Talk:Ars Technica/Archive 6

Recent Attempts to Abuse Policy Guidelines

I am starting this section in order to discuss what appears to be an abuse of policy guidelines to further a small set of editors' personal goals. This has taken a few different forms, evolving as other editors provide more citations to sustantiate the criticism section. Most recently, the WP:NOR guidelines have been abused, citing Wikipedia's consideration of bulletin boards as not being a valid primary or secondary source. Of course, one of the items under most debate in the article is the bulletin board itself. Guidelines are apparently built on consensus on Wikipedia (something Tsetna feels he has formed as long as a few editors agree with him, depite how many disagree). They also have origins, as quoted below from the NOR article:

   The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, 
   of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite 
   difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't 
   appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't 
   really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published 
   in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility 
   of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to 
   decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history.

   Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the 
   results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same 
   thing applies to history.

And the word "consensus":

      n : agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a
          whole; "the lack of consensus reflected differences in
          theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are
          based on an unstated consensus" (Wordnet (r) 2.0)

So the attempt here is to take something that came into place to try to curb "flat earth" theories and such, and apply it to the article section dealing with a bulletin board. Much time was spent digging up citations to satisfy Tsetna and others. After a couple of weeks of digging through the rules, he discovers a reference to bulletin boards being not a valid source (in another context) and tries to apply it here, magically invalidating all the sources available on the OpenForum. This is ridiculous in the extreme. I think it may be a good idea to review Wikipedia:Use_common_sense.

Also, speaking of rules, there is a lot of talk about "arbitration", as if that should sway some of us from restoring cited bullet points. If you want to re-read that rule carefully, you will see that the Arbitration suggests that mediation should be tried first.--216.227.122.185 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If my interpretation of Wikipedia’s policies is wrong, you should be able to show it. Tsetna 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Right above here is a whole list of problematic criticism that was removed for various reason. Not one of which is just a violation of WP:NOR. It was on this page for ten days without the criticism being removed so that you could mount a rebuttal. You posted on this page frequently while it was up, and claiming you simply don't have time to defend it is not good enough, as you want the criticism to stay. There was ample time for you to mount a defense of them, but you still haven't even done that. And the problem, once again, isn't that bulletin boards can't be good sources. The problem is that you guys were taking a four year old incident with a subscription and extrapolating that out to "Subscriptions can take up to a month to process." No where in the posted links does anyone on the OpenForum say that--a bunch of Wikipedia editors are making that decision (WP:NOR) and using bad language (WP:WEASEL) to make it appear neutral (WP:NPOV). These complaints are not new. The Talk archive is full of them.

What's worse is that you still haven't actually defended the criticism. You've not argued once that the criticism was accurate. You haven't even argued it wasn't against Wiki policies. Instead you say others are hiding behind them? If others are simply hiding behind them, shouldn't you be able to make the case that criticism is accurate? Wouldn't some one outside of Wiki have already made the argument for you (like in the case of the IP Democracy criticism or the search performance criticism or the political discussion criticism)?

If I really just wanted to remove criticism, I would have removed them. I wouldn't have argued for some criticism to stay, I wouldn't have tried to improve other sections of the article while leaving criticism in while it was being debated, I would have just swept in and done countless reversion like you have. And making lots and lots of personal accusations about my "agenda" only makes us wonder quite what yours must be, since you seem to be bent on keeping baseless criticism of Ars intact without regard for what Wikipeida is (WP:WIN) or how it is supposed to work (WP:GF). But I suppose Wikipedia is also hiding behind policy?

By all means, request mediation. And, just for note, the rest of us all have jobs, families, social lives, etc. Insinuating that we must not because we deign to keep up with a few Wiki articles is needlessly insulting. Debuskjt 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And I've requested mediation. Debuskjt 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not the official mediator, but I will try to help. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. Please be patient. It does take some people some time to respond, and mediation will likely take weeks anyway. --Ideogram 03:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be trying to mediate this issue. First, I'd like to clear things up a bit. Of course I've read the enormous statements by the anonymous user 216.227.x.x and Tsetna, but they are too big to begin a mediation with. So, please, list all contested criticisms below and your reasons for maintaining/removing it so we can begin. fetofs ^Hello! 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The contested criticisms are Criticisms A, B, C, and D. That’s shorthand so it easier to refer to them in passing. My reasons for removing are documented there. Tsetna 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now, let's wait for the other side of the dispute. fetofs ^Hello! 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll be hard if no one cooperates. I'm afraid I'll have to close this case if nobody answers. fetofs ^Hello! 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest asking for the article to be semi-protected to encourage the anons to discuss? --Ideogram 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the activity of this article makes any kind of request for protection likely to be denied. fetofs ^Hello! 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one of the users who insist on reverting is anonymous, two or three others are registered. Today the article was reverted by a registered user who refuses to participate. My vote would be to give it a few more days. 216.227.x.x may be sick or on vacation? Tsetna 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The other two were recruited by the anon. I have left messages on their talk pages. --Ideogram 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am back. I apologize for my lack of attention lately, as I have a backlog of work (self-employed). Regarding the criticisms, I have enough time while choking down lunch here to address one of them: The site has always covered political topics [1], but some readers have expressed dissatisfaction at a perceived increase in political content, particularly of a scientific nature. This is common in topics dealing with evolution (Ars is very pro-evolutionary theory)[2], climate change (Ars accepts that it is happening) [3], and other topics like Terry Schiavo[4].. [19] [20] [21]. I don't actually see where the disagreement is on this one. Modification of this criticism was heavy for a while, then seemed to settle on this version for a bit. Now it is being stripped down. Having read Ars for a long time, I have seen these topics above being posted on. I am aware that my anecdote to that effect is not a citation. But citations are provided in the article. Note that there is a place on Ars to let off steam or discuss inflammatory political issues(Soap box), but these were on the front page, thus dragging political arguments into News. I believe that the original crit, or at least a revision of it, mentioned the increase as being on the front page, not the site in general. I will try to come back later and look for a response.--216.227.122.185 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This criticism was never settled upon. At times certain people have agreed to stop reversions to focus on other areas of the article (like improving the actual article content), but the debate about it has been hot and heavy on talk since day one. The main problem, for me, are that the links aren't saying the same thing that the criticism is saying. Yes, the first link is to a politically-motivated article from late 2001, but Hannibal isn't saying that Ars covers political topics, nor does it prove that Ars always has (though I'm assuming it's supposed to stand as evidence as such). And it isn't just political... it is a political issue that deals directly with technology.

In the second link, PcTech doesn't lament the amount of political coverage, either--just the "pack" mentality inherent in debate. He then accuses Ars of "stacking the cards" against Intelligent Design as a science, which is the only criticism of Ars proper he makes. That's a pretty strange case to make, though, since, from a scientific standpoint, ID doesn't fit the definition and is an extreme minority view amongst biologists, and not just a minority view at Ars. PcTech never, ever, says that he is dissatisfied with the political content.

The same thing happens again with gregorach. He never says that he is dissatisifed with the level of political content on Ars, but that he is "dissappointed with the coverage of this research, both here at Ars and pretty much everywhere else." His problem is with the presses interpretation of scientific data, and has nothing to do with the fact that it is "political content." He doesn't even indicate he is at odds with the science behind the research.

Link number three... once again... just links to an article on Ars about Terry Schiavo. Though for the first time it does acknowledge political content on Ars ("In the proud tradition of Ars, we'd like to encourage some intelligent discussion on this matter by trying to do what so many in the media have failed to do, which is actually talk about the case, rather than the circus surrounding it."), there's no indication that anyone is particularly upset about it. Ars went on to discuss in length the medicine behind Schiavo's condition and then asked readers to post their opinions. No complaints about the political content.

So after all those links (I couldn't find the URLs for 19, 20, and 21), you really only have enough to say "Ars Technica posts front page news stories on political topics." Well? So what? And why does it matter that these debates were in the "News" forum? The News forum is for discussion of anything on the Ars front page. That is where the cited discussion belonged. Debuskjt 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're here anon! Can you please provide a link where it specifically says that political issues are being discussed? fetofs ^Hello! 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This criticism represents 216.227.x.x’s personal opinion[5] of what a website should cover. Is that really notable? No, it’s not (no offense). My personal opinion is that Ars covers Apple too much, but I would not say it merits mention in an encyclopedia. Also as Debuskjt said already, the links do not match the criticism anyway. Since 216.227.x.x raised the issue of this criticism, my vote is to remove it. For the record a previous version of this criticism can be seen along with its refutation here [6]. The link has nothing to do with the criticism again (recurring theme). Tsetna 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a case can be made for the criticism in its current form: "Political topics are common, and some readers have expressed dissatisfaction at the levels of political content." Though I think it would be better put as, "Although political topics are common, some readers have expressed dissatisfaction at the levels of political content." It just needs to be properly cited. Maybe with [7] and [8]. Debuskjt

[39] If this viewpoint is notable, should it not have a notable, reliable and reputable source to establish it? Tsetna 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Does your comment assert that you agree with the criticism? If so, could the other side (the anon) tell what do they think of Tsetna's rephrasing? fetofs ^Hello! 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoopsie, it looks like there is some confusion. Debuskjt forgot to sign his comment, and when I replied right under him, it looked as though I wrote what he wrote. I should have added his signature (I have done this now). So it’s Debuskjt’s rephrasing in question here. I should say that this “political” criticism was not under debate at the time mediation was requested, has not been removed, and not part of the section of criticisms that we were proposing to remove then remove. We can discuss it, sure, but it’s not what brought about the mediation, and I’d like the record to show that. Tsetna 14:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Well, as you didn't list that criticism, I suppose we could go forward. fetofs ^Hello! 00:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

18 days passed and not a single rebuttal of A, B, C or D’s removal. History repeats itself as good faith efforts to discuss this are ignored in favor of edit warring. Since this mediation began, a few users who have not participated in the discussion have reverted the article, and from what I have read about suspicious sock puppet behavior, some of them fit the bill. This revert [9] was done by Gallifr3y who registered today and immediately reverted the article. Another user, Tatsuma, registered yesterday and immediately reverted the article [10], then reverted again [11]. Both are new users in the same 24 hour period, both are reverting to an older contested version of the article. Neither account is participating in the discussion. This revert [12] was done by El jefe04, who has reverted the article a few times recently [13]. Tsetna 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't do nothing to help. My role is, strictly, to mediate a dispute between two opposing groups, and I don't think I can do that here as mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part. I'm not quite sure what step of dispute resolution you can try here... fetofs ^Hello! 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? You're saying you can't mediate because the other side is being a bunch of assholes and refusing to come to the table? So any Wikipedia entry must therefore be subject to the whims of anonymous pranksters who refuse to partake in any kind of rational discussion? What kind of bullshit is this? User: Jeremy Reimer

"You're saying you can't mediate because the other side is being a bunch of assholes and refusing to come to the table?" Try to do it yourself, then! You'll see it's fairly impossible. fetofs ^Hello! 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation requires that both sides be willing to compromise in some fashion. The anon originally seemed like he may be willing to at least discuss the issue, but once mediation began he made one attempt to discuss criticism not under debate (and still contained in the article), and then dropped away. AFAIK, no one has tried to address the violations of Wiki policy in some of the criticism. Since then, a lot of single purpose accounts have been reverting the article without discussion, but that's not Fetofs fault. There are avenues other than mediation. Since consensus is unlikely, we can conduct a survey or solicit outside opinion. As a last resort we can request arbitration. But since the reverting is now limited to a handful of accounts every week or so that has done very little on Wiki besides revert this one article (Tatsuma, El jefe04, Gallifr3y), vigilance is probably the best solution (or maybe filing a report for possible sockpuppeting, but I've no idea who the sockpuppeteer could be). Debuskjt 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, they're not sockpuppets because the anon wasn't registered, but if you get to reporting sockpuppet abuse, you can say they're sockpuppets of each other. fetofs ^Hello! 11:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can add Maramba to that list. Four users who revert articles, show signs of knowing the ongoing debates, and have no substantial contributions to WP other than reverting this article... it is prettty obivous what is going on. Tsetna 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Content Requests

Here's a section not related to the ongoing debates. I would like to know more information about the founders of Ars, and why they founded it. Hannibal, in particular, seems to know an awful lot about chips, but I've gathered he's a classics or ancient history scholar or something like that. What's up with that? Yesno 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both of the co-founders are big into history. I think Hannibal is working towards a Ph.D in early Christian history at the University of Chicago. He's also written a book on CPU architecture: Inside the Machine: A Practical Introduction to Microprocessors and Computer Architecture. Beyond that, I don't really know enough about Caesar or Hannibal to actually add anything to the Ars article. Debuskjt 03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)