Talk:Rolf Dobelli

I submit that the Viktorbuehler (talk · contribs) account is operated by Dobelli, or somebody close to Dobelli (WP:COI).

• single topic account engaged in Dobelli-related vanity edits
• "Bühler" is a kind of Swiss "John Doe" name
• there is no "Viktor Bühler" associated with Zurich.minds, yet the account uploads and apparently "owns" images of the "closed-door" conference
• there is a separate User:Rolfdobelli account at commons, strictly limited to uploading vanity images of Dobelli's person which are clearly owned by Dobelli (Viktorbuhler wouldn't get away with claiming ownership)

I just stumbled on this little walled garden of vanity editing and thought I wanted to record the observation here. Nothing needs to be done except perhaps some cleanup for tone. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

yeah, there is also Ecurschmann (talk · contribs). This could be a real name (Elke Curschmann). In any case, the vanity editing and name dropping in these articles is abysmal. Not that this is unusual, I suppose, in this field; let's just not allow the sockpuppeteering get out of hand. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of Plagerisim by Nassim Nicolas Taleb

Nassim Taleb has accused Dobelli of plagerisimg a substantial portion of his publications. Perhaps this should be mentioned. Taleb cites ample evidence on his Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151794361263375&id=13012333374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.82.29 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is suggesting that people spend less time consuming the News really that novel an idea? 199.43.191.26 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Extensive examples of plagiarism on Taleb's website Pakbelang (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly a difference of opinion between Taleb and Dobelli. I presume that we all agree that the goal at Wikipedia should be to faithfully reflect both sides of that disagreement, and because that disagreement is part of the historical record and can be referenced, so it's okay to include it in the article.

But I think that we can all also agree that a Wikipedia article should not be the place to engage in cyber-bullying or character assassination. Neither should it be the goal of editors of articles to slant the truth, or to systematically edit and re-edit one paragraph in this article to erase one side of the argument while at the same time amplifying the other side.

But this is what I am seeing in the edits.

I also note that Nassim Taleb has a history of engaging in very public fights which he often loses.

So I am left wondering if Nassim Taleb pays you to write this stuff that you write and make the changes that you make? Or do you do it simply in the hope that Taleb will be nice to you sometime in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.132.16.53 (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please also note that Plagiarism is spelt "plagiarism", not "plagerism" which is how you started this section.

In addition, have you considered the words of Claudius Seidl, editor of the feuilleton section of the Frankfurter Algeminer Zeitung? He writes of Dobelli's book. His article is in German, so I'm going to quote verbatim from my translation:

"Not even the shortest sentence suggests that Dobelli would have thought it all out himself; on the contrary, sometimes it is almost a little tiring, as Dobelli repeatedly points to the academic authority of the people from whom he has learned. Taleb is a constant occurrence. Taleb is mentioned as a source of inspiration, as the author of the illuminating book, "The Black Swan" and as a conversation partner, both in the columns and in his bestseller book. This spring, in the "Zeit" feature section there was a conversation between the two that was so original, inspiring and anti-authoritarian that it had to be hidden on one of the back feature pages. Now, however, shortly after the publication of the English-language edition "The Art of Thinking Clearly", Taleb accuses his former friend Dobelli of copying from him...What is significant about the argument is that Taleb makes a mistake of the type he otherwise likes to deconstruct. He messes up the categories, confuses the subject areas. He pretends that the absolutely evident results of logical thinking are something on which there is a copyright. .. There is no copyright on commonplace sayings - and that's what reporting comes down to."

So let's be clear. While Taleb and his band of sycophants accuse Dobelli of plagiarism, there are plenty of people - a silent majority no doubt, who disagree. Rolf Dobelli is a former businessman and journalist. Not an academic. His book references Taleb multiple times and attributes thoughts to him on numerous occasions. Indeed, so much so that Claudius Seidl tells us that he finds the constant references to Taleb "tiring". Moreover, as Seidl tells us, there is no copyright on restating a commonplace truth.

And so I ask again: Is Wikipedia a place where we dispassionately report on truth in the world, or is it a place where a grumpy man who did not sell as many books as he wanted to sell, and his sycophant followers are allowed to engage in online cyber-bullying?

Rather than engage in a discussion on this page, user at ip address 71.112.216.72 appears to want to engage in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.180.217 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rolf Dobelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202004155/http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/dobelli.htm to http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/dobelli.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rolf Dobelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731040023/http://www.buchreport.de/bestseller/hardcover/bestseller/4.htm to http://www.buchreport.de/bestseller/hardcover/bestseller/4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)