trying to bully us?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

trying to bully us?

Kathleen McCook
I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone; he
is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should
give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his artistic
life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking note.

I have sent other messages that have not appeared so I will just say again,
that tone of editors needs to be more self-aware.
BTW, the "Roth vs. Wikipedia " issue is being discussed on many many lists
by librarians, literary scholars, and students.
It is important. It is a time to learn.

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is the comment I made to The New Yorker article:
>
> If you, or anyone else, has a similar problem please contact the
> Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Directions are on that page in
> Wikipedia.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team We are
> sorry this matter was not handled better.
>
> Read more
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html#ixzz25taiCMHm
>
> Now, a factual inquiry, if he had done that would this problem have been
> solved? Or would he still ended up trying to bully us?
>
> Fred
>
> > It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they
> > are the authority on their own opinions.
> >
> > We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work.
> > Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze
> > over the most important bit.
> >
> > I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS
> > there is sure to be at least one.
> >
> > I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources.
> > So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the
> > source, or another source appearing to rebut it.
> >
> > This is much more palatable than "your word isn't a reliable source".
> >
> > If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning
> > the reliability of him/her as a person.
> >
> > Tom Morton
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton
> >> <[hidden email]>wrote:
> >>
> >>> No it doesn't.
> >>>
> >>> I'll give you good odds on me being right.
> >>>
> >>> Because I see the same thing week after week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You mean leading author almost synonymous with "rare interview" assumes
> >> his
> >> word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about
> >> your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has
> >> a
> >> percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago.
> >> Really, nothing on the record?
> >>
> >> (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of
> >> situation
> >> do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it,
> >> even if
> >> dealing with someone famous.)
> >>
> >> Charles
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: trying to bully us?

Fred Bauder-2
> I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone;
> he
> is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should
> give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his
> artistic
> life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking
> note.
>
> I have sent other messages that have not appeared so I will just say
> again,
> that tone of editors needs to be more self-aware.
> BTW, the "Roth vs. Wikipedia " issue is being discussed on many many
> lists
> by librarians, literary scholars, and students.
> It is important. It is a time to learn.

It time for everyone to learn. I live in a resort area and have met
celebrities; most are courteous and reasonable people; a few are not.

They demand, and if their demands are not met, they bully. They don't
discuss; they don't negotiate. They use their ready access to the media
as one club and their fan base as another.

How is he fighting for his life? If he gave a few interviews this stuff
would not be any big mystery. Rather reminds me of the author of The
Catcher in the Rye, J. D. Salinger. Wouldn't interact with anyone and
always complaining that no one else was any good.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: trying to bully us?

Katie Chan
Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking
about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate
Wikipedia content, and is throwing his weight around?

If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror
Wikipedia editors.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
     - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: trying to bully us?

Luca Motoc
Yes.

2012/9/8 Katie Chan <[hidden email]>

> Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking
> about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia
> content, and is throwing his weight around?
>
> If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror
> Wikipedia editors.
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>     - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
>



--


Luca Motoc site:http://sites.google.com/site/lucamotoc/
Europeana bruxelles (EEB4) 4 EEB4 WEB. <http://www.eeb4.eu/>
SOMERFESTO 23/06/2012 SOMERFESTO WEBSITE <http://www.somerfesto.eu>
P4ENa  Tom Wadsworth P4RO .Vlaicu Adriana
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION:  This communication and any
attachment to this communication is confidential, is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which this communication is
addressed and is privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited
from all dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this communication
or such attachment.  If you have received this communication or any
attachment to this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender by email   and delete and destroy the communication or attachment
you have received and all copies thereof.  Receipt by an individual or
entity, through misdirection, error or mistake, or by wrongful
dissemination, work product or other legal or private privilege, and does
not invalidate the sender’s requirement and expectation of confidentiality
and privacy.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: trying to bully us?

George William Herbert
Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary source and verifiability standards confusion.



George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 9, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Luca Motoc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes.
>
> 2012/9/8 Katie Chan <[hidden email]>
>
>> Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking
>> about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia
>> content, and is throwing his weight around?
>>
>> If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror
>> Wikipedia editors.
>>
>> KTC
>>
>> --
>> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>>    - Heinrich Heine
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Luca Motoc site:http://sites.google.com/site/lucamotoc/
> Europeana bruxelles (EEB4) 4 EEB4 WEB. <http://www.eeb4.eu/>
> SOMERFESTO 23/06/2012 SOMERFESTO WEBSITE <http://www.somerfesto.eu>
> P4ENa  Tom Wadsworth P4RO .Vlaicu Adriana
> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION:  This communication and any
> attachment to this communication is confidential, is intended solely for
> the use of the individual or entity to which this communication is
> addressed and is privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited
> from all dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this communication
> or such attachment.  If you have received this communication or any
> attachment to this communication in error, please immediately notify the
> sender by email   and delete and destroy the communication or attachment
> you have received and all copies thereof.  Receipt by an individual or
> entity, through misdirection, error or mistake, or by wrongful
> dissemination, work product or other legal or private privilege, and does
> not invalidate the sender’s requirement and expectation of confidentiality
> and privacy.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: trying to bully us?

Charles Matthews
On 9 September 2012 11:02, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary
> source and verifiability standards confusion.
>
> Good point. Saying "secondary sources" like a mantra seems to have failed
us here (and is the one point of failure I can identify in the whole
business).

The way the article was left by 20 August seems to have been exemplary
given the sources then available. If academia is interested in WP's role in
this, it should note that a misconception about a major work has been
dispelled by WP's pickiness. For academics "personal communication" is
indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this
type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all round.

Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: trying to bully us?

Fred Bauder-2

> For academics "personal communication" is
> indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this
> type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all
> round.
>
> Charles

Really, I don't know why a personal communication would not be sufficient
for us, provided we know we are actually talking to the person. I suppose
some "personal communications" would be troublesome. I can imagine
someone lying or giving us false information. Saying editorial discretion
would not solve the problem of editors not being able to deal
appropriately with such communications. Academics are somewhat more able.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l