Philip Roth forced to create "reliable source"

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:57 pm

The author got the brush-off when he took the time to try to correct an error in the Wikipedia article about his book The Human Stain.

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all.

Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor—that I, Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” writes the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.”

Thus was created the occasion for this open letter. After failing to get a change made through the usual channels, I don’t know how else to proceed.

My novel “The Human Stain” was described in the entry as “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard.” (The precise language has since been altered by Wikipedia’s collaborative editing, but this falsity still stands.)

This alleged allegation is in no way substantiated by fact. “The Human Stain” was inspired, rather, by an unhappy event in the life of my late friend Melvin Tumin, professor of sociology at Princeton for some thirty years.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:14 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&action=history&offset=20120821000000&limit=24

Maybe this is only a coincidence, but if almost appears as if Parkwells responded to the removal by inserting more information about the alleged connection (and even information on the non-connection) into the article.

Why do Wikipedians believe that incorrect conjuncture is worthy of inclusion?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Utterly brilliant is Mr. Roth.

Utterly vapid is this comment in reply:

Dear Mr. Roth, Thanks for reporting this error. I immediately posted your request on the article's talk page, and it has already been fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_H ... _corrected If you see more errors in the future, you are very welcome to post your recommended change on that 'talk page' -- or in the feedback form at the bottom of the article page itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Stain We regret the error, but are happy that our volunteer editors could respond to your request so quickly. That is one of Wikipedia's unique qualities: we make mistakes like everyone, but we can fix them very rapidly. Please let us know if you have any more questions on this issue, and thanks again for your helpful post.

-- Fabrice Florin, product manager at Wikimedia Foundation

So, once again, we have a True Believer spouting the myth that Wikipedia is always improving, and quickly.

How much do you want to bet that some Wikipediot troll is currently at work, right at this moment, sabotaging some other article related to Philip Roth, just to "punish" him for exposing Wikipedia's flaws?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:33 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Why do Wikipedians believe that incorrect conjuncture is worthy of inclusion?

Because it is the very cultural basis of a crowdsourced encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:55 pm

thekohser wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:Why do Wikipedians believe that incorrect conjuncture is worthy of inclusion?
Because it is the very cultural basis of a crowdsourced encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Thank you all for your prompt response! Much, much appreciated. I also added the new article feedback form at the bottom of this page, in case the author wishes to make any more comments in the future -- these can be viewed on this feedback page. Bali, can you clarify what you mean about the WMF's 'editorial policies'? We are here to support the community's existing policies, and am not aware of any internal editorial policies. Cheers. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Florin apparently has a background in crowd-sourced "news" production. But of course.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:42 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Human_Stain&diff=511304990&oldid=511304632:

There was nothing wrong with the article whatsoever, nor with the way policy was applied in this case. The section in question was about the reception of the novel, not an endorsement of Kakutani's theories. It reported in an entirely NPOV manner the take of a critic writing for the most respected newspaper in the country. If her speculations were unfounded, that is an issue for the New York Times, not wikipedia. For that matter, the fact that Roth contested the claim was already noted right there in the section. If Roth objected to wikipedia even acknowledging Kakutani's published review, the solution is not to have the material deleted, it is to cite acceptable sources to further highlight his objection.[[User:Sylvain1972|Sylvain1972]] ([[User talk:Sylvain1972|talk]]) 00:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem isn't NPOV; the problem is the insertion of meaningless, speculative trivia into the article. Anatole Broyard didn't have any impact on the creation of the novel. It wasn't significant enough to be mentioned.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:07 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:No, the problem isn't NPOV; the problem is the insertion of meaningless, speculative trivia into the article. Anatole Broyard didn't have any impact on the creation of the novel. It wasn't significant enough to be mentioned.

That there was a common misconception about the source of inspiration for the story is hardly "meaningless" and certainly not "trivia" as any decent encyclopedia would take note of such a widespread contention.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:43 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:No, the problem isn't NPOV; the problem is the insertion of meaningless, speculative trivia into the article. Anatole Broyard didn't have any impact on the creation of the novel. It wasn't significant enough to be mentioned.
That there was a common misconception about the source of inspiration for the story is hardly "meaningless" and certainly not "trivia" as any decent encyclopedia would take note of such a widespread contention.

Should fanon be inserted into encyclopedic articles as well?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:55 am

I just love how Dan tries to clean up the text, and some twit reverts him to a bad version.....

It's on the private wiki now, but I suspect that 50 years from now, nobody will believe it happened.
The talkpage argument is swerving from merely stupid, into the Twilight Zone of Crazy.

This dumbfuck doesn't realize that IP addresses can be reassigned.....typical patroller bullshit. Yeah, sure, Philip Roth's
biographer likes to vandalize Transformers articles, sure! He's guilty!!!

A clear COI and verifiability issues, it comes up from time to time, but I am not seeing an actual attempt to fix the problem and given that the IP has a history of vandalism, little faith can be placed in such a comment. See the diff in which the IP replaces the Transformer's page with 'Ninja turtles are better than transformers!' [1] and continues to vandalize even now. Diff [2]. Judging from the history and event itself, there was little stock in the anonymous editor with a history of vandalism on that IP address. Sad it happened, but it was not the right way to go about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:04 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Should fanon be inserted into encyclopedic articles as well?

If it has become prominently or commonly mentioned in coverage of the subject then yes it should. Just as common speculation about x historical figure should be included if it is a matter of considerable discussion regarding that figure.

lsanger · Unread post by **lsanger** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:16 am

What a farce!

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:40 am

Who is Moynihan?

Wikipedia's appalling, juvenile, arrogant, oblivious behavivor towards Philip Roth is yet one more tune added to the Greatest Hits list. I'm not going to get all earnest and repeat my views. Rather, just this: If Wikipedia wants only to be World Book, then everything's fine. If it wants to set its sights higher, and be credible in the realm of triple-digit I.Q.s and differing viewpoints, then it will have to fundamentally recast its relationships with facts and truth.
For the rest, anyone interested can read my talk page.Moynihanian (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a of stuff on his talk page, including this rant here:

Well, look, I don't think it's realistic to expect a corporate entity to change unless it's staring over the cliff. Which Wikipedia is not doing. The reason Wikipedia exists is that its founder, Jimmy Wales, and his backers in the venture capital world, wanted a high-profile demonstration project for the "Wikia" software used to create and edit its articles. The "encyclopedia" was an afterthought, but it took off. Now it's out there, warts and all, with a big organization supporting and defending it. (Interestingly enough, Wikia's infernally difficult and annoying software looks like a big commercial flop, which will come as no surprise to anyone who's struggled with a "Wiki." Yet Wikipedia lives on, with a life of its own.)

Those who run Wikipedia know of all the problems, including the basic contradiction right at the center. But it's in their interest to keep things as they are, because to do otherwise would probably destroy the whole thing. It's a bit like, say, the Mormon church. Any serious person looking at the totality knows that Joseph Smith was a con-man, plagiarist, and vigorous bigamist who cobbled together the "golden plates" from a few history books written in the 1820s, Masonic rituals and symbols, and popular circus-show concepts of "Egyptology." Somehow it survived, and at this late date the so-called "Council of 12" in Salt Lake isn't going to emerge from the office building behind Temple Square and say, oops, folks, it's been fun but we've been kidding you all these years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =485407971

The force is strong with that one.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:40 am

Peter Damian wrote:Who is Moynihan?
The force is strong with that one.

Dunno, but he spent a lot of time on the Haymarket riot article in Feburary.
(Or rather, just arguing with people on the talkpage. Then on Jimbo's talkpage.)
Right after the Messer-Kruse article ran, coincidentally.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:10 am

Maybe I'm missing something - but where exactly is the "misstatement"? In the original version it attributes the Broyard inspiration to a Salon writer, with source. Later versions are also sourced. Roth's disagreement/correction couldn't be added without it being publicly stated in a verifiable form, because that's how Wikipedia works.

The question is, could it in situations like this be handled differently? Could an OTRS email from someone reasonably well verified to be who they say they are be relied on as a source? I don't think that's a particularly appealing road to go down; it would help for situations like this but it's a can of worms. In which case, is there any alternative?

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:51 am

This case illustrates the reflexive nastiness and contrariness of Wikipedia. Let's look at what happened: someone wanted entirely erroneous speculation removed. The result was pushback, and a reception section that now consisted to 50% of material about this erroneous speculation, along with four lengthy quotations all about Broyard in the footnotes. This – "You don't like it? Well, let me show you! I have sources!" – is Wikipedia's supposed mechanism for arriving at NPOV, and passes for normal there.

The other thing it illustrates is how corrosive anonymous editing is to human discourse. Everyone contributing is considered a potential liar and vandal, because there is no way of telling a liar and vandal from an expert who knows what he is talking about. And because there is no way to tell the difference, both are treated the same, with the result that only those who don't mind being treated the same – either because that's what they are, or because to them the benefits of anonymity outweigh the downside of being treated this way – remain.

rd232 · Unread post by **rd232** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:13 pm

HRIP7 wrote:This case illustrates the reflexive nastiness and contrariness of Wikipedia. Let's look at what happened: someone wanted entirely erroneous speculation removed. The result was pushback, and a reception section that now consisted to 50% of material about this erroneous speculation, along with four lengthy quotations all about Broyard in the footnotes. This – "You don't like it? Well, let me show you! I have sources!" – is Wikipedia's supposed mechanism for arriving at NPOV, and passes for normal there.

The other thing it illustrates is how corrosive anonymous editing is to human discourse. Everyone contributing is considered a potential liar and vandal, because there is no way of telling a liar and vandal from an expert who knows what he is talking about. And because there is no way to tell the difference, both are treated the same, with the result that only those who don't mind being treated the same – either because that's what they are, or because to them the benefits of anonymity outweigh the downside of being treated this way – remain.

I make it 29% of the words relating to the Broyard issue, and the footnotes show that it wasn't an isolated idea - different respectable sources mentioned it: it may be speculation, but it's a notable part of the reception which demonstrably persisted over years. I really don't see this as a good example of Wikipedia Doing Evil.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:50 pm

Some other of the comments on the New Yorker page are very telling:

Wikipedia was once a great site, but it has been ruined by too many overzealous editors who all try to hold on to their little self-defined fiefdoms. It is no longer about the truth; it is about getting through the gatekeepers of each individual page. These gatekeepers tend to be white males between the ages of 22 and 42, at least in my experience.

Posted 9/8/2012, 12:49:40am by gudmundsdottir

I had a similar frustrating experience. My attempt to edit in accurate information to an entry about creative work I had personally done was rejected according to the same criterion that does not allow people who are the primary sources for information about their own work to provide information to a Wikipedia listing that should include just such accurate information. Why on earth does Wikepedia have a policy of rejecting the exact same kinds of information that would be accepted by just about every other form of legitimate scholarly publication? Why are we expected to have published second hand or even less direct corroboration of information that in many cases only we ourselves know because it concerns our own creative work? That is an absurd policy. Why would some other person who has much less knownledge of my own work, and who acquired their information indirectly, or in the case described above, incorrectly, be given such preference over the original primary source for such information? Extremely frustrating, and a great loss, that we can no longer trust or respect Wikipedia directly due to their own editorial methods.

Posted 9/8/2012, 2:09:55am by Laurie_Spiegel

However, this portion of Moynihan's comment...

The reason Wikipedia exists is that its founder, Jimmy Wales, and his backers in the venture capital world, wanted a high-profile demonstration project for the "Wikia" software used to create and edit its articles. The "encyclopedia" was an afterthought, but it took off.

...is wrong on multiple counts. Wales wasn't "founder" of Wikipedia, as we know. But, more importantly, Wikia came well after Wikipedia, and the "Wikia software" was merely an extension-addled version of Mediawiki, which had already been put into place on Wikipedia before Wikia (actually "Wikicities") came into existence.

So, the Force is not quite so strong with that one.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:53 pm

HRIP7 wrote:This case illustrates the reflexive nastiness and contrariness of Wikipedia. Let's look at what happened: someone wanted entirely erroneous speculation removed. The result was pushback, and a reception section that now consisted to 50% of material about this erroneous speculation, along with four lengthy quotations all about Broyard in the footnotes. This – "You don't like it? Well, let me show you! I have sources!" – is Wikipedia's supposed mechanism for arriving at NPOV, and passes for normal there.

The other thing it illustrates is how corrosive anonymous editing is to human discourse. Everyone contributing is considered a potential liar and vandal, because there is no way of telling a liar and vandal from an expert who knows what he is talking about. And because there is no way to tell the difference, both are treated the same, with the result that only those who don't mind being treated the same – either because that's what they are, or because to them the benefits of anonymity outweigh the downside of being treated this way – remain.

Beautifully put (indeed a version of it has gone straight into the book). Once again, it illustrates how the 'old paradigm' way of doing things, although flawed, is far superior to the wiki 'new era' way of doing things. Wiki hates qualifications and credentials as 'elitist'. But - imperfect as they are - they are the only effective way of being able to trust strangers without repeating the various tests that are imposed to acquire the credentials.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:13 pm

The talk page has devolved into the typically vindictive, nasty and defensive pile of true believers. It's all about how wikipedia is seen, and how wikipedia did nothing wrong, and how the system works, and it's all michiko kakutani's fault.
The narcissism masquerading as altruism is breathtaking.

There is no capacity to think about how articles on art and literature should be constructed, and what sort of systems should be in place to write better ones. There can't be such a discussion (they hatted the rant by "Moynihan" as irrelevant), since it would require considering that perhaps Sterling "Silver Seren" Erickson and pals should be nowhere these kinds of topics. And that would be heresy.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:29 pm

The BBC have picked this up - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797

There is a sulk over at Wikimedia UK from Thomas Dalton:

Was anyone approached to give the other side of the story? The article lacks any explanation of our policy on reliable sources. It sounds like our policy was followed correctly - the author's statement was accepted as reliable only one it was published - but the BBC don't seem to have asked what the policy is.

That is the nub of the problem - policy was followed therefore there is no problem. It might one day dawn on someone that the policy is wrong.

This reminds me of debates of several years ago about primary sources and secondary sources. When discussing a subject, Wikipedia has got to the bizarre situation where it believes a number of summaries of a primary source must be more reliable than the source itself. This is where you get the nonsense where a disinterested aside in a newspaper article becomes "fact" and overrides the actual words of the original.

There were two or three problems: mainly the attitude - why didn't anyone say "Wow, the author has dropped by to help us with our article. We've had problems in the past with people pretending to be someone else so if you could be so kind to send the information to this address, we have an editorial team* who can deal with this sort of correction. Again, as a result of past problems, we don't normally let people add this sort of information directly but if you use that system, we can sort it out for you." Mainly though, it is this idea that policy is right, therefore it requires no further thought. I'm highly amused that people think that telling an author that they are not allowed to give information on their own work on Wikipedia looks in any way sensible to the outside world.

* Avoid using the term OTRS at all costs

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:35 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:The BBC have picked this up - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797

There is a sulk over at Wikimedia UK from Thomas Dalton:

Was anyone approached to give the other side of the story? The article lacks any explanation of our policy on reliable sources. It sounds like our policy was followed correctly - the author's statement was accepted as reliable only one it was published - but the BBC don't seem to have asked what the policy is.
That is the nub of the problem - policy was followed therefore there is no problem. It might one day dawn on someone that the policy is wrong.

This reminds me of debates of several years ago about primary sources and secondary sources. When discussing a subject, Wikipedia has got to the bizarre situation where it believes a number of summaries of a primary source must be more reliable than the source itself. This is where you get the nonsense where a disinterested aside in a newspaper article becomes "fact" and overrides the actual words of the original.

There were two or three problems: mainly the attitude - why didn't anyone say "Wow, the author has dropped by to help us with our article. We've had problems in the past with people pretending to be someone else so if you could be so kind to send the information to this address, we have an editorial team* who can deal with this sort of correction. Again, as a result of past problems, we don't normally let people add this sort of information directly but if you use that system, we can sort it out for you." Mainly though, it is this idea that policy is right, therefore it requires no further thought. I'm highly amused that people think that telling an author that they are not allowed to give information on their own work on Wikipedia looks in any way sensible to the outside world.

We have a winner. They don't see this at all. They're aggrieved, not appreciative.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:42 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:There were two or three problems: mainly the attitude - why didn't anyone say "Wow, the author has dropped by to help us with our article. We've had problems in the past with people pretending to be someone else so if you could be so kind to send the information to this address, we have an editorial team* who can deal with this sort of correction. Again, as a result of past problems, we don't normally let people add this sort of information directly but if you use that system, we can sort it out for you."

Wikipedians have poor communication skills. They communicate via edit summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=508306243&oldid=508306153

Don't they realize that the biographer, as with most people, probably doesn't know how to access the page history and view Jprg1966's edit summary? Jprg1966 didn't leave any comments on the anon's talk page. As far as I'm aware, Jprg1966 didn't try to reach out to Mr. Roth beyond making an edit summary that Mr. Roth probably never read.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:08 pm

rd232 wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:This case illustrates the reflexive nastiness and contrariness of Wikipedia. Let's look at what happened: someone wanted entirely erroneous speculation removed. The result was pushback, and a reception section that now consisted to 50% of material about this erroneous speculation, along with four lengthy quotations all about Broyard in the footnotes. This – "You don't like it? Well, let me show you! I have sources!" – is Wikipedia's supposed mechanism for arriving at NPOV, and passes for normal there.

The other thing it illustrates is how corrosive anonymous editing is to human discourse. Everyone contributing is considered a potential liar and vandal, because there is no way of telling a liar and vandal from an expert who knows what he is talking about. And because there is no way to tell the difference, both are treated the same, with the result that only those who don't mind being treated the same – either because that's what they are, or because to them the benefits of anonymity outweigh the downside of being treated this way – remain.
I make it 29% of the words relating to the Broyard issue, and the footnotes show that it wasn't an isolated idea - different respectable sources mentioned it: it may be speculation, but it's a notable part of the reception which demonstrably persisted over years. I really don't see this as a good example of Wikipedia Doing Evil.

The reception section of the 760-word article (excluding references) had 361 words. Three paragraphs running to 157 words in total were focused on Broyard. Plus there were 4 footnotes containing quotations about Broyard, running to 270 words (including publication details).

So, half of the reception section came to be about Broyard, just because someone saying they represented the author wanted that gone. That's at best thoughtless, and at worst a "Fuck you!"

And it illustrates why Wikipedia articles so often get bent all out of shape. Two adversaries argue about one specific point, and each brings more and more sources focused on that one point, until that one point assumes a totally undue importance in the article, and you end up with the tail wagging the dog.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:15 pm

Peter Damian wrote:There's a of stuff on his talk page, including this rant here:

Well, look, I don't think it's realistic to expect a corporate entity to change unless it's staring over the cliff. Which Wikipedia is not doing. The reason Wikipedia exists is that its founder, Jimmy Wales, and his backers in the venture capital world, wanted a high-profile demonstration project for the "Wikia" software used to create and edit its articles. The "encyclopedia" was an afterthought, but it took off. Now it's out there, warts and all, with a big organization supporting and defending it. (Interestingly enough, Wikia's infernally difficult and annoying software looks like a big commercial flop, which will come as no surprise to anyone who's struggled with a "Wiki." Yet Wikipedia lives on, with a life of its own.)

Those who run Wikipedia know of all the problems, including the basic contradiction right at the center. But it's in their interest to keep things as they are, because to do otherwise would probably destroy the whole thing. It's a bit like, say, the Mormon church. Any serious person looking at the totality knows that Joseph Smith was a con-man, plagiarist, and vigorous bigamist who cobbled together the "golden plates" from a few history books written in the 1820s, Masonic rituals and symbols, and popular circus-show concepts of "Egyptology." Somehow it survived, and at this late date the so-called "Council of 12" in Salt Lake isn't going to emerge from the office building behind Temple Square and say, oops, folks, it's been fun but we've been kidding you all these years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =485407971
The force is strong with that one.

Wow. I wonder if he has, you know, evidence to support those fairly remarkable assertions about "Wikia software", especially given that Wikipedia ran on usemod.pl for what, at least its first year or so?

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:21 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:That is the nub of the problem - policy was followed therefore there is no problem. It might one day dawn on someone that the policy is wrong.

I know that it is taken as a matter of doctrine in Wikipedialand that secondary sources are better than primary sources, but I have yet to see a coherent argument why this is, or ought to be, since as far as I am concerned it flies in the face of reason.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:40 pm

Peter Damian wrote:The force is strong with that one.

FWIW, I've invited them to pay us a visit.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:43 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:I know that it is taken as a matter of doctrine in Wikipedialand that secondary sources are better than primary sources, but I have yet to see a coherent argument why this is, or ought to be, since as far as I am concerned it flies in the face of reason.

I can imagine some reasoning, although I have no idea whether or not this is actually the thought process. I once saw someone write some material in a New Testament article, consisting of a set of tables comparing the gospels and pointing out "differences". This was entirely referenced to the primary sources, and was, of course, merely an atheist venting his hate by drawing up something out of his own head, without the slightest backing from any reliable source. It was WP:OR, quite obviously, in this case. So perhaps the thinking is that, if an argument is being made, and it is referenced to primary sources, then it is quite likely that the wording being written is Original Research, i.e. most probably the crank theory of some teenager, and is therefore quite unlikely to be reliable. Whereas if you only allow an argument which is based on academic discussions of sources, it would weed out this kind of thing.

Of course there is an underlying assumption that none of the contributors is anything but a crank teenager; and that stuff published in non-primary sources (which is what "secondary" means, even if they are in fact 3rd, 4th, 100th hand "sources") is always sound, rather than hearsay.

We should, I think, ask just what problem prompts the "policy".

The policy is, of course, widely ignored in the better articles, and only really used for combat purposes, as I far as I could see. For who on earth, not engaged in edit-warring, would *want* to delete material referenced to the primary sources from an article? It's valuable info, after all, useful to the readers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:00 pm

roger_pearse wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:I know that it is taken as a matter of doctrine in Wikipedialand that secondary sources are better than primary sources, but I have yet to see a coherent argument why this is, or ought to be, since as far as I am concerned it flies in the face of reason.
I can imagine some reasoning, although I have no idea whether or not this is actually the thought process. I once saw someone write some material in a New Testament article, consisting of a set of tables comparing the gospels and pointing out "differences". This was entirely referenced to the primary sources, and was, of course, merely an atheist venting his hate by drawing up something out of his own head, without the slightest backing from any reliable source. It was WP:OR, quite obviously, in this case. So perhaps the thinking is that, if an argument is being made, and it is referenced to primary sources, then it is quite likely that the wording being written is Original Research, i.e. most probably the crank theory of some teenager, and is therefore quite unlikely to be reliable. Whereas if you only allow an argument which is based on academic discussions of sources, it would weed out this kind of thing.

That is pretty much the reason. It's a work-around to deal with the unpleasant side-effects of the crowd-sourcing ideology. If you have an ideology that dismisses as evil the appointment of expert reviewers to determine what research is acceptable, you have to throw out the research babies with the bathwater. Many of Wikipedia's rules are like this. They exist to fix problems created by ruling out editorial discretion as a relic from the pre-internet age. This is at the core of most of the website's quality problems.

Adding: I mean, really. If Wikipedia was intelligently organized there would be a handful of senior editors for, say, modern American novels. One of them would have seen what was happening and then would have said "Philip Roth has sent his biographer to correct what he thinks is a problem here. First I'll need to get on the phone and confirm it's really him. Once I've done that, I get to have a brief chat with the biographer and maybe even Roth himself and then I can make this a much better article, with an explanation from one of America's greatest living authors. Maybe he'll even agree to help flesh out our main biography on him. Lucky me/us!"

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Indeed. In a responsible encyclopedia, if the subject of an article were to contact the editors to inform them that their article was inaccurate, the editors would review the information provided by the subject, decide whether it was reasonable (keeping in mind that subjects will sometimes lie or misrepresent to try to minimize undesirable but true facts), and revise the article according to their expert evaluation of the information provided. The main factor to be considered in the review is "what reason would the subject have to try to mislead us on this issue".

In this particular case, Roth has no discernable reason to mislead on the issue in question, and so there is no plausible reason to discredit his claims as to his state of mind, especially when the countervailing evidence amounts to speculation by a literary critic. Even if the editors were not entirely convinced as to Roth's claims, Wikipedia's so-called "neutral point of view" would require reporting both anyway (and I suspect Roth would have been satisfied by that). As far as I can tell, the only reason why Wikipedia requires Roth to go through this idiotic game is because they like having the power to force people to do basically arbitrary and stupid things. The fact that they forced an author to post a completely absurd "open letter" has to make them feel very powerful.

So while the "crank management" aspect that Roger and Dan mention above is likely why Wikipedia got this rule in the first place, the reason why it stays the way it is is because it enables a form of bullying, and Wikipedians really really love their bullying.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:32 pm

This clip belongs here.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:35 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:The force is strong with that one.
FWIW, I've invited them to pay us a visit.

I just noticed that after he posts this complaint

Wikipedia's appalling, juvenile, arrogant, oblivious behavivor towards Philip Roth is yet one more tune added to the Greatest Hits list. I'm not going to get all earnest and repeat my views. Rather, just this: If Wikipedia wants only to be World Book, then everything's fine. If it wants to set its sights higher, and be credible in the realm of triple-digit I.Q.s and differing viewpoints, then it will have to fundamentally recast its relationships with facts and truth.
For the rest, anyone interested can read my talk page.Moynihanian (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

someone calls him a troll on his talk page.

Please stop trolling (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =511335935 ) Bulwersator (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =485407971

I was asking about the meaning of the word 'cool' in another post. What is the meaning of the word 'troll'? Does it mean someone who has a different point of view from you?

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:53 pm

Peter Damian wrote:What is the meaning of the word 'troll'? Does it mean someone who has a different point of view from you?

Wikipedia uses the term "troll" in an idiosyncratic way to mean "someone who is not of the body".

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:58 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:Indeed. In a responsible encyclopedia, if the subject of an article were to contact the editors to inform them that their article was inaccurate, the editors would review the information provided by the subject, decide whether it was reasonable (keeping in mind that subjects will sometimes lie or misrepresent to try to minimize undesirable but true facts), and revise the article according to their expert evaluation of the information provided. The main factor to be considered in the review is "what reason would the subject have to try to mislead us on this issue".

In this particular case, Roth has no discernable reason to mislead on the issue in question, and so there is no plausible reason to discredit his claims as to his state of mind, especially when the countervailing evidence amounts to speculation by a literary critic. Even if the editors were not entirely convinced as to Roth's claims, Wikipedia's so-called "neutral point of view" would require reporting both anyway (and I suspect Roth would have been satisfied by that). As far as I can tell, the only reason why Wikipedia requires Roth to go through this idiotic game is because they like having the power to force people to do basically arbitrary and stupid things. The fact that they forced an author to post a completely absurd "open letter" has to make them feel very powerful.

Well, Yes. Last year I noticed an IP user change the date of birth of Nik Turner with wording claiming to be him. I contacted his website and a little while later I received an email from him giving me a chance to have a virtual chat with someone who was once in one of my favourite bands. Once he had confirmed that it was him who had made the edit, I changed the other place in which his date of birth was mentioned in the article.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:43 pm

DanMurphy wrote:If Wikipedia was intelligently organized there would be a handful of senior editors for, say, modern American novels. One of them would have seen what was happening and then would have said "Philip Roth has sent his biographer to correct what he thinks is a problem here. First I'll need to get on the phone and confirm it's really him. Once I've done that, I get to have a brief chat with the biographer and maybe even Roth himself and then I can make this a much better article, with an explanation from one of America's greatest living authors. Maybe he'll even agree to help flesh out our main biography on him. Lucky me/us!"

Quite so. If I wrote something about someone of standing on my blog and they emailed me and showed interest of any sort, I'd see an opportunity to engage them, not a problem.

The idea of groups of "senior editors"... the way this could be done is to leverage the "project" idea.

1. Create a board of responsible people, with names, to manage appointments to the groups of "project senior editors". You can't do this by voting; they have to be appointees, by someone responsible, and thus accountable, otherwise the process can and will be gamed.

2. Allow users to apply to that board for senior editorship roles on a project. They have to use their real name, and show some kind of evidence of expertise (even if no more than a sustained enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject). If someone wants to create such a group, they need to find an admin who is willing to act as enforcer for it, but must not be one of them, or (ideally) that interested. The admin is responsible to the #1 board (so we have checks and balances here). But usually he will apply restrictions on the article (not on people) in the case of edit wars.

3. Senior editorship on one project does not give any such role elsewhere.

Something like that?

Of course most articles won't be part of a project with a group of senior editors. No worse off, then.

But it would first be necessary to dismiss all the current admins and find a better system of acquiring them than waiting for trolls to apply.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:44 pm

eppur si muove wrote:Well, Yes. Last year I noticed an IP user change the date of birth of Nik Turner with wording claiming to be him. I contacted his website and a little while later I received an email from him giving me a chance to have a virtual chat with someone who was once in one of my favourite bands. Once he had confirmed that it was him who had made the edit, I changed the other place in which his date of birth was mentioned in the article.

Marvellous. That's how any sensible person WOULD handle that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:48 pm

roger_pearse wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:If Wikipedia was intelligently organized there would be a handful of senior editors for, say, modern American novels. One of them would have seen what was happening and then would have said "Philip Roth has sent his biographer to correct what he thinks is a problem here. First I'll need to get on the phone and confirm it's really him. Once I've done that, I get to have a brief chat with the biographer and maybe even Roth himself and then I can make this a much better article, with an explanation from one of America's greatest living authors. Maybe he'll even agree to help flesh out our main biography on him. Lucky me/us!"
Quite so. If I wrote something about someone of standing on my blog and they emailed me and showed interest of any sort, I'd see an opportunity to engage them, not a problem.

The idea of groups of "senior editors"... the way this could be done is to leverage the "project" idea.

1. Create a board of responsible people, with names, to manage appointments to the groups of "project senior editors". You can't do this by voting; they have to be appointees, by someone responsible, and thus accountable, otherwise the process can and will be gamed.

2. Allow users to apply to that board for senior editorship roles on a project. They have to use their real name, and show some kind of evidence of expertise (even if no more than a sustained enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject). If someone wants to create such a group, they need to find an admin who is willing to act as enforcer for it, but must not be one of them, or (ideally) that interested. The admin is responsible to the #1 board (so we have checks and balances here). But usually he will apply restrictions on the article (not on people) in the case of edit wars.

3. Senior editorship on one project does not give any such role elsewhere.

Something like that?

Of course most articles won't be part of a project with a group of senior editors. No worse off, then.

But it would first be necessary to dismiss all the current admins and find a better system of acquiring them than waiting for trolls to apply.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Good luck with that - I am thinking 'shitstorm'. The problem is the 'appointment' idea. Who appoints? Is the group selected from its own members? Similar things have been tried but they do not appeal to the egalitarian instincts of 'the community'.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:50 pm

Who do these people think they are? This idiot is upset that Roth and his biographer assumed they were dealing with someone of real authority when engaging with the "Administrator." That is of course, what anyone not versed in Wikipedia arcana would assume. ("Roth's biographer calling. Can you help me with my problem administrator?" "No, I just mash buttons fighting vandalism since we have to let everyone edit including vandals. Also there's lots of us and we have no uniform code of conduct or means for dealing with these kinds of situations, so neither I, nor the foundation that owns Wikipedia, or anyone else is responsible for what happens." "Click.")

And he's upset that The New Yorker doesn't link its website with his Facebook account. How dare they!

In his New Yorker piece about various stupidities of the way Wikipedia sometimes works, Philip Roth refered to "the 'English Wikipedia Administrator'". I was going to post a comment saying that any "English Wikipedia Administrator" is only one of many administrators (with a lower-case initial "a") of the English-language portion of Wikipedia. (I am another; probably some who have edited this this present article are also administrators.) But you can't log in to post a comment on the New Yorker's web site via your Google or Facebook account or the like; you have to create a new account there. That is obnoxious. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:56 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:If Wikipedia was intelligently organized there would be a handful of senior editors for, say, modern American novels. One of them would have seen what was happening and then would have said "Philip Roth has sent his biographer to correct what he thinks is a problem here. First I'll need to get on the phone and confirm it's really him. Once I've done that, I get to have a brief chat with the biographer and maybe even Roth himself and then I can make this a much better article, with an explanation from one of America's greatest living authors. Maybe he'll even agree to help flesh out our main biography on him. Lucky me/us!"
Quite so. If I wrote something about someone of standing on my blog and they emailed me and showed interest of any sort, I'd see an opportunity to engage them, not a problem.

The idea of groups of "senior editors"... the way this could be done is to leverage the "project" idea.

1. Create a board of responsible people, with names, to manage appointments to the groups of "project senior editors". You can't do this by voting; they have to be appointees, by someone responsible, and thus accountable, otherwise the process can and will be gamed.

2. Allow users to apply to that board for senior editorship roles on a project. They have to use their real name, and show some kind of evidence of expertise (even if no more than a sustained enthusiasm for and knowledge of the subject). If someone wants to create such a group, they need to find an admin who is willing to act as enforcer for it, but must not be one of them, or (ideally) that interested. The admin is responsible to the #1 board (so we have checks and balances here). But usually he will apply restrictions on the article (not on people) in the case of edit wars.

3. Senior editorship on one project does not give any such role elsewhere.

Something like that?

Of course most articles won't be part of a project with a group of senior editors. No worse off, then.

But it would first be necessary to dismiss all the current admins and find a better system of acquiring them than waiting for trolls to apply.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Good luck with that - I am thinking 'shitstorm'. The problem is the 'appointment' idea. Who appoints? Is the group selected from its own members? Similar things have been tried but they do not appeal to the egalitarian instincts of 'the community'.

That's the way to do it Roger. Think of all of those folks in book groups across the UK and the US who could get involved. Team leaders (you would easily get academics to devote some time given the reach of Wikipedia -- they're altruistic too!) would set the agenda and review work. It would not be radically egalitarian. It will never be allowed to happen. Peter is right.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:03 pm

Peter Damian wrote:The problem is the 'appointment' idea. Who appoints?

The board of control has to apply across Wikipedia. Its members can't be admins, and can't be senior editors on any project. It would be best if they were not otherwise involved in any way. They would be appointed by and represent the legal owner of Wikipedia, who takes legal responsibility for them. I'd suggest no-one under 40 as well, and all professional people; but that's me.

And yes, I know that people have reservations about Mr Wales; but anyone who is responsible for something tends to make sure it works. It is precisely the "power without responsibility" that is the curse of Wikipedia, its admins, its editors. They all behave like whores, because they are not responsible.

This sort of structure goes on all the time in the real world, as you doubtless know. Once you have such a board -- and there must be 8 people who could and would do this for English Wikipedia in the world -- then the senior editors simply apply to it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:51 pm

You guys wanna see more "shitstorm"? This story is spreading like mad, and is now being indexed by Google News.

*New York Times coverage

*The Atlantic coverage

*CNET coverage

*Salon, the original source of the nonsense

*NPR

*Digital Trends

*Plus a massive number of blogs.

The Wiki-stupes stuck their collective feet in their mouths with this case, and they refuse to admit it.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:06 pm

EricBarbour wrote:You guys wanna seem more "shitstorm"? This story is spreading like mad, and is now being indexed by Google News.

*New York Times coverage

*The Atlantic coverage

*CNET coverage

*Salon, the original source of the nonsense

*NPR

*Digital Trends

*Plus a massive number of blogs.

The Wiki-stupes stuck their collective feet in their mouths with this case, and they refuse to admit it.

Their Wikiworld is so pervasive in their thinking that they genuinely don't consider that Wikipedia needs to consider the outside world. Wikipedia is a rogue state, it is not subject to the UN, International Law or the reason of the real world, therefore there is no error on their part, it is the world that is wrong.

To be fair, on the talk page there are those who understand that policy simply fails to address common sense, but I am sure they will be drowned out by the True Believers who will see off the infidel who objects to his own history being re-written before his eyes.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:34 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
dogbiscuit wrote:That is the nub of the problem - policy was followed therefore there is no problem. It might one day dawn on someone that the policy is wrong.
I know that it is taken as a matter of doctrine in Wikipedialand that secondary sources are better than primary sources, but I have yet to see a coherent argument why this is, or ought to be, since as far as I am concerned it flies in the face of reason.

I dunno, I agree with that one. Primary sources in almost all cases - except for non-controversial instances that no one's likely to care about anyway - have to be interpreted. Now think of the intelligence, acumen and expertise of the average Wikipedian. Do you REALLY want THAT guy interpreting primary sources? Seriously, that's why people go to universities, including grad school; in order to LEARN how to properly interpret and analyze primary sources.

If Wikipedia was being edited by mostly smart, credentialed, intelligent and judicious experts then allowing primary sources would make sense. But it's not. And so the requirement of secondary sources constraints and prevents various Randies from Boises (no offense, Randy) from filling up the articles with even MORE nonsense.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:38 pm

Volunteer Marek wrote:If Wikipedia was being edited by mostly smart, credentialed, intelligent and judicious experts then allowing primary sources would make sense. But it's not. And so the requirement of secondary sources constraints and prevents various Randies from Boises (no offense, Randy) from filling up the articles with even MORE nonsense.

A scheme which has failed, repeatedly.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:00 am

EricBarbour wrote: *The Atlantic coverage

In the comments section, author Lewis Perdue complains:

I had the same issues with Wikipedia during the controversy and court case when The Da Vinci Code plagiarized my thrillers. The issues were more basic: they wanted secondary sources and rejected court filings and the written opinion of one of the world's top forensic linguists (no, he was not paid or employed by me nor was there any previous, existing relationship before the controversy.)

Wikipedia also rejected as not reliable a list of my published works as they appeared on amazon

I wasted a lot of time trying to correct the situation and finally gave up, settling instead, for the current stub consisting mostly of a Vanity Fair article on the issue.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:05 am

tarantino wrote:In the comments section, author Lewis Perdue complains:

Heh heh. He did an absolutely miserable job of editwarring his own bio in 2009.

Maybe that's what will eventually strangle Wikipedia: the sheer quantities of people they pissed off, who really should have known better anyway.
There's a bit of irony in there someplace.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:01 am

From the comments on the NPR article (linked above):

robert bristow-johnson (rbj) wrote:

Boe D (Dajoe) wrote:
"People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a fault in Wikipedia--Go fix it!"

Boe, are you kidding? it's because of the hubris and tenacity of the ignorant that we cannot fix it. we have only finite energy and time, and the self-appointed "editors" who elect among themselves the "administrators" (who wield the real power), will just revert any fix that doesn't fit with their POV.

if you take them on, they will run to an admin friend of theirs and you will be blocked. if you stand your ground, they will "community ban" you indefinitely and then you either get another login ID or you edit anonymously, but in either case you must fly below the radar or be accused of sock-puppetry.

you can be a noted expert in your field, but if you are outnumbered by two self-appointed editors that disagree, any time you spend contributing to the project will eventually be wasted.

the second pillar of Wikipedia has crumbled to the earth. it does not exist anymore except as rubble.

if Jimbo only knew.

Saturday, September 08, 2012 2:18:43 AM

Robert Bristow-Johnson's NPR profile says:

robert bristow-johnson (rbj)

Burlington VT

About me: South Park typecasts me as "Aging Hippie Liberal D0uche"

Favorites
Stations: Northeast Public Radio, North Country Public Radio, Vermont Public Radio

Programs: Echoes, The Daily Show, npr news, South Park, Closer To Truth

Music: Afro Celt Sound System, Noe Venable, Happy Rhodes, Two Loons for Tea, Trance Mission

Books: What's a book?

Movies: American Beauty, Ghandi, The Shining, lately, Slumdog. classics like Godfather

Areas of Expertise: applied math, signal processing of audio and musical signals.

This guy needs to be on Wikipediocracy, if he's not already. Looks like he'd make good friends with Alison, Kelly, and Eric. Somebody want to contact him?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:06 am

thekohser wrote:This guy needs to be on Wikipediocracy, if he's not already. Looks like he'd make good friends with Alison, Kelly, and Eric. Somebody want to contact him?

I'll do it. He's famous in the world of DSP signal processing, having written a major book on the subject. So presumably he's heard of me.

Retrospect · Unread post by **Retrospect** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:48 pm

There are primary sources and primary sources. Obviously, an autobiography is a primary source. Some, like Charlie Chaplin's have been crawled over by umpteen people and found to be very reliable. No doubt others are a load of fucking bombast. Still, it ought to be possible to say "X says in his autobiography that he won 13 gold medals in the 1932 Olympics, in sports ranging from 100 metres to weightlifting. However, Y investigated this and found no evidence that he even took part in any events." That would be NPOV. Of course, some "third party biographies" are such bloody idol worship that they are worse than an autobiography might be, or conversely are hatchet jobs not to be trusted.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:41 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:Even if the editors were not entirely convinced as to Roth's claims, Wikipedia's so-called "neutral point of view" would require reporting both anyway (and I suspect Roth would have been satisfied by that).

No, in fact. The article reported both the speculation and Roth's denial from the beginning, like this:

Salon.com critic Charles Taylor argues that Roth had to have been at least partly inspired by the case of [[Anatole Broyard]], a literary critic who, like the protagonist of ''The Human Stain'', was a man identified as [[Louisiana Creole people|Creole]] who spent his entire professional life more-or-less as [[white people|white]].<ref name="salon"/> Roth states there is no connection, as he did not know Broyard had any black ancestry until an article published months after he had started writing his novel.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=muse Philip Roth interview at bloomberg.com]</ref>

The first edit by Roth's biographer removed this and was reverted by Jprg1966 (T-C-L). The biographer reverted again, only to be reverted by Parkwells (T-C-L) who then substantially expanded the material about Broyard over the next two hours or so.

At this point, the biographer seems to have given the matter up as pointless, and must subsequently have written to some admin (neither Jprg1966 nor Parkwells are admins, so presumably this was someone else).

The point is that the biographer's removal of the original material, which is perhaps debatable, led to reflexive pushback. That's one way of telling people to stay away.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:30 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Shylock&diff=508307233&oldid=494669724

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Shylock&diff=511528496&oldid=508339522

A Wikipedian has restored material that the biographer removed from the "Operation Shylock" article. Inb4 Mr. Roth has to write an open letter detailing the alleged breakdown.

HRIP7 wrote:At this point, the biographer seems to have given the matter up as pointless, and must subsequently have written to some admin (neither Jprg1966 nor Parkwells are admins, so presumably this was someone else).

Actually, the biographer appears to have an Wikipedia account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nabokov9

Nabokov9 made a few revisions to other articles a few hours after the anon was reverted twice on "The Human Stain" article.