Philip Roth forced to create "reliable source"

[neved]

Jimbo also censored a hyperlink that he didn't like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=511917316&oldid=511915880

And exactly 20 minutes later, the editor leaving the hyperlink was blocked.

First rule of Wikipedia editing: Never insult Jimbo on his Talk page.

I wish I knew. It was me who posted this link to Jimbo's page. Then I explained to them why blocking dynamic IPs and proxies brings more harm than good http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =511954625
A user asked me to explain how so. I did it yesterday leaving this hyperlink http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06 ... overstock/ to prove my points.
This time they deleted my post and after they realized they have no means to block every IP I could use they protected Jimbo's talk for 2 days http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =512032884

[EricBarbour]

I wish I knew. It was me who posted this link to Jimbo's page. Then I explained to them why blocking dynamic IPs and proxies brings more harm than good http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =511954625
A user asked me to explain how so. I did it yesterday leaving this hyperlink http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06 ... overstock/ to prove my points.
This time they deleted my post and after they realized they have no means to block every IP I could use they protected Jimbo's talk for 2 days http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =512032884

Welcome to the Club Of The Screwed. And as usual, in a couple of weeks, they will forget, and you'll be able to post that Register article again.
Pointless, everything they do. Almost as if they want to be mocked.

[HRIP7]

The Devil's Advocate has pointed out that the wording Roth quoted, “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard”, actually came from Roth's Wikipedia biography. It was never in the article on The Human Stain.

[HRIP7]

Andrew Lih a.k.a. Fuzheado (T-C-L) now weighs in on the story:

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/alih/201209/2090/

The frustration is understandable. That someone's first-hand knowledge about their own work could be rejected in this manner seems inane. But it's a fundamental working process of Wikipedia, which depends on reliable (secondary) sources to vet and vouch for the information.

Because of this, Wikipedia is fundamentally a curated tertiary source -- when it works, it's a researched and verified work that points to references both original and secondary, but mostly the latter.

It's garbage in, garbage out. It's only as good as the verifiable sources and references it can link to.

But it is also this policy that infuriates many Wikipedia outsiders.

During the debate over Roth's edits, one Wikipedia administrator (an experienced editor in the volunteer community) cited Wikipedia's famous refrain:

Verifiability, not truth, is the burden.
- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By design, Wikipedia's community couldn't use an email from an original source as the final word. Wikipedia depends on information from a reliable source in a tangible form, and the verification it provides.

Wikipedia has been portrayed as being too loose ("Anyone can edit Wikipedia? How can I trust it?") and too strict ("Wikipedia doesn't consider Roth a credible source about himself? How can I trust it?"). The fact is, on balance, this yin-yang relationship serves Wikipedia well the vast majority of the time by being responsive and thorough -- by being quick by nature, yet slow by design.

It continues to be one of the most visited web properties in the world (fifth according to ComScore), by refining its policies to observe the reputation of living persons and to enforce accuracy in fast-changing articles. Most outsiders would be surprised to see how conscientious and pedantic Wikipedia's editors are to get things right, despite a mercurial volunteer community in need of a decorum upgrade and the occasional standoff with award-winning novelists.

[Randy from Boise]

Not sure if this link is already up in this thread, I missed it if it is, but here's Andrew Lih on the Roth affair:

"The Case of Philip Roth vs. Wikipedia": http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/alih/201209/2090/

RfB

[greybeard]

Not sure if this link is already up in this thread, I missed it if it is, ...

Yes, in the immediately previous post. An exemplar of the research abilities of most Wikipedians.

[Vocal]

Not sure if this link is already up in this thread, I missed it if it is, ...

Yes, in the immediately previous post. An exemplar of the research abilities of most Wikipedians.

[thekohser]

Not sure if this link is already up in this thread, I missed it if it is, ...

Yes, in the immediately previous post. An exemplar of the research abilities of most Wikipedians.

+1.

Please, moderators of Wikipediocracy, don't ever ban Randy from Boise. He is too perfect an exemplar.

[Cedric]

Not sure if this link is already up in this thread, I missed it if it is, ...

Yes, in the immediately previous post. An exemplar of the research abilities of most Wikipedians.

+1.

Please, moderators of Wikipediocracy, don't ever ban Randy from Boise. He is too perfect an exemplar.

Not to worry. Your mod staff is aware that every criticism forum needs its Alan Colmes.

[HRIP7]

Here now is a blog post from Oliver Keys about Roth:

http://quominus.org/archives/979

Roth’s open letter is at best the (justifiably) aggrieved and confused ramblings of a man ignorantly discussing what he does not understand or remember, and at worst a deliberately malicious act inspired by nothing more than a misguided desire to flip us the Vs and maybe get paid by the New Yorker on the way.

[Anroth]

I did point out almost all of that in a previous post. I just assumed that his biographer did it wrong then went crying to Roth about it. I didnt think Roth actually had any interaction personally....

[DanMurphy]

I shared that petulant and extraordinarily insulting opinion on Twitter. Turns out Mr. Keyes follows me there. Our twitter conversation (included below) was quite strange. It dovetails somehow with WMF UK's blindness to its conflicts of interest. Here, Mr. Keyes imagines that his role as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is irrelevant to his commentary on Philip Roth.
Me: Wikimedia Foundation's Oliver Keyes judges Philip Roth to either be "ignorant and confused" or "deliberately malicious" http://quominus.org/archives/979
Keyes: @bungdan for reference, my post was not made in my WMF role - as evidenced by the disclaimer at the top. My employer is irrelevant ;p
Me: @quominus That doesn't fly in the real world. You're a WMF employee, attacking Philip Roth for his complaints about Wikipedia.
Keyes: @bungdan I'm not an employee, I'm a contractor - and as said, these were made in my personal capacity. My organisation does not endorse them
Keyes: @bungdan or probably doesn't: I didn't check with my organisation in advance, because, again, it was made in my personal capacity
Me: @quominus what a fascinating discussion. Most people do not make a distinction between "contractor" and "employee"
Keyes: @bungdan the distinction here is between "WMF staffer" and "someone who has been an editor since 2006 and a sysop since 2011"

[Anroth]

Unless your followers are at 'The Sun' levels of tabloids, anyone who reads that will know the difference between a contractor and an employee.

[Vigilant]

I shared that petulant and extraordinarily insulting opinion on Twitter. Turns out Mr. Keyes follows me there. Our twitter conversation (included below) was quite strange. It dovetails somehow with WMF UK's blindness to its conflicts of interest. Here, Mr. Keyes imagines that his role as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is irrelevant to his commentary on Philip Roth.
Me: Wikimedia Foundation's Oliver Keyes judges Philip Roth to either be "ignorant and confused" or "deliberately malicious" http://quominus.org/archives/979
Keyes: @bungdan for reference, my post was not made in my WMF role - as evidenced by the disclaimer at the top. My employer is irrelevant ;p
Me: @quominus That doesn't fly in the real world. You're a WMF employee, attacking Philip Roth for his complaints about Wikipedia.
Keyes: @bungdan I'm not an employee, I'm a contractor - and as said, these were made in my personal capacity. My organisation does not endorse them
Keyes: @bungdan or probably doesn't: I didn't check with my organisation in advance, because, again, it was made in my personal capacity
Me: @quominus what a fascinating discussion. Most people do not make a distinction between "contractor" and "employee"
Keyes: @bungdan the distinction here is between "WMF staffer" and "someone who has been an editor since 2006 and a sysop since 2011"

It's the whole internal wikipedia rant about, "That's not a sockpuppet, that's a legitimate alternate account I just didn't link to. Everybody knows who this is."

CalvinBall!!

I cant imagine that the WMF/Jimbo aren't starting to grind their way to activity right about now.

[ErrantX]

Here now is a blog post from Oliver Keys about Roth:

http://quominus.org/archives/979

Roth’s open letter is at best the (justifiably) aggrieved and confused ramblings of a man ignorantly discussing what he does not understand or remember, and at worst a deliberately malicious act inspired by nothing more than a misguided desire to flip us the Vs and maybe get paid by the New Yorker on the way.

I left relevant comments about that on Jimbo's talk. Bottom line: an excellent example of how obnoxious and self-centered us Wikipedians can be.

[roger_pearse]

Here now is a blog post from Oliver Keys about Roth:

http://quominus.org/archives/979

Roth’s open letter is at best the (justifiably) aggrieved and confused ramblings of a man ignorantly discussing what he does not understand or remember, and at worst a deliberately malicious act inspired by nothing more than a misguided desire to flip us the Vs and maybe get paid by the New Yorker on the way.

Enjoy the comments too. The hubris is remarkable.

I really do not want lawyers deciding what can appear on the internet, although that process is probably inevitable. But I would make an exception for Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

Here now is a blog post from Oliver Keys about Roth:
http://quominus.org/archives/979

Roth’s open letter is at best the (justifiably) aggrieved and confused ramblings of a man ignorantly discussing what he does not understand or remember, and at worst a deliberately malicious act inspired by nothing more than a misguided desire to flip us the Vs and maybe get paid by the New Yorker on the way.

Enjoy the comments too. The hubris is remarkable.
I really do not want lawyers deciding what can appear on the internet, although that process is probably inevitable. But I would make an exception for Wikipedia.

No matter how desperately I needed a lawyer, Oliver Keyes is the LAST lawyer I'd consider hiring.

Here we have a young British solicitor, who doesn't seem to have much of a career CV accumulated. A complete nobody--except on Wikipedia.
And he's got the gall to insult a world-famous novelist, the author of Portnoy's Complaint and the winner of a list of awards as long as my arm.
A probably top choice for a Nobel in literature, in the next few years.

Snotty Young Solicitor posts said insults on his blog -- and a number of other UK Wikimedians show up to support his idiotic rant.
Only Nicholas White makes a good point. And they jump on him.

However, the fact is that Wikipedia does not, anywhere, offer an answer to the question, How do I fix inaccurate information about me and/or my organisation on Wikipedia? In fact, Wikipedia’s answer to that question is, basically, “You can’t.”

Keyes response. after much sniping:

I agree we need to do better at presenting such information – unclear documentation is a perennial problem, and not just for this sort of problem (ever tried using our help pages? Designed by committee in 2005. Scary things).

[EricBarbour]

In case you missed it, our little friend and digerati Cory Doctorow just wrote an apologia for Wikipedia in relation to the
Philip Roth scandal. Published in the Guardian, mentioned on Boing Boing.

This would be a transcendentally difficult task for a project that is open to any participant, because verifying the identity claims of random strangers sitting at distant keyboards is time-consuming and expensive.

And yet, they do it for Arbcom candidates and bureaucrats......

And of course, no one mentioned Doctorow editing his own BLP, repeatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

[HRIP7]

Salon reports that Broyard's daughter takes issue with Roth's version of events:

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/philp_r ... his_novel/

The week before last, someone posted on my timeline this Open Letter from Philip Roth explaining that my dad was not the inspiration for Coleman Silk, the “passing” professor, in the Human Stain. I considered responding publicly with my own open letter but have decided not to. I’m trying more and more to find that balance between serenity and engagement in my life, and picking a public fight with Phillip Roth didn’t seem like it would further either goal in a meaningful way. But neither does it feel completely right to sit quietly on the sidelines.

Similar piece in the New York Observer:

http://observer.com/2012/09/philip-roth-gets-response/

[DanMurphy]

In case you missed it, our little friend and digerati Cory Doctorow just wrote an apologia for Wikipedia in relation to the
Philip Roth scandal. Published in the Guardian, mentioned on Boing Boing.

This would be a transcendentally difficult task for a project that is open to any participant, because verifying the identity claims of random strangers sitting at distant keyboards is time-consuming and expensive.

And yet, they do it for Arbcom candidates and bureaucrats......

And of course, no one mentioned Doctorow editing his own BLP, repeatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

Worth quoting again:

This would be a transcendentally difficult task for a project that is open to any participant, because verifying the identity claims of random strangers sitting at distant keyboards is time-consuming and expensive.[/

Yes, quite. But then perhaps a group of random strangers sitting at distant keyboards shouldn't be assigned the task of constructing history without any editorial oversight.