| Revision as of 04:52, 30 November 2023 editAriLovesTacos (talk | contribs)42 edits →More information to possibly add in← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:07, 17 December 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,320 edits →Proposed merge of Jar'Edo Wens hoax into Reliability of Misplaced Pages: Closing; no merge |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Summary in|Misplaced Pages}} |
|
{{Summary in|Misplaced Pages}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{to do|4}} |
|
{{to do|4}} |
|
{{Refideas|1= - - TechNewsDaily ('']'') 01 June 2010 |
|
{{Refideas|1= - - TechNewsDaily ('']'') 01 June 2010 |
|
|
|2=Messer-Kruse on "verifiability, not truth" |
|
|
|3=Bruckman's Should You Believe Misplaced Pages? |
|
|
|4=https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00726-1 |
|
|
|5=other history of policies |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Copied |
|
{{Copied |
| Line 41: |
Line 47: |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 60: |
Line 66: |
|
| accessdate = |
|
| accessdate = |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|
{{archives|search=no}} |
|
|
|
|
== Christine Lagarde and Jimbo Wales == |
|
|
|
|
|
Would something about ] qualify for addition, maybe to the "false biographical information" section? The fact that Jimbo Wales is involved seems to make this incident notable. ] (]) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For the purposes of inclusion in Misplaced Pages an incident is considered notable if it has ] in ]. Is there such coverage? A discussion on a talk page on Misplaced Pages does not qualify. —] (]) 16:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Misplaced Pages ... credability == |
|
== Remove image? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just my two cents, but the first image seems more decorative than anything. At any rate, might as well put the WP home page, a random diff has no specific link with our reliability. — ] (] & ]) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Co found says that it has become a left leaning propaganda machine. ] (]) 01:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed, except to say the image in question isn't even decorative! The second image ''does'' have that quality in addition to being an appropriate illustration for the article. I say dump the Klee-Irwin.gif (or move it elsewhere in the article if it has some redeeming quality that escapes me) and let the South American coati/Brazilian aardvark lead. Cheers! ] (]) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Relevance of third sentence == |
|
|
|
::I'll go on with it, then, if it's not just me. — ] (] & ]) 17:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Have either of you ''actually read it?'' It doesn't seem so. It is a very extreme example of the removal of damaging facts, replacing them with PR fluff. I will return it; you didn't even put the coati at the top. ] (]) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::An image is supposed to ''illustrate'', not to be ''read''. We might as well replace articles by screenshots of them. And even if we really want an image instead of text pointing out some of the interesting changes, we could at least take a more recent diff, where you actually see easily the changes and you don't have to fish through four paragraphs of text to see the point. — ] (] & ]) 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Agree. The coati is not appropriare title picture. Its a super example but is not a good cover. Imagine with other articles: for example climate change. The cover could be earth or weather, but not one particular insect species going extinct. |
|
|
:::::Please: some editors here need to learn how to make things readable, and how to lead a reader from the general to the details. The skill is called "common sense" ] (]) 10:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Wiki is biased and removes facts == |
|
I've tagged the third sentence of the lead as it is unclear to me how the sources connect the sentence to the topic of the article: |
|
|
:This editing model is highly concentrated, as 77% of all articles are written by ], a majority of whom ].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Oberhaus|first=Daniel|date=November 7, 2017|title=Nearly All of Misplaced Pages Is Written By Just 1 Percent of Its Editors|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-elite-diversity-foundation|access-date=June 20, 2020|website=Vice|language=en|archive-date=June 18, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200618105847/https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-elite-diversity-foundation|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Mandiberg|first=Michael|date=February 23, 2019|title=Mapping Misplaced Pages|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023/|access-date=February 23, 2019|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|archive-date=February 23, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200223193330/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/02/where-wikipedias-editors-are-where-they-arent-and-why/605023/|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Relevance inline|paragraph}} |
|
|
What does "77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors" have to do with the reliability of Misplaced Pages? By the way, this statement is prominent in the lead but does not exist at all in the body. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I suggest that we are supposed to make the inference that a large portion of the content is produced by experienced editors who are committed to adhering to ] and the presumed quality this provides. It's been at least 5 years since they came up with that number, and the extent to which this measurement (based on number of edits) is meaningful is unclear. This overlooks the fact that Misplaced Pages content is dynamic, with the implication that articles can be subsequently altered by editors who are less committed to maintaining its quality, notwithstanding all the implied claims that there are hordes of people to correct any erroneous content. Furthermore, to the extent that WP has a reputation of accuracy, that makes it a more attractive target for those who would benefit by maliciously altering the content. |
|
|
:In effect, even without any malicious editors, I feel that there's a "reversion to the mean" because the average edit is done by less competent editors than those who worked on improving the articles earlier on in the history of WP. Oh, well! ] (]) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's a plausible interpretation of the study's finding, but (as I'm sure you know) we can only give interpretations that come from published reliable sources. I haven't seen a reliable source that interprets the study's finding in relation to the reliability of Misplaced Pages. I'll remove the statement for now. Cheers, ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 23:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
removing facts from a article that was edited with evidence. Wiki does not like certain facts in their articles . That would be suppression of information. Wiki has became a joke and not a reliable source for information ] (]) 18:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== More information to possibly add in == |
|
|
|
::What is Wiki? It's not an appropriate abbreviation for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Was it a reliable source? Was it related to the article? Did it add anything useful to article? If it was removed, it's probably because the answer to one of those questions was no. Not every little thing needs to be kept. If it doesn't add to the article or isn't from a credible source, it will be removed. ] (]) 23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I made a draft about this same topic (yet it cannot become an article since this one exists,) but I figured I would post it here if anyone wants to look at it and possibly add the information into this article, since my draft is a lost cause at this point. I just want to contribute into this article, since my own cannot be published. It has some pretty important points, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
:This seems to be a ] contribution, unrelated to improving the article and therefore deletable. --] (]) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed merge of ] into ] == |
|
~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fails the ] test. The Jar'Edo Wens article got some news coverage in 2015 but has not been referenced by any sources after its deletion. Doesn't seem to have had any long-term notability after the fact. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
] by ] (]) 04:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Actually '''disagree'''. I've seen coverage of this in surprising places, from the I recently visited in San Francisco (Which has a whole display on it, and I had never heard of it before a few weeks ago when I saw it), to international publications like the italian to scholarly pubs: . Just because this doesn't have as much traction in super online news sources or "ngram" publications doesn't mean it doesn't have longevity. It's just diffuse. Definitely has longevity as a notable Misplaced Pages hoax. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also FYI, there should probably be a short notice over at ] about this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Closing''', given the reasoned, uncontested objection with no support and stale discussion. ] (]) 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
Just my two cents, but the first image seems more decorative than anything. At any rate, might as well put the WP home page, a random diff has no specific link with our reliability. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
removing facts from a article that was edited with evidence. Wiki does not like certain facts in their articles . That would be suppression of information. Wiki has became a joke and not a reliable source for information 216.252.7.115 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
