Master Index of Archived Threads


Boy, am I Pissed at Wikipedia

TheOldMole Oct 23 2007 07:32 PM

I just spent about two hours revising the Wikipedia article on Opus 40, correcting factual errors, expanding the information that was there. and my revision was refused -- mas near as I can make out, on the grounds that I had included "unsourced material." But I am the source of pretty much all material on Opus 40. The sources cited by the original entry are the Opus 40 website, which I wrote, and the New York Times article, which is entirely based on an interview with me.

Edgy DC Oct 23 2007 08:35 PM

Pretty funny, in light of your sig line. Your work should be saved on the history tab. Reinstate your work, and attach a note that says (1) you are the source, and (2) print and online references are included.

TheOldMole Oct 24 2007 06:50 AM

Actually, I saved it separately. They aren't impressed with my being who I am -- they say it conflicts with their conflict of interest guidelines. So what i have to do is put my new stuff up on the Opus 40 website, and then have a beard resubmit it usig the website as a source.

Edgy DC Oct 24 2007 07:02 AM

Yup. Irish Guy isn't our metirish, is he?

Valadius Oct 24 2007 07:17 AM

Mole, let me help you out. I'm a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, and I can fix it.

metirish Oct 24 2007 07:20 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Yup. Irish Guy isn't our metirish, is he? Nope not me, Mole the whole thing is rather funny and highlights a Wiki problem or two.

Frayed Knot Oct 24 2007 07:45 AM

TheOldMole wrote: So what i have to do is put my new stuff up on the Opus 40 website, and then have a beard resubmit it usig the website as a source. So, in other words, they trust INdirect information on a subject moreso than they do direct information from the source. Smooth.

SteveJRogers Oct 24 2007 10:19 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: ="TheOldMole"]So what i have to do is put my new stuff up on the Opus 40 website, and then have a beard resubmit it usig the website as a source. So, in other words, they trust INdirect information on a subject moreso than they do direct information from the source. Smooth. Yeah, which is even more funnier when you consider there isn't much of a bias to be had with Opus 40 Its one thing if say Bill Clinton made a major revision to his own entry, but yeah its not like this is something of a polarizing nature!

TheOldMole Oct 24 2007 02:12 PM

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 24 2007 02:51 PM

It doesn't have to be polarizing for there to be a bias. It appears that they don't want anybody using Wikipedia to promote their product, which is reasonable. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimsleur_language_learning_system

Nymr83 Oct 24 2007 03:22 PM

i understand the idea, its like a message board i post on where someone asks "wheres a good site to buy X?", someone says "get it at ww.xyz.com" and the mods immediately shut down the thread, its not that the advice is bad its just that once you let one person advertise everyone is going to do it

Valadius Oct 24 2007 04:45 PM

I fixed it, Mole.

bmfc1 Oct 24 2007 07:28 PM

Mole, my younger son also works on Wikipedia (he loves the Nick show Avatar) and said that the first guy didn't understand the rules. He was about to reinstate your edits but Vladius took care of it.

TheOldMole Oct 25 2007 10:43 PM

Valad -- thanks. I do understand the point of the rule, but in this case... And the original essay was pretty good, but it had a couple of mistakes. Describing the monolith as granite, for one. And it suddenly struck me, in reading it, that it -- and everything else i'd read on the Internet -- got the details of the raising of the monolith wrong. And all of that probably comes from someone mishearing the details while interviewing me. Or me saying them wrong, but I'd rather not think about that.

TheOldMole Oct 27 2007 01:07 PM

Valadius -- do you work for Wikipedia? Or just a good Samaritan happening by?

Valadius Oct 27 2007 02:14 PM

I've often thought that I should work for Wikipedia. But no, I'm just a very active contributor to Wikipedia - at least I was. I was working on what became the single largest article on Wikipedia - List of former members of the United States House of Representatives - for many months non-stop, and 99.9% by myself, until this summer, when I was forced to split up the article just as it was nearing completion. That effectively knocked the wind from my sails and I lost my enthusiasm for the project, but I still know Wikipedia pretty much backwards and forwards, and know how to deal with the powers that be on the site. I just like helping out.

TheOldMole Oct 27 2007 03:49 PM

Thank you again. I've contributed little edits to Wiki pieces from time to time, and written all or most of a couple of entries.

TheOldMole Oct 28 2007 09:54 AM

Valadius or bmfc -- or anyone else -- I want to create a new entry for Arnold Shaw, author of many books on American Popular Music, founder and director of the Arnold Shaw Popular Music Research Center at UNLV -- definitely an important enough figure to merit inclusion. Why? Just because I'm a big fan of his books, and discovered by chance that there is no page for him. My problem: When I go to "Arnold Shaw," I don't get the No entry exists -- would you like to create one? page, I get directed to a page for a different Arnold Shaw, a British MP. So how do I start a fresh page for this Arnold Shaw?

Valadius Oct 28 2007 10:22 AM

When there's more than one person with the same name, the need arises for disambiguation pages. One will likely be needed there. In the meantime, create the article at Arnold Shaw (author). Use [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Arnold+Shaw+%28author%29&go=Go]this[/url] link to get there and create it. I'll take care of any redirecting and disambiguating when you're done. Just let me know.

TheOldMole Oct 28 2007 12:34 PM

That's what I did, and the article is up now.

Valadius Oct 28 2007 01:00 PM

I added a disambiguation link on the other Arnold Shaw's page to this one.

TheOldMole Oct 28 2007 01:18 PM

Great.