User talk:Mitquant

I am observing a very unpleasant discussion concerning quant finance author and professional Espen Gaarder Haug. It is disappointing to see the quality of the comments and the vitriole of the attacks by purported Wikipedia editors.

Although debate on the merits of academic work should naturally be encouraged, it should be civil and reasoned discourse and not lead to ad hominem attacks.

I believe what is going on around his web page (and shockingly, a conversaton about complete deletion of the entry) constitutes defamation of character. Wikipedia already has problems; if a rabble is allowed to delete biographies at will, it becomes a totally biased, exclusionary, and useless site.

In a previous debate, one contributor speaking on Haug's behalf had the following to say. Wikipedia and its "editors" should consider these comemnts carefully.

Author's rights and biographical material on Wikipedia[edit source] I have been following this conversation carefully and find it strange that someone would take pains to edit someone else's biography on Wikipedia, particularly when it relates to a publication that clearly exists in the real world. Anyone reading the discussion here could find the book, Unified Revolution, on Amazon.com, for example. I also reviewed the description of the book as formerly listed on the author's Wiki page and on his web site and there is complete congruence. The Amazon entry concerning the content matches as well.

People may choose to argue over subject matter, but I believe that third-party editing of biographical material, especially the third-party deletion of an entry about the author that simply summarizes the subject matter covered in one of his books, is quite distasteful.

Wikipedia should consider its policy carefully. Perhaps there are some overzealous editors out there and it might be best if they focused on general topics on physics and cosmology, if they have anything to offer the field, rather than targeting an individual author.

I am also having a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (short quote below). I believe that the deletion of information on Haug's book, Unified Revolution, violates this policy and that this material should be restored and protected. If it is possible to restrict access to further editing of the biography, that should also be considered by Wikipedia management.

Wikipedia standard Statement on Biographies, taken from "Talk" page concerning, in this case, the work of Espen Gaarder Haug.

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." Authorsrights (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You may also wish to repost this in the dispute resolution area:

I agree that someone else should look at this; therefore I have posted this dispute at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#E.G.H._Publishing. Please respond to the comments there. --01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was responding there as well and there was either a technical issue on the server, or perhaps a mistyping on my part, but it seems that I have deleted the entry. That was not my intention and I apologize to the admin for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorsrights (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the section you deleted at the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. I note that you cite the gudeline from WP:BLP that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." Since the material about his work in Physics is based on an apparently self-published source, such poorly sourced material should be removed. --14:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC) SPS sources are valid for establishing the author's own opinions as his opinions, but not for making any claims otherwise. Deleted the details of his theories. Collect (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The full citation for that guideline, as you well know, is as follows:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

The intention is clearly to protect authors (and individuals in general) against allegations and libel from outside sources, not to restrict an author's discussion of his own work. Haug's description of his work in expanded form is accurate and is presented in a short paragraph - I see no legitimate reason for an objection to it as a factual statement about the subject matter covered in a book.

To consider the flip side of the discussion here, for those who may not have had any legal training, here is a definition of libel taken from the Wex Legal Dictionary at the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School:

"Libel - Definition

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

Wikipedia faces challenges in this regard here and elsewhere. The issues are well documented in the media and on certain watchdog sites. With a cadre of volunteer editors and little oversight, one would think it best to proceed with caution with regard to biographical matters. In the final analysis, the idea of a encyclopedia open to all edited by all is an interesting idea, but it has procedural and organizational flaws that are becoming increasingly obvious (and perhaps more severe) over time.Authorsrights (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not remotely "contentious" that he wrote the book. The book, even though SPS, is a reliable source for its own existence. Coverage of the contents of the book is an editorial matter, and the book is not a reliable source for claims of fact about Einstein and his theories etc. So all we can reasonably do is affirm the book's existence and topic only here. Collect (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia policy on legal threats and defamation

I noted, again with dismay, this morning in the discussion regarding Espen Haug's page that someone has raised the question of defamation only to be told by another user, jps, that Wikipedia has a "strict policy against legal threats."

Having a look at the Wikipedia page on that policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats

One finds that several carve-outs for discussion are clearly stated in subsections below.

What is not a legal threat[edit]

Copyright[edit] A complaint in cases of copyright infringement is not a legal threat. If you are the owner of copyrighted material that has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome. You may contact the information team or the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Defamation[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Libel A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org.

Editors and users should not misrepresent Wikipedia policy in an attempt to intimidate or silence legitimate discussion, particualrly in circumstances like this.

Again, very disappointed in how this situation is being handled; responsible moderators should take notice and rein these few editors in sharply.

Is this the way you really conduct yourselves these days? And yet Wikipedia leadership is asking for donations all the time...

Response to allegation of potential sock puppetry

In a new development, there is now speculation by one person that this new account might be sock puppetry:

"I would point out that Mitquant has no edits other than those on their talk page, and their first edit was 27 September, an hour before EntropyFormula's posting above. This leads to some suspicion of Sockpuppetry. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)"

I am a unique individual here and not a second account of anyone involved in the present discussion. I am familiar with Espen Haug's work in quantitative finance, which is very well-regarded, and I support people's rights to research and explore topics that may lie outside the field for which they are best known. Interdisciplinary research can become complicated and academia has tended to frown on it, but there certainly is a place for it in the broader world.

In addition, I am interested in the policies, politics, code of conduct, and behavioral dynamics of Internet communities, including Wikipedia. There aren't many utopias out there, but this has certainly descended into a dystopia, with so much petty warfare and not-so-well-qualified arbiters of quality and substance in others' work.

It is fine that someone would raise the question of sockpuppetry and I have answered it. There will be no further time spent on my part to this aspect of the current discussion.