User talk:X!/Archives/12/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Paul Walker death
Rather than revert, suggest you add cites from reliable sources to improve wikipedia https://news.google.com/news?ncl=djHd2f_PqAiYLRMHHvZ4HxMKC6ReM&q=Paul+walker&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TaKaUp_jBKe_0QWF2IHYBw&ved=0CEIQqgIwAQ --Mongreilf (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- All of those sites cite TMZ, which is not a reliable source. (X! · talk) · @157 · 02:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is not the first time TMZ has reported a celebrity death that actually happened and done so prior to other outlets. Reliable/Unreliable is not black and white, and waiting for "traditional" sources often just means waiting for their editors to do the same sort of analysis Wikipedia does or can do re source reliability (e.g. is the source in a position to have been tipped by someone who would know? what is the probability of being hoaxed or perpetuating a hoax?), not waiting for actual new tips from people who know. However, I note that you even reject this because you reject a "reliable" source citing an "unreliable" one, i.e. ignoring the additional editorial judgment the subsequent sources are applying. So you're waiting for more tips/reports to come in, but where is that information likely to first go? The BBC or a local outlet like TMZ? I suggest stepping back from a rigid view here and thinking about WHY a source's claims are doubtful and articulating that instead of enforcing a black and white view without engagement (i.e. without revisiting your apparent prejudgment that you've got the Weekly World News on the one hand and the national news networks on the other instead of a continuum). A fairer analysis indicates that TMZ and something like the Weekly World News are not of the same order and the fact other media outlets didn't repeat claims found in the WWN reflects that. And pleasing stop throwing "BLP" around. Saying someone is deceased is not saying someone is a child molester.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes TMZ is right, sometimes it's wrong -- the definition of "unreliable". With a lot of places saying it's a hoax, it was better to assume so. Wikipedia is not a news source, it's far better to wait a few hours and be right than to rush to report their death and then find out a few hous later that it's a hoax. BLP isn't just for saying someone's a child molester, saying someone's dead when they're actually alive is a big problem. Hence it's best to assume that they're alive until confirmed by official sources (not paparazzi). (X! · talk) · @793 · 18:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The New York Times is sometimes wrong. For all the criticism of TMZ on its Wikipedia page, there is a grand total of one instance of inaccuracy noted, and in that case at the time TMZ wrote "appears to show", "We believe" "appears to be authentic" and otherwise provided a case within the story itself that the story was not beyond question. If there are policy reasons for not citing directly (like not sending traffic TMZ's way), the editor above noted that there are plenty of indirect cites available, indirect cites which have the additional advantage of other outlets staking some of their own credibility on the line by carrying the story. The source(s) claiming hoax yesterday were quite obviously unreliable and it could be explained why. I consider it frankly ridiculous to "assume" that those source(s) were more reliable than the source(s) not claiming a hoax. If you are going to wait for an "official" you may still be waiting as the coroner's office still hasn't made an ID. In any case the issue here is close mindedness, and I would not feel the need to say anything were it not apparent from your response to the editor above that this is likely to happen again (coercion applied to restrict editing to an article, editors ordered to accept a verdict of unreliable source instead of being engaged). There is a conversation to be had instead of just repeating over and over that TMZ is "unreliable." What's in fact a problem is for Wikipedia to be stating something that is not true. You don't seem to think it is any problem at all to state that a dead subject is alive. In fact Wikipedia is here to provide accurate information, not act as anyone's publicist. It would show more respect to the reader to add an asterisk saying "unconfirmed by sources other than" or to say "TMZ claims/reports" and let the reader decide what to make of the reports than to, in effect, cover them up.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes TMZ is right, sometimes it's wrong -- the definition of "unreliable". With a lot of places saying it's a hoax, it was better to assume so. Wikipedia is not a news source, it's far better to wait a few hours and be right than to rush to report their death and then find out a few hous later that it's a hoax. BLP isn't just for saying someone's a child molester, saying someone's dead when they're actually alive is a big problem. Hence it's best to assume that they're alive until confirmed by official sources (not paparazzi). (X! · talk) · @793 · 18:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is not the first time TMZ has reported a celebrity death that actually happened and done so prior to other outlets. Reliable/Unreliable is not black and white, and waiting for "traditional" sources often just means waiting for their editors to do the same sort of analysis Wikipedia does or can do re source reliability (e.g. is the source in a position to have been tipped by someone who would know? what is the probability of being hoaxed or perpetuating a hoax?), not waiting for actual new tips from people who know. However, I note that you even reject this because you reject a "reliable" source citing an "unreliable" one, i.e. ignoring the additional editorial judgment the subsequent sources are applying. So you're waiting for more tips/reports to come in, but where is that information likely to first go? The BBC or a local outlet like TMZ? I suggest stepping back from a rigid view here and thinking about WHY a source's claims are doubtful and articulating that instead of enforcing a black and white view without engagement (i.e. without revisiting your apparent prejudgment that you've got the Weekly World News on the one hand and the national news networks on the other instead of a continuum). A fairer analysis indicates that TMZ and something like the Weekly World News are not of the same order and the fact other media outlets didn't repeat claims found in the WWN reflects that. And pleasing stop throwing "BLP" around. Saying someone is deceased is not saying someone is a child molester.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
AFC Backlog Drive
Hello, X!:
WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
X!'s Edit Counter
I am writing to inform you that there may be a problem with your edit counter.
When I type in any username (I will use Example in this case), it says, "Example does not exist." There is a long string of characters above the edit counter. I am not sure if this is because of my IP address, or if anyone else is experiencing it. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works for me!—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 01:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I checked back and found out that it works now. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)