If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Wikipedia told Philip Roth he's not "credible source" on book he wrote, and ask him to stop defiling the liver page   (arstechnica.com) divider line 101
    More: Asinine, Wikipedia, Philip Roth, wireless technology, livers, technology policy  
•       •       •

5869 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Sep 2012 at 10:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 03:59:26 PM
www.thecitrusreport.com
 
2012-09-07 04:05:06 PM

thomps: [www.thecitrusreport.com image 475x325]


and we're officially done here.
 
2012-09-07 04:12:16 PM
Been a while since a good thread about Fascist Wiki editors and how they treat certain subkects like they own them.
 
2012-09-07 04:15:22 PM
So, in this case, the actual letter to Wikipedia published by the New Yorker is a Secondary Source, and the changes can be made. Right?

Maybe it's time to order a nice set of encyclopedias.
 
2012-09-07 04:28:12 PM
Oh man I'm just gonna write letters to the editor trolling the hell out of Wiki then, and change things to suit my own dystopian worldview.
 
2012-09-07 04:33:35 PM
The content in question is what inspired one of his books.  How the fark can you get a secondary source on that?  No matter what, its going to have to originate from the author.
 
2012-09-07 04:57:31 PM

thomps: [www.thecitrusreport.com image 475x325]


came for this. left satisfied.
 
2012-09-07 04:59:19 PM
My only question is whether they were sure it was actually Phillip Roth doing the edit.
 
2012-09-07 05:38:18 PM

thomps: [www.thecitrusreport.com image 475x325]


It's nice to see so many people in the comments are students of the classics.
 
2012-09-07 05:44:48 PM

DamnYankees: My only question is whether they were sure it was actually Phillip Roth doing the edit.


I can't wait for the day you have to submit two valid forms of picture ID to edit wikipedia posts.
 
2012-09-07 06:07:11 PM

thomps: [www.thecitrusreport.com image 475x325]


I can always count on Fark to not let me down.
 
2012-09-07 06:11:31 PM
"I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work, but we require secondary sources," were the exact words of the Wikipedia administrator, according to Roth.

This is an outrage!

Wikipedia's rules, of course, are intended to prevent people from excising uncomfortable yet true facts from their articles. All facts must be backed up by references to specific sources. As it turns out, the open letter Roth wrote today seems to count as a secondary source. Edits made to the article today add a reference to his open letter, including the explanation that Tumin's problem inspired the book.

Ok, less of an outrage.

They need a way to better define "uncomfortable yet true facts." Someone's inspiration for a novel is only known to that person. There is no "secondary source."
 
2012-09-07 06:48:39 PM

impaler: "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work, but we require secondary sources," were the exact words of the Wikipedia administrator, according to Roth.

This is an outrage!

Wikipedia's rules, of course, are intended to prevent people from excising uncomfortable yet true facts from their articles. All facts must be backed up by references to specific sources. As it turns out, the open letter Roth wrote today seems to count as a secondary source. Edits made to the article today add a reference to his open letter, including the explanation that Tumin's problem inspired the book.

Ok, less of an outrage.

They need a way to better define "uncomfortable yet true facts." Someone's inspiration for a novel is only known to that person. There is no "secondary source."


They need something other than Wikipedia that can confirm the author's actual insight. This makes sense to me.
 
2012-09-07 06:52:51 PM

impaler: "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work, but we require secondary sources," were the exact words of the Wikipedia administrator, according to Roth.

This is an outrage!

Wikipedia's rules, of course, are intended to prevent people from excising uncomfortable yet true facts from their articles. All facts must be backed up by references to specific sources. As it turns out, the open letter Roth wrote today seems to count as a secondary source. Edits made to the article today add a reference to his open letter, including the explanation that Tumin's problem inspired the book.

Ok, less of an outrage.

They need a way to better define "uncomfortable yet true facts." Someone's inspiration for a novel is only known to that person. There is no "secondary source."


Well, besides removing "uncomfortable yet true facts", which probably applies most often to politicians and celebrities, they also want to prevent people from putting forward their own thoughts and ideas as fact without an additional source to back it up. You can't leave a footnote reference citation to "my brain". So you have to get your into a secondary reliable source, and then a third party can site that source to change the wiki page.
 
2012-09-07 07:05:41 PM
I love how every biatches that wikipedia is never reliable, never a useful research tool, etc, and then as soon as something like this comes up that illustrates how constrained they make the wiki process in order to try (not always successfully, but whatever) to keep anything posted as absolutely related to known data (weeding out opinion and unsubstantiated information as much as possible) everyone biatches. This process went exactly like it should. Wikipedia is not the place to write a research paper, memoir, or grand unification theory. Even in a case like this where the person editing has first hand knowledge, if you want to put it on Wikipedia, write it up somewhere else and cite that. Yes there are a lot of piddly little fan pages that fall through the cracks still, but overall this sort of thing improves the process. In 20 or 30 years when the author is dead what happens if an editor checks the article, finds the information questionable and goes to verify it if it's only publication is there on the wiki?
 
2012-09-07 07:06:04 PM
If only Roth's username wasn't PwNz0rN00bi3s69, he'd be taken more seriously.
 
2012-09-07 07:14:41 PM

thomps: [www.thecitrusreport.com image 475x325]


with feet of lead and wings of tin.
 
2012-09-07 07:18:46 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: Yes there are a lot of piddly little fan pages that fall through the cracks still, but overall this sort of thing improves the process.


I was reading through the wikipedia articles on the area of my state where my grandmother lives, and one of them lists Bigfoot as a notable resident.

/I laughed.
 
2012-09-07 07:20:15 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: Even in a case like this where the person editing has first hand knowledge, if you want to put it on Wikipedia, write it up somewhere else and cite that. Yes there are a lot of piddly little fan pages that fall through the cracks still, but overall this sort of thing improves the process. In 20 or 30 years when the author is dead what happens if an editor checks the article, finds the information questionable and goes to verify it if it's only publication is there on the wiki?


Yup. There are valid complaints that can be made about wikipedia, but the requirement they have for secondary sources isn't one. It's a necessity for a user-editable encyclopedia.
 
2012-09-07 07:20:59 PM
The best way to read about wikipedia's editing process and userbase is to browse to Encyclopedia Dramatica and type wikipedia into the search box.
 
2012-09-07 07:32:27 PM
He isn't the only professional source to have this complaint.
Better to note that wiki ain't reliable...
 
2012-09-07 07:33:10 PM

QT_3.14159: LowbrowDeluxe: Yes there are a lot of piddly little fan pages that fall through the cracks still, but overall this sort of thing improves the process.

I was reading through the wikipedia articles on the area of my state where my grandmother lives, and one of them lists Bigfoot as a notable resident.

/I laughed.


Bigfoot counts that this state as well as all other mainland United States and the 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada as his permanent residence. Bigfoot also enjoys honorary citizenship of Mexico, Bermuda and Puerto Rico though his busy schedule only permits him to make frequent personal appearances in the Western United States and Canada.

/The Lone Bigfoot Theory
//One Elvis = One Bigfoot
 
2012-09-07 07:52:26 PM
I don't see the problem. He should've taken it to the Talk page of the article.

(And how is he an authority about what third parties are alleging about the inspiration?)
 
2012-09-07 08:08:14 PM
"In this letter, the author also stated that the wikipedia administrators in question are a bunch of goat farkers, in that they fark goats. In another letter on his web page, he also again claimed that had sex with goats. Given that there's now two sources documenting wikipedia's goat farking love, this information can now be editted into the article."
 
2012-09-07 08:11:36 PM
another batch of Farkers who don't know what an encyclopedia is and how it should be run.

Of course he shouldn't be able to just edit articles about his own work. That's just asking for all sorts of problems. The comment at the site put it into perspective in a way Farkers might understand:

Do you want George Lucas to go edit the Wiki pages on Star Wars and note that Greedo always shot first?
 
2012-09-07 08:20:12 PM
Wikipedia editors are kind of fascist, but they are correct here.

If it wasn't that way, I could go out tomorrow and write a book about (say) global warming and say it's not going to happen because heavy radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors are countering the efect of greenhouse gases, and then cite it as a source in Wikipedia.
 
2012-09-07 08:31:16 PM
nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-07 08:33:29 PM
mediababble.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-07 08:33:31 PM
Wikipedia should let George Lucas edit articles about Star Wars, right?
 
2012-09-07 08:34:15 PM

Tax Boy: [nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]


AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!
 
2012-09-07 08:40:35 PM

downstairs: The content in question is what inspired one of his books.  How the fark can you get a secondary source on that?  No matter what, its going to have to originate from the author.


So. The secondary source is a second primary source?

If Lucas says Greedo shot first, then Greedo shot first.
 
2012-09-07 08:42:11 PM

Christian Bale: another batch of Farkers who don't know what an encyclopedia is and how it should be run.

Of course he shouldn't be able to just edit articles about his own work. That's just asking for all sorts of problems. The comment at the site put it into perspective in a way Farkers might understand:

Do you want George Lucas to go edit the Wiki pages on Star Wars and note that Greedo always shot first?


Douche moron: He wasn't editing disputable facts. He was editing entries on his own mind/opinion.
 
2012-09-07 08:42:42 PM
Came for this:
www.piccer.nl

/leaving before I'm forced to snuggle.
 
2012-09-07 08:44:34 PM

AndreMA: I don't see the problem. He should've taken it to the Talk page of the article.

(And how is he an authority about what third parties are alleging about the inspiration?)


The third party, apparently, was wrong.
 
2012-09-07 08:56:03 PM

RedVentrue: AndreMA: I don't see the problem. He should've taken it to the Talk page of the article.

(And how is he an authority about what third parties are alleging about the inspiration?)

The third party, apparently, was wrong.


I know it doesn't necessarily apply in this case, but what if his actual inspiration was something that would make him look like a racist? Would he be able to argue it was really something else after the fact? Letting the topic (or someone closely related to the topic) be a direct editor of a supposedly unbiased account of said topic is a bad idea. Should there be a note about what he wants to say it was? Of course. But having a process which tries to avoid revisionist history is the right thing to do, even if some people want to over-simplify the issue to make the wiki-nazis look like fools.
 
2012-09-07 08:56:41 PM

aerojockey: Wikipedia editors are kind of fascist, but they are correct here.

If it wasn't that way, I could go out tomorrow and write a book about (say) global warming and say it's not going to happen because heavy radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors are countering the efect of greenhouse gases, and then cite it as a source in Wikipedia.


They're not correct. Wikipedia's position is that a primary source cannot be credible, but that a secondary source who believes that exact same primary source is credible.

It's even worse than that, in fact. In this case, a primary source writing on Wikipedia was not credible. But when that same primary source wrote the exact same thing in a different forum and cited that writing on Wikipedia, it was considered credible.

Wikipedia's position here is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
 
2012-09-07 08:58:00 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Christian Bale: another batch of Farkers who don't know what an encyclopedia is and how it should be run.

Of course he shouldn't be able to just edit articles about his own work. That's just asking for all sorts of problems. The comment at the site put it into perspective in a way Farkers might understand:

Do you want George Lucas to go edit the Wiki pages on Star Wars and note that Greedo always shot first?

Douche moron: He wasn't editing disputable facts. He was editing entries on his own mind/opinion.


Would you let Glenn Beck "clarify" controversial stuff in one of his books, alter its meaning because he's the original author?

Somewhere, there must be a record of him saying "this was inspired by...", and that could be a secondary source. It's a matter of being on the record, you see.
 
2012-09-07 09:04:21 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Christian Bale: another batch of Farkers who don't know what an encyclopedia is and how it should be run.

Of course he shouldn't be able to just edit articles about his own work. That's just asking for all sorts of problems. The comment at the site put it into perspective in a way Farkers might understand:

Do you want George Lucas to go edit the Wiki pages on Star Wars and note that Greedo always shot first?

Douche moron: He wasn't editing disputable facts. He was editing entries on his own mind/opinion.


Which can be disputed. Nothing says you can't lie about your inspirations. Do you think James Frey should be able to update the wiki entry for A million Little Pieces?

Also, people argue about motive all the time in criminal and civil matters.
 
2012-09-07 09:08:21 PM

nacker: RedVentrue: AndreMA: I don't see the problem. He should've taken it to the Talk page of the article.

(And how is he an authority about what third parties are alleging about the inspiration?)

The third party, apparently, was wrong.

I know it doesn't necessarily apply in this case, but what if his actual inspiration was something that would make him look like a racist? Would he be able to argue it was really something else after the fact? Letting the topic (or someone closely related to the topic) be a direct editor of a supposedly unbiased account of said topic is a bad idea. Should there be a note about what he wants to say it was? Of course. But having a process which tries to avoid revisionist history is the right thing to do, even if some people want to over-simplify the issue to make the wiki-nazis look like fools.


Motivation or history is something that would carry the most weight with a primary source. A secondary source should never have more weight than a primary source. Slander and hearsay should never outweigh a first hand account.
 
2012-09-07 09:10:57 PM

Parmenius: Satanic_Hamster: Christian Bale: another batch of Farkers who don't know what an encyclopedia is and how it should be run.

Of course he shouldn't be able to just edit articles about his own work. That's just asking for all sorts of problems. The comment at the site put it into perspective in a way Farkers might understand:

Do you want George Lucas to go edit the Wiki pages on Star Wars and note that Greedo always shot first?

Douche moron: He wasn't editing disputable facts. He was editing entries on his own mind/opinion.

Would you let Glenn Beck "clarify" controversial stuff in one of his books, alter its meaning because he's the original author?

Somewhere, there must be a record of him saying "this was inspired by...", and that could be a secondary source. It's a matter of being on the record, you see.


Of course! Like Fark, however, the original copy is there for all to see as well, and then you make up your own mind.
 
2012-09-07 09:11:07 PM
He should just cite this article and the one he wrote. Poof. Secondary source. Thats all Wikipedia wanted.
 
2012-09-07 09:13:21 PM
Legit: Interview from Your Mom's Weekly, quoting author.

Not Legit: Author saying it himself.

Solution, schedule interview with Your Mom's Weekly.

farking stupid.
 
2012-09-07 09:22:26 PM
My first wiki edit was reverting a change to Never Gonna Give You Up where someone edited to say the black guy in it was Obama. They of course had to revert it back and then revert it in their own special way.
 
2012-09-07 09:35:36 PM

Zavulon: aerojockey: Wikipedia editors are kind of fascist, but they are correct here.

If it wasn't that way, I could go out tomorrow and write a book about (say) global warming and say it's not going to happen because heavy radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors are countering the efect of greenhouse gases, and then cite it as a source in Wikipedia.

They're not correct. Wikipedia's position is that a primary source cannot be credible, but that a secondary source who believes that exact same primary source is credible.

It's even worse than that, in fact. In this case, a primary source writing on Wikipedia was not credible. But when that same primary source wrote the exact same thing in a different forum and cited that writing on Wikipedia, it was considered credible.

Wikipedia's position here is self-contradictory and nonsensical.


No. It isn't. It completely fits the role they've set for themselves. They are not the publishing house for Author X's memoirs. They are an encyclopedia of 'facts' as we know them and reference aggregate of already available material. Original research of any sort does not belong there.
 
2012-09-07 09:48:09 PM

impaler: "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work, but we require secondary sources," were the exact words of the Wikipedia administrator, according to Roth.

This is an outrage!

Wikipedia's rules, of course, are intended to prevent people from excising uncomfortable yet true facts from their articles. All facts must be backed up by references to specific sources. As it turns out, the open letter Roth wrote today seems to count as a secondary source. Edits made to the article today add a reference to his open letter, including the explanation that Tumin's problem inspired the book.

Ok, less of an outrage.

They need a way to better define "uncomfortable yet true facts." Someone's inspiration for a novel is only known to that person. There is no "secondary source."


Huh? How is that less outrageous?

Requiring multiple sources is a good thing. Requiring a single source to use multiple media is not.

If Phillip Roth edits wikipedia, writes a letter, goes on Howard Stern, hires a sky-writer, you still only have one source. 

If I tell you the moon is made of green cheese, you probably won't believe me. The moon isn't even green.

If I write down "the moon is made of green cheese" and hand you the paper, my credibility doesn't increase.

It's good wikipedia is trying to be credible, I just don't think they're doing a good job of it.
 
2012-09-07 09:49:11 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: Zavulon: aerojockey: Wikipedia editors are kind of fascist, but they are correct here.

If it wasn't that way, I could go out tomorrow and write a book about (say) global warming and say it's not going to happen because heavy radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors are countering the efect of greenhouse gases, and then cite it as a source in Wikipedia.

They're not correct. Wikipedia's position is that a primary source cannot be credible, but that a secondary source who believes that exact same primary source is credible.

It's even worse than that, in fact. In this case, a primary source writing on Wikipedia was not credible. But when that same primary source wrote the exact same thing in a different forum and cited that writing on Wikipedia, it was considered credible.

Wikipedia's position here is self-contradictory and nonsensical.

No. It isn't. It completely fits the role they've set for themselves. They are not the publishing house for Author X's memoirs. They are an encyclopedia of 'facts' as we know them and reference aggregate of already available material. Original research of any sort does not belong there.


So if the author updates his blog he can use that as a source since it would be an authoritative source on his thoughts?
 
2012-09-07 10:03:18 PM
Anyone advocating for Wikipedia has to take a step outside of the wikipedia umbrella. An author can't edit the inspiration of his own thoughts.

I know Wikipedia has a strict idea of what is acceptable, but this is ridiculous. If you want it to be the source for information that people use and not a useless authoritarian ghost-town, you'd do well to take a deep breath and re-evaluate your standards.
 
2012-09-07 10:09:41 PM

meddleRPI: Legit: Interview from Your Mom's Weekly, quoting author.

Not Legit: Author saying it himself.

Solution, schedule interview with Your Mom's Weekly.

farking stupid.


I was thinking this is the easiest solution, find some low rent outfit, have them print it, then resubmit.
 
2012-09-07 10:12:35 PM

Carth: LowbrowDeluxe: Zavulon: aerojockey: Wikipedia editors are kind of fascist, but they are correct here.

If it wasn't that way, I could go out tomorrow and write a book about (say) global warming and say it's not going to happen because heavy radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors are countering the efect of greenhouse gases, and then cite it as a source in Wikipedia.

They're not correct. Wikipedia's position is that a primary source cannot be credible, but that a secondary source who believes that exact same primary source is credible.

It's even worse than that, in fact. In this case, a primary source writing on Wikipedia was not credible. But when that same primary source wrote the exact same thing in a different forum and cited that writing on Wikipedia, it was considered credible.

Wikipedia's position here is self-contradictory and nonsensical.

No. It isn't. It completely fits the role they've set for themselves. They are not the publishing house for Author X's memoirs. They are an encyclopedia of 'facts' as we know them and reference aggregate of already available material. Original research of any sort does not belong there.

So if the author updates his blog he can use that as a source since it would be an authoritative source on his thoughts?


In theory, yes. And why can't the author himself be cited? The author may edit or claim whatever he wants, as long as it is cited that he said it.

To go to the Lucas "Greedo shot first" that would be fine if it is attributed to Lucas, and verified to be Lucas who says so. Contesting opinions can be put up beside the author.

"Liberace not gay" Citation [Liberace]
 
2012-09-07 10:16:38 PM
I think the Wikipedia model should be extended to Fark.com.

There's lots of things I would like to edit out of my postings.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report