Misplaced Pages

Talk:Web Sheriff: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:07, 2 April 2012 editAgadant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,005 edits you're wrong about that← Previous edit Revision as of 01:13, 2 April 2012 edit undoAprock (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,805 edits →There can be no resolution when the tagging editor is holding the article hostage and without relevant discussion as requiredNext edit →
Line 87: Line 87:


:::::I have a lot of judgment and experience in evaluating reliable sources. - But do you? (as above). The proof is in the pudding. I have been willing to give my time for improving and adding content to Misplaced Pages for 6 years now and have never had this problem with any article or editors before this one. You need to examine whether your deletions and tagging here are done in good faith editing or as a 'badge of shame' with an obvious bias against this company. ] (]) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC) :::::I have a lot of judgment and experience in evaluating reliable sources. - But do you? (as above). The proof is in the pudding. I have been willing to give my time for improving and adding content to Misplaced Pages for 6 years now and have never had this problem with any article or editors before this one. You need to examine whether your deletions and tagging here are done in good faith editing or as a 'badge of shame' with an obvious bias against this company. ] (]) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::''The proof is in the pudding'' Quite. Based on your evaluation of the sources above , I stand by my evaluation. I suppose the next step is to take those sources to a noticeboard to get some outside feedback. Given that I never heard of this company before this article showed up on the noticeboards for your disruptive behavior, I can't imagine what sort of bias I might have. On the other hand, your repeated insistence to include puffery based on unreliable sources seems a better indication of where the bias may lie. ] (]) 01:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:13, 2 April 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web Sheriff article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
WikiProject iconCompanies Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Findnotice

Dubious sources

Having taken the time to go through the list of sources, here are the ones that are dubious.

I suggest these sources be removed. Most of them do not support critical content in the article, and moving to more reliable sourcing can only improve the article. aprock (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should look at and discuss these sources, if you think they are all unreliable. There is a lot to check out here such as: is a blog page always considered unreliable, if it is written by a professional journalist for the publication? I didn't think so... I think I checked it out. I know and remember that I have very seriously considered all sourcing that was used. The very fact that you have posted your questions here is a different response than in the past. - That would have only included a brief edit summary on a deleting entry that would have accused me of promotion, or some other evil intent, other than just to write an article that would inform the readers on the subject of the article. Thank you for taking the time to go through the sources and suggesting that moving to more reliable sourcing can only improve the article is a point I would have to agree with, if, in fact they, or some of them, are deemed unreliable. Agadant (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLOGS discusses the matter to some degree; for the blog sources that are interviews, these are effectively primary sources and can be used similarly (unless we have reason to think that the interview is not real, which I do not think is the case), keeping in mind that just because a company spokesperson was published saying something does not mean it necessarily should be included in the article. Some reliable secondary sources have "blogs" that are effectively the same as opinion columns written by staff members of the publication; these generally can be used like a staff opinion column from a newspaper. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There are several blogs from established news sites which are used as sources in the article that did not make the list above. For example, I believe all the CNET sources are blogs. Blogs hosted by reputable news organizations (like CNET) are generally considered reliable. The sources listed above are all listed exactly because they almost certainly do not qualify as reliable sources. aprock (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
After examining the sources that were questioned as extensibly as my time permits, I agree with Aprock on most of the ones he has questioned. These two though, (although, they are not sole support for critical content), I don't agree at this point are not reliable and independent sources. So, I question them, as much to improve my knowledge on reliable sources, then for any other reason. And Thanks Again, Aprock for checking out the sources.
The inference that one might make here, is that you agree that the other sources used are not of sufficient quality to be a basis for article content. Is that correct?
The most striking feature of these (and other sources) is that the content related to Web Sheriff comes directly from Web Sheriff itself. Using direct quotes from Giacobbi is fine, but he is a primary source. Per WP:PSTS, great care must be taken when using primary sources. It's clear from the tone of this article that not enough care has been taken, and the article reads too much like a Web Sheriff press release for wikipedia standards. I think there needs to be a move away from basing article content on direct quotes and a move towards using the synthesis provided by the best reliable secondary sources. aprock (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand you want to make that point, but it's not related to whether the sources above are reliable. Aprock, it seems like sometimes you move from one form of critique on the article, and myself, to another, as each one gets addressed. That causes a lot of unproductive time, and a feeling of defeat to never be able to get material and sourcing in the article to any degree of non-contention. Do you see what I mean, from my side of the discussion and my genuine intent to settle all issues, so that we can go on to other matters, other than battling it out over this one article. Agadant (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
In looking over the article, I don't think that is as much of an issue as you seem to believe. Except for some of the examples of their services, (which normally would be sourced by an official website, but we aren't allowed to here), most of the material is based on synthesis provided by the best reliable sources. Giacobbi is often quoted in the articles but his quotes are not what most of the material is based on. Agadant (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Given that you wrote the article, it is hardly surprising that you find little fault with it. That there is more than one issue with the article is not in question. If your best response to the legitimate issues with the article is to dismiss the out of hand as you've done here, I expect that there will not be much progress made towards improving the article. aprock (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. Why don't you ever specifically address passages that concern you? And not just from an remedy of deletion but one of rewording or re-sourcing.
  • 2. I know I am not the very best editor on WP, but I get good feedback, few reverts, etc. in my content editing. And I don't fight improvement on articles, only deletions based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT or incorrect policy applications. If someone makes a valid point for deletion of a part of my work, I have never been so "proud" of my work to argue the point for very long, if I think about it and see their point. You just, oddly enough, IMO, seem to want me to give up and let the article be basically deleted for the most part and not improved. Do you disagree? What would be your first action, if I left and you had full control of it?
  • 3. You did not answer my question of whether the 2 sources I disagreed with are reliable. You went on to another issue, immediately! Agadant (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
With respect to the two sources that you mentioned, I specifically discussed how one must be careful when using such content. If you agree that the other sources should be removed, we can proceed from there. If you'd like me to go ahead an make the appropriate changes, I'll go ahead. If you would like me to propose specific language so that you can bless or veto specific content, I'm afraid that this process is going to take a very long time. aprock (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not agree that you should remove the sources at this point. We agreed to not edit until issues were solved. The funny thing is that most of the present article was in place when the discussions ended on 9 September 2011. The other editors and you should not have left the discussion at that time if you were not satisfied that all issues that concerned the multiple editors were addressed. But you and VQuakr come back 5 months later with the accusations that it is filled with forbidden and unacceptable content that is irredeemable but must immediately be addressed by deletion. Not your words, but your meaning and actions lately. I'm up for looking at specific sentences or paragraphs that you object to and your reasons why based on policy. I thought that was the purpose of collaboration and of this discussion. Agadant (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to be as clear as possible; the dubious sources should be removed and replaced by citation needed tags. If that content cannot later be sourced to reliable secondary sources, it should be removed. At this point, it seems we agree that all but the two you mentioned are dubious sources. Those should be removed. aprock (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have questions about the sources that per your write-up, would not be considered as "reliable sources' before I am ready to agree which ones may not be considered so. Looking at WP:GA and WP:FA article that contain some self-published bios and blogs has really made me take a new look. But here's another question about two where you said "no mention in article". I think that was the objection not reliability for you. But if the source references a specific word in the sentence such as "leaked", and we want to source that point with it only, would the source have to mention Web Sheriff in it? Wouldn't the fact that it gave information about the leak of the album being written about, be enough to include it? Agadant (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please answer the above and note the self published bio and blogs on this WP:GA article: Here. Aprock, will you please refrain from replying on the resolution board, when I post a reply to Whenaxis before he gets any time to answer me. I find that unfair and disruptive, esp. when you misrepresent me. Please answer my question above posted at 23:38. Agadant (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
For linking to the live version of articles, it is generally cleaner to use an internal link, ie Norman E. Rosenthal. This is a different article than the one we are working on here; if you have concerns about its sourcing then you should post on the article's talk page (or submit it for good article reassessment). Content discussions, particularly contentious ones should be policy based rather than comparing to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Similarly, Agadant why do you believe that how long a sentence has existed in the article is relevant? That being said, WP:PRIMARY does not say that you can never use primary sources.
In reply to Agadant's post here, the music week article has a couple red flags that make me not regard it as a quality source. Specifically, it lacks a credited author and consists mostly of quotes. The all things digital article appears reliable, but does not say much of substance about the company and functionally is little different than a primary source.
I am risking repeating myself too much here, but I do not want to give the appearance of shifting goalposts. Just because we have an acceptable source for something true does not mean it merits inclusion. Restated, an immaculately referenced bit of trivia can still be judged not to merit mention in the article via a WP:CONSENSUS. Editorial judgements about what undisputed, sourced information should be included are independent of WP:V and WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

clarifying which sources are thought reliable

Please list the sources that you agree are not reliable, and the sources that you think are reliable. My impression was that you agreed that all but two were not reliable. If you believe that all of the sources are in fact reliable, please clarify that. aprock (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer my question and concerns. Why? I said I am confused now. Has a deadline been put in place for this? If you were wrong about two that we know of, and I am confused now after looking at the above GA article, I think we should wait and try to agree 100 per cent. Please don't pressure me! And I will have more confidence in your neutrality, if you will answer my questions. Agadant (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that any of the sources are not reliable, you are free to say so. You shouldn't need me to answer other questions to make that determination. aprock (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If I hadn't believed they were reliable, I would never have used them. I am very detailed oriented, having worked in accounting professionally. You made me question some of them and after viewing other articles, I am confused now. Can't you respect that? We will resolve this and soon. I just don't feel confident to make a decision now! Let's call it a day! I'm tired, aren't you? Agadant (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fine by me. There is no deadline, and I'm in no rush here. aprock (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious sources checked

  1. http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/, blog - (This is an independent interview by professional: in music industry resume)
  2. http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html, blog - (info written and posted by musicnewsaustralia: Music News Australia is a company specializing in covering the Australian and international music, film and entertainment business)
  3. http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802, press release - No: (It's listed in Label and Publishing news & posted by Celebrity Access Staff writers - directly above it is an advertisement labeled as such but does not refer to the Web Sheriff article)
  4. http://silenttalkie.com/2010/01/19/stradio/the-brown-couch-of-leisure-january-17-2010-a-year-oh-a-year/, blog - n/a: will delete. I didn't check FN refs. recently
  5. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2008/03/review-the-raco/, no mention in article - ditto, will delete
  6. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-giacobbi, self published - (not self-published: even if written by Web Sheriff it was published by Huffington Post and with their approval.)
  7. http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/, blog - (not blog: All Things Digital: online publication that specializes in technology and startup company news, analysis and coverage. Article by professional editor: John Paczkowski)
  8. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1, press release - (not press release per Music Week: "Music Week is the bible for anyone interested in the music industry in the UK." )
  9. http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/, blog - (not blog: - source of latest breaking news) Used as source on GA article reviewed by an editor who has reviewed more than 594 GA articles
  10. http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/10/leaked_bob_dylan.html, no mention in article - (references the relevant album leak only)

Agadant (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that all of the sources that you're not willing to delete are reliable sources which are acceptable for using in the article? aprock (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I do believe that sources 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are reliable sources, after checking them out more thoroughly and therefore did not delete them. Although, of course, I'm always ready to be open-minded and discuss further. Agadant (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing this as you seem to think my lack of response is meaningful in some way. All of these sources are low quality puffery. Your repeated defense of blogs and sources whose content is entirely based on Web Sheriff PR speaks for itself. That I have no interest in wiki-lawyering with you over the reliability of blogspot sources is more an indication that your argumentum ad nauseam is sufficiently effective. aprock (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not at all confident that you are more experienced or qualified to judge reliable sources than me. I have created over 80 articles, worked on 2 GAs and edited extensively on many more. You have only created this one: Jonas Žnidaršič. Agadant (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that non-sequitur. aprock (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There can be no resolution when the tagging editor is holding the article hostage and without relevant discussion as required

I added NPOV and reliably sourced material and did a little clean-up on this article today and once again the same editor has retagged it. He recently questioned reliable sourcing on the article and I addressed his issues and he did not dispute me and it has been over a month. He has refused to address any specific issues on this article just heavy material deletion of NPOV and reliable sourced information for the readers and has added two extreme and non applicable tags to the article. In other words, he and another editor are watching the article closely to keep it from being improved or ever added to without unfair tagging. He did not discuss adding the tags back on the article and his editing is disruptive and contentious, IMO. I will remove the unfairly applied tags but am willing and have always been willing to discuss any specific issues or "real" improvements that can be made to the article besides just tagging and deleting. Agadant (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say about this comment. The issues have been discussed endlessly, and your unwillingness to accept outside contributions that you do not personally agree with is one of the primary problems here. I've restored the tags as appropriate. If you've got a problem with the tags, I suggest you allow people to edit the article freely to address the issues they represent. Removing tags because you don't like them is disruptive. aprock (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There are no current or specific issues discussed by you and you apparently are only interested in being disruptive and applying tags as a 'badge of shame', because I am not in agreement with you that your hand-picked subjective deletion of reliably source material is an improvement or a contribution. Agadant (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The above section clearly illustrates your lack of judgment in evaluating the reliability of sources. I stand by the tags. If you think they are based on an attempt to edit disruptively, I suggest you take your concern to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a lot of judgment and experience in evaluating reliable sources. - articles I've created But do you? (as above). The proof is in the pudding. I have been willing to give my time for improving and adding content to Misplaced Pages for 6 years now and have never had this problem with any article or editors before this one. You need to examine whether your deletions and tagging here are done in good faith editing or as a 'badge of shame' with an obvious bias against this company. Agadant (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding Quite. Based on your evaluation of the sources above , I stand by my evaluation. I suppose the next step is to take those sources to a noticeboard to get some outside feedback. Given that I never heard of this company before this article showed up on the noticeboards for your disruptive behavior, I can't imagine what sort of bias I might have. On the other hand, your repeated insistence to include puffery based on unreliable sources seems a better indication of where the bias may lie. aprock (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Categories: