Talk:O.B.I.T.

"Obsolescence" section

This section discusses twitter, which really shouldn't be in this article. Genesis 1:3 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Twitter is nothing at all like O.B.I.T. in usage or purpose. Twitter is a completely voluntary means of communication, O.B.I.T. is an involuntary surveliiance system. Twitter is for things that the poster doesn't care if the whole world knows, like "LOL! Saw Twilight the other day!" not something like "ROFL! Strangled some guy to death and dumped his body off a bridge! LMAO! Going to court, pleading innocent!" O.B.I.T. is more like surveillance cameras placed everywhere so people can be seen at all times, like in The Bourne Identity or CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, or like a Time viewer but with just the present and near past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.140.102 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed completely. The section is original research, as well. I'm deleting it. PS, enjoyable paragraph written by you, Mr. Unsigned User.Rodney420 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing about Twitter reappeared. I guess it was supposed to be a joke, which is unfunny. I removed it. 153.2.246.30 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody reverted my edit. Guess I will stop trying. 153.2.246.30 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the clear-OR sections again. We really shouldn't tolerate any attempts to reinstate them, which thus far have been almost exclusively by anon IPs. I would note that although some the Feasibility section did contain one reference, it was to a source for the concept outline, with no mention of either The Outer Limits in general, or O.B.I.T. in particular. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR (read the article, published in Wired magazine, quoting the Director of Time). Regarding obsolescence, you don't seem to understand what the concept entails: Twitter renders OBIT obsolete precisely because folks now voluntarily relate the minutiae fo their lives, therefore machines like OBIT, that rely on covert spying, are no longer needed. Get it? Did you read about Weinergate? Remember, this is s science-fiction TV series, so maybe you might want to readjust your standards as to what is OR, whether the writing is "serious enough", etc., etc. Where not talking Einstein-Rosen wormholes here, were discussing a sci-fi TV series! In that context, it *is* interesting to know that (i) such a machine could be built (as per the Director of Time, US Naval Observatory, who knows more about the subject than you or I do), and (ii) that in any case such a machine is no longer needed, i.e. is obsolete, due to Twitter. Yes, it is tongue-in-cheek writing, and yes, some folks might not think it's funny, so what? Did it cross your mind that perhaps other science-minded readers (known to like science fiction) might find these two sections interesting? Does my contribution soil the nature and reputation of Wikipedia in any way? So why can't you just leave the text be? Does any part of what I wrote contradict the facts about the episode? Does every bit of Wikipedia have to be exactly as you want it to be? Oh, and don't minimize my contribution just because I choose to temain anonymous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.124.211.218 (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely original research, because no matter what the Wired referenced article discusses, it makes no mention whatsoever of either The Outer Limits in general, or O.B.I.T. in particular. More to the point, the O.B.I.T. device as described in the episode locks into individual's brainwaves, which is quite a different concept than that which you are attempting to draw parallels with.

As to Twitter, the comparison is preposterous, given that O.B.I.T. taps into a person's thoughts/actions that they are not aware are being so monitored. People share what they want to share on Twitter, which is again a very different thing.

I am therefore deleting the two paragraphs yet again, which I hope will be the end of the matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your confusion persists: The connection with O.B.I.T. is that thanks to Twitter O.B.I.T. is no longer needed. Get it? Again, this is all tonguie-in-cheek, as in humour. Discussing the ins-and-outs of OR in the context of a sci-fi TV episode is inane. Let it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.182.238 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you regard it as "humour," then I'll regard it as vandalism, and deal with it accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Subtle humour, as in "tongue-in-cheek" is appropriate in the context of a sci-fi TV series. Subtle humor is also a sign of intelligence. In any case it doesn't sem to matter what I say here, you will just twist my arguments or selectively ignore portiions of what I write just to have your way. Stop vandalizing what I posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.189.88 (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tough. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Bully, call in a Science Editor to opine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.152.187 (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

None is needed to deal with your OR/"jokes". Nick Cooper (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR (read the reference). Stop vandalizing my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.152.187 (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference does not mention either The Outer Limits in general, or this episode in particular, and does not deal with the same concept as the episode, therefore attempting to link the two is OR.

RfC: "Feasibility" and "Obsolescence" sections

The 1963 episode of the TV science fiction series The Outer Limits this pages describes features a fictional covert surveillance device, supposedly able to lock onto and display the thoughts of a specific target individual without their knowledge. For some months now an IP editor (or editors) has repeatedly sought to include two paragraphs, currently removed but visible in the page history.

The first ("Feasibility") attempts to draw a parallel between the fictional device in the episode and developments in real world physics, even though they are not based on the same principles. The sole reference is to a Wired articles explaining these real world developments, but which that does not mention either The Outer Limits in general, or this episode in particular. Any comparison between the two is therefore original research on the part of the IP editor.

The second ("Obsolescence") claims that the fictional covert surveillance device in the episode is rendered obsolete by people reporting their own activities - or rather those they choose to report - on Twitter. Comments previously left by other editors on the Talk page dispute the validity of such a comparison, but regardless of this it is unsourced, and therefore also original research on the part of the IP editor.

The IP editor has defended this content as being "tongue-in-cheek" and "humour," as well as claiming it should be included because, "other science-minded readers (known to like science fiction) might find these two sections interesting." None of these appear a valid reason for including such speculative content. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed the sections now removed I agree: they are simply original research with little relevance to the article, unless some reliable source can be found relating them which seems unlikely. Our policy on original research is quite clear, and they do not belong in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - I have not read the sources, but if the Wired source does not mention OBIT or Outer Limits, then editors cannot make that connection (between OBIT and actual implementations) as that would violate the WP:Original research policy. If the Wired source did mention OuterLimits/OBIT, then the feasibility material from Wired would be appropriate for this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - as it clearly states in WP: Original Research anything including "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" should not be included in a Wikipedia article. This is clearly the case here. If another third party source can be found that does draw upon content in the two paragraphs we're talking about, a person is free to make those claims, otherwise they stand rather arbitrary, with tenuous links, in my opinion. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove per WP:OR. This is a textbook case, I'm frankly surprised that an RFC was determined to be necessary. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Really just because of the sheer persistence of the IP editor who seems so keen on including the text. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that "humour" [sic] has no place as part of the article and it is certainly original research, this episode has implications today that were not realized, at least not by many, at the time it was made. It is perhaps one of the most predictive things ever shown on TV, now that we have devices and sites like Facebook and Twitter than can be monitored 24 hours a day by the government, and your location is no secret because of GPS. This is not O.B.I.T. because people do it knowingly, but nevertheless there are those, who as Colonel Grover says dramatically, can't NOT look. The earthlink article in "External links" approaches these points but is fan-oriented. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Eric

transcript

Is the plot transcript necessary? Neils51 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It is much too long, and at the very least needs paragraphing. I'd recommend reverting it to some previous version. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Eric