Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shot info (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 30 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks for the humor!

Thanks for your humor on Talk:NCAHF. Poor Ilena, hoist by her own petard . --Ronz 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT!

It's not just WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be on that list too. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF too, but I already mentioned those. Thanks for interjecting more levity and reality yet again! --Ronz 01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett and all

Thank you! I can;t believe I again got sucked into WIkipedia and spent most of a day on it.

Barrett got me to the case, which got me to the federal statute, etc etc.

However, I am not sure what is original research? A discussion of the cases?  ?? Jance 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Basically once you (well, not specifically you, but "you" in the figurative sense) start having to explain things in wiki, that basically is OR. Rather than just parotting the sources and/or modifying/rewording that data. Barrett's work is a real minefield as all the sources really are opinion pieces and we (as in the group of wikieditors) need to be careful that we don't start forming opinions and using the sources to support that opinion. At least, that's my take on the subject :-) Shot info 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

However, it is noted that the difference between necessary summarizing and OR can be pretty fine sometimes.--I'clast 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, last time I looked you where either WP:OR or not. Shot info 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment.-Jimbo--I'clast 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position anybody? Are you possibly suggesting we should ignore a wiki pillar? Especially one that sort of post dates the quote that you have posted? Prehaps we should ignore a couple of others (say WP:N as an example)  :-) Shot info 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute, Shot. yes, it appears WP:OR is definitely a judgment call unless it is so obvious it hits you upside the head. Even rewording and summarizing takes some thought, unless I suppose one has AI software that spits out paraphrasing. This whole thing has become simply tortured.Jance 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And you know what, we have this other thing called WP:N which tells us that certain "facts" are really unencyclopedic and not worthy of wikipedia. As I and others have pointed out, the corporate status of NCAHF is not notable. But others what it there to suggest a hint of illegality. But it seems he/she who writes the most will win in this regard... regardless of the pillars Shot info 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

General on Barrett NCAHF etc

You wrote, "Ilena does seem to only have one policy, attack until she finds support, then attack with support. " My comment on this related to my distate in disparaging other editors. It is very common at Misplaced Pages, and I do not like it. That was my point. I do not agree with ILena, or l'cast on most of their complaints re the article.

I do agree with Arthur that the WP:N of incorporation is a borderline call. If there is no evidence that NCAHF is, for example, improperly soliciting donations in either CA or MA (or anywhere else), the only possible reason for inclusion is to imply wrongdoing. That is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, there was wrongdoing, yes, it would be notable, especially given t h nature of the organization's activities.

I am not "anti-" or "pro-" Barrett. I have already stated my concerns re the use of the legal system. I surely do not have the interest in alternative med that some seem to have there. I don't even know what "Glyconutrients" are, for example. Nor do I care. And I am glad I did not face the polio risk that my parents faced, and am therefore thankful there are vaccines. I do not, however, think medical doctors are Gods and have co-equal powers with government regulatory agencies or prosecuting authorities. I do believe that any decent article, whether in Misplaced Pages or anywhere else, should contain reliable resources.Jance 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a lot of points in the above paragraph. So I will answer them individually (although I must admit I am wondering out load why you see the need to make these points).

1. I was making a commment to I'clast's defence of her. Sarcastic yes, but true.
2. I also agree with Arthur that the NCAHF is a borderline call. Typically if it is borderline, one errs on the side of caution and deletes it. However here in NCAHF/Barrett/QW-land, it seems everything is kept in and must be debated to death for deletion.
3. I am with you. But a am pro-wiki-pillars. The example of Glyconutrients was directed at I'clast, for if you exclude his/her edits to Barrett-land, his/her edits are rather small, and still similar to that at Barrett-land (IMHO), hence making his/her appeal to his/her's authority on wiki rather cynical in nature. The remainder of your para is OR and largely irrelevant to the debate (again IMHO). However on an aside, let's hope than you and I don't become "notable" enough for all our little irrelevant "facts" to get on wikipedia one day or if they do, there are enough supporters of the wiki-pillars left to ensure BLP, N, and OR all get a look in...unlike what is appears to be happening in Barrett-land at the moment (again IMHO). Shot info 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)