss on this page first so editors can gain consensus on content. VergilDen (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's discuss it; in the meantime I'll tag the article to solicit other editors' opinions. To my understanding, presenting only the idiosyncratic ideas of the author, especially when well-sourced mainstream responses to the ideas can be found, is a WP:NPOV violation. I'm not aware of any policy requiring a time lapse; de facto common practice is that reviews can be added right away to provide an independent point of view on the book, separate from the author's (hardly unbiased) views on his own book. Therefore, IMHO we should include these ungated reviews (and any other WP:DUE reviews that people find) in a 'reception' section:

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, country and release date need to be updated to include the U.K. and its release date (presume before 2/27) given that these reviews are from UK sources. To my knowledge, no review has been published in a U.S. source to date. Also, any thoughts to the edits from PopulationGeneticsLevant to the proposed reception section? I have no objections. VergilDen (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Taleb's responses to Williams. As a compromise, if you guys really want to make the unorthodox move of putting in a rebuttal from Taleb, I nominate "Ms @zoesqwilliams is finally discovering that Skin in the Game means you can't write a BS book review without SITG; don't be surprised that the author is now capable of making you personally pay for it --and for a lonnnnnnnnng time." Alternatively we could put in the helicopter exchange where Williams points out that climbing in a helicopter wasn't particularly risky and Taleb weirdly doubles down on it. Or, we could just put in the reviews as usual without further comment (my personal preference). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Global Policy: "According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2014 impact factor of 0.603, ranking it 95th out of 161 journals in the category "Political Science" and 49th out of 85 journals in the category "International Relations". My preference would be to omit it as obscure. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something fishy. Nassim had half a dozen reviews or maybe more. Of these reviews, the 3 negative are selected. Of the selected, only the negative part is presented. And "negociating" from his rebuttal to preventing him from defending himself against a reviewer with a poor record of fact checking. Is this real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.140.84 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for an opinion from someone on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books#Skin_in_the_Game_reception to help out. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? Paraphrase the points of reviews from the most reliable sources. If the consensus shifts predominantly negative or positive, show juxtaposition between the sources. Use signposting statements that stack multiple refs on a single sentence and use the rest of the paragraph to expand. Author response is not needed unless it too is covered in a reliable source, and even that it should have proportionate weight in the section. More advice at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few delicate points. Firstly, for books by academics and scholars, academic, technical, and professional publications have to weigh more as RS than mass market journalism --we are dealing with opinions, not facts. Secondly, a rebuttal by an author is RS, particularly if the author has a large audience. Otherwise it would violate neutrality. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews

[edit]

"Nassim Nicholas Taleb has more claim than most to be taken seriously because his 2007 book The Black Swan predicted the credit crisis that swept the globe the following year, when the US investment bank Lehman Brothers went bust. His new book, Skin in the Game, inveighs against commentators who haven’t got any." PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These three should be included. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Milanovic

[edit]
There'd have to be some evidence provided why this is a "reliable secondary source" that is WP:DUE for inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have put (blog) to denote that this is a blog. But the author is a very well known economist (13k citation in google scholar). I personally do not agree with his views many times, but he is definitely notable.
I recall the link coming from his personal twitter account, so I suppose it is genuinely his writeup Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a more reliable version of Milanovic's article here in a scholarly site http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/29/01/2018/importance-taleb’s-system-fourth-quadrant-skin-game
Looking at the content, I'd say prima facie false statements like "whoever has read Taleb knows that his writing style is absolutely original and like Borges’ can be imitated but never fully mastered" weighs against this being an RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RS is about the quality of the source not the nature of the statement by said source. My understanding is that comments by an established scholar will always weigh more than comments by a novelist (Zoe) on another established scholar's work. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "The reliability of a source depends on context". Also, Williams appears to be a regular Guardian columnist (that is, an established journalist). For better or for worse, in Wikipedia articles published by journalists in highly-regarded MSM sources are generally what we use in reception sections rather than self-published comments, even by established scholars. Feel free to browse at the 'Nonfiction' section of Good articles; this is common practice. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely context that is the issue. A novelist is not a reliable source in the context of a scholarly book on risk.PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a non-fiction book and given that he is an established scholar, his review should be included: “When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.” VergilDen (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section you're quoting is headlined "news organizations". The review is from a self-published blog post and not from a news organization. Milanovic is a self-published expert source falling under WP:SPS: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limit-theorem (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Branko is a genuine scholar as noted above (e.g., citations) and although the piece in question was first published on his personal blog, it was later published in the Global Policy Journal as a research piece. Does the piece in the GPJ qualify as self-publishing? To your point below to PGL, I think Zoe William's review shouldn't be included for the reasons that she is neither a specialist or a recognized expert at risk and hence not a RS. Unless what you are asserting is that writing a novel qualifies anyone as a specialist and recognized expert on any topic as long as the topic they are writing about is published in a major mainstream newspaper. VergilDen (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back up that it's published as a research piece? The latest 2017 issue doesn't include it, and the first 2018 doesn't appear to be out yet. Like I said, my personal judgement is that the journal probably has too low an impact to merit inclusion. I don't assert that Williams counts as a specialist and recognized expert on the topic, however journalists in top newspapers are usually WP:RS even if they're not a specialist. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PopulationGeneticsLevant Can you back up "My understanding is that comments by an established scholar will always weigh more than comments by a novelist (Zoe) on another established scholar's work", even in the case where the novelist is a journalist invited to write a book review in a major mainstream newspaper? I just pointed to a whole section full of WP:GA book articles where book reviewers' comments make up the backbone of the reception section. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
Correct, and as I've said, it goes on to say "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to author "self-reference" (in this case verified)

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met (...) These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skin_in_the_Game_(book)&oldid=1204726519"