Misplaced Pages

User talk:Snowded: 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 08:51, 25 May 2013 editSnowded (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,634 edits →Proposed addition← Previous edit Revision as of 14:21, 25 May 2013 edit undoFeralOink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,228 edits →Kindly yet vigilant: new WikiLove messageNext edit →
Line 126: Line 126:
</div> </div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0525 --> <!-- EdwardsBot 0525 -->

== Kindly yet vigilant ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Vanquisher of ignorance and fraud!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your tireless efforts to save confused souls from those who would siphon off hard-earned money, offering false hope with fraudulent practices such as "neuro-linguistic programming". ] (]) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 14:21, 25 May 2013

Welcome to my talk page!

  • Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
    • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Snowded}}.
    • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
    • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
    • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Easter Rising

Hello, Snowded. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Dialog

Snowded, I am here to try to open some review of our interactions on WP. I'll present my view of the situation and propose my solution. I hope you will do likewise.

I do try to contribute usefully to WP. I research my contributions and source them. I am open to revision, and happy to consider sources I have slighted or missed altogether. My aim is to arrive at a fair summary of a topic with sufficient links and sources to help a reader find what else is there on WP, and to find some sources that have useful discussions that (hopefully) are available on line through Google or Amazon's look-inside feature. That goal is a bit different from trying to determine the definitive text in a field, as these are often unavailable on-line and inaccessible to WP readers. They can even be ignored by Google search, as Google search doesn't look for search items in books they don't have 'Snippet view' or 'Partial preview' for. It's just my opinion, but a reference to a source where you have to have paid access or buy the book to judge whether WP properly represents it, such references are of little value within the context of WP use and credibility of its content.

I am not under the impression that my contributions are the last word or beyond criticism.

How does this work out in practice? I have found that WP editors vary greatly in their approach. Some are interested in pitching in to create useful additions to WP. Some are not interested in adding to WP, but want to be sure that what is added is accurate. Some are more interested in WP as another form of on-line entertainment.

Where do I think we fit into this picture? Not to say that my opinion is accurate: it's just how I see things.

I'd say that you fall into the category of a gatekeeper, trying to keep WP accurate. Maybe I have missed something, but it is rare for you to actually try to write an article or sub-section. In your role as gatekeeper, how do you go about assessment of a contribution?

Here is where we may have very different conceptions. My experience with you is that a proposed contribution, sources and all, is immediately reverted by you with some fairly non-specific in-line comment, usually along the lines of "original research" or "needs third-party sources". Now, as the author of the piece, I naturally think the sources are adequate, and I think also that the text is intended to supply the ideas the sources support. So these comments could be useful if they were followed up on the Talk page with specific examples like 'the text xxx is not supported by the citations'. With that in mind I could reassess the example, look for better support, or change the wording to more accurately convey the meaning.

Perhaps you see your role as gatekeeper as a 'limited engagement', and have no intention of involvement in some back-and-forth where you say 'This needs fixing' and I say 'How's this?' and you say 'Here's what still doesn't work.' Where a WP policy is mentioned, perhaps you don't care to spend time to indicate exactly to what text xxx it applies and why it applies.

Maybe its time to hear your side of this? Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Response

I'm not sure I accept the categorisation but no, until I retire, I am not focused on content creation. I monitor a broad range of articles and also work on wording to try and resolve conflict in some cases. In respect of your edits I think I have already tried to explain it but to summarise:

  • Far too much of your material is based on primary sources - these can only be used for factual statements, not to determine if something is included or not. WP:RS is very clear on that
  • You seem to pick up a reference, find more material on that and add it in, then add more. This is scope creep and original research
  • You seem to want to duplicate material once you have found it on multiple articles even when it is only tangential to that article or could be handled better by a reference
  • I have left a lot of your material and (in limited cases where it has been possible) amended text. However a lot of your additions should simply, in my opinion not be there so its difficult to ask me to amendment them
  • Personally I think most of my edit summaries and contributions on the talk page are very clear. Multiple detailed quotes with references might be appropriate if the reasons for rejection were not clear. If they could be done by amending your additions directly then I would do that by preference.
  • Your style of writing is more like an essay than an entry in wikipedia (and I am not the only one to think so)
  • All your RfIs to date have failed to gain you support, that should be telling you something.
  • If you want to propose an area for addition on the talk page I am happy to discuss it before you go to the effort of drafting and referencing.
  • You need to lay off on the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith

Hope that is helpful ----Snowded 16:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Snowded: I appreciate your willingness to engage here. You mention that my writing strikes you as more like an essay, and suggest that quotes "might" be appropriate under some circumstances. Maybe we could look at that a bit further.

As background, this style of mine originated here on WP as a result of two repeated experiences. First, as a reader, I have found fairly often that statements in WP articles are incorrect statements of what cited sources actually say. I can only speculate what the reason for this is. So, to reassure a reader that the source is properly treated, I am inclined to quote verbatim to support an assertion that might otherwise stand alone with just a footnote.

Second, I have found on many occasions that editors do not believe bald assertions, however footnoted, and it avoids unpleasantness if, before somebody sticks their neck out, and becomes committed to a wrong idea they then feel stuck defending, a quotation will give them pause and avoid a rush to confrontation. It would be good if editors assumed other editors were sincere in their efforts, but it is very common for WP editors to assume their fellow editors are incompetent arrogant SOB's.

That is background that may seem self-serving. However, despite appearances, I do not want to write 'essays'. I do not want to string quotations between my own judgments of material, but only as support for the statements made.

I hope you can understand my objectives here, even if you don't think they are always what results. Brews ohare (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying I have a busy week or travel and an over due deadline on three articles for Sage's encyclopaedia of action research (net result rules for writing in encyclopaedias are front and centre of my mindset. Just to be clear, I have never doubted that you want to improve Misplaced Pages. I deal with some people on some articles who are there to promote pseudoscience and politics but that is not happening here.
I take your point on your own experience, but you would need to change the overall rules to support that. Including the quotes in the reference (something you do which I really like) is an alternative to having them in the text. ----Snowded 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess when you speak of "changing the rules" you refer to my remarks about 'definitive texts' and their availability? It is hard to imagine a WP based largely upon material unavailable on-line and unverifiable without institutional subscriptions or libraries. Possibly an editor with such access can get around this problem by using verbatim quotes. I don't expect that is a problem between the two of us, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No I mean if you want to change the rules about secondary sources and the style guides on quotations then you go and do it on the appropriate forum rather than trying to do it on one article. As I say but the material in the reference and no one will object that is good practice----Snowded 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Per your point "If you want to propose an area for addition on the talk page I am happy to discuss it before you go to the effort of drafting and referencing", let's try this out with adding something about ordinary language philosophy in the ontology article.

That has caused a problem already, but maybe we could reach an accommodation? Your main objection appears to be some doubt whether this topic has any bearing upon ontology. Perhaps an example of what might fix this problem is James W Cornman (1992). "Chapter 11: Language and ontology". In Richard Rorty, ed (ed.). The Linguistic Turn: Essays in philosophical method with two retrospective essays (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 160 ff. ISBN 0226725693. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help) and Chapter 18 by the same author. These particular articles (in part) say that those philosophers who think there is a connection, are mistaken (in particular, Wittgenstein). So, in a backhanded way, evidence is provided that some (rather reputable) philosophers think there is a connection, and a bit of discussion is useful. Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Its original research, you need a secondary source that makes the link then you need to show its important enough to include. If Rorty is very specific then it might count but I am away from home so cannot check the book itself ----Snowded 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems likely that sources can be found that link ontology to language. After all, that is the title of Cornman's chapter in a book called The Linguistic Turn: Essays in philosophical method. I'd be inclined to suggest that in fact just about all modern ontology is caught up in this thicket, and it is the basis for the 'deflationary' view of ontology. We'll see what can be found. Brews ohare (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you will find that whole swathes of Philosophers find it irrelevant, its a particular obsession of anglo-saxons so we need to be careful of WP:WEIGHT but lets see. I'm in Paris with a group at the moment (a indulgence for three days before earning money again) who are far more concerned with issues of Being and Instantiation than language. ----Snowded 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Cornman refers to Quine and Russell, so his treatment of 'ontology' and 'language' is a bit dated. Parker-Ryan mentions Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin and P. F. Strawson. She says 'ordinary language philosophy' is more a methodology than a philosophy. We'll see how that goes. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
John Searle says 'meaning' is more fundamental than 'knowledge', elevating the role of the philosophy of language. He says Wittgenstein is fundamental, and says Chomsky has become important recently. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if I agreed with you its still primary sources --Snowded 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just background. Brews ohare (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ho would anything discussed above exceed the scope of what is already covered in this setion: Ontology#Ontology_and_language?--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 08:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Brews wants to promote it ----Snowded 08:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Kindly yet vigilant

Vanquisher of ignorance and fraud!
Thank you for your tireless efforts to save confused souls from those who would siphon off hard-earned money, offering false hope with fraudulent practices such as "neuro-linguistic programming". FeralOink (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)