Talk:Xeni Jardin/Archive 4

message: I just added this:
In August 2005, Jardin broke the news of a Wikipedia hoax regarding Boy*d Upp and Jamie Kane Jardin, Xeni (August 13, 2005) BB punks Wikipedia in game marketing ploy?<ref> <ref name=Wikipedia>O'Neill, Rob (August 27, 2005). Wikipedia worries. The Age.
Is this non-notable or too self-referential? Jokestress 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it along with the page about her experiences about zero gravity. As I said in the edit, this is not Google and we don't include every article written. If that were the case then some journalists would have pages and pages of links.--Gerardm 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm basically with you on the Jamie Kane thing, but the Zero Gravity seems like a pretty notable thing. Originally, it said "innaugural flight," but I couldn't confirm that in a published source yet. Jokestress 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia incident 

message: Just a note for later. According to the LAT profile: "When Jardin was 8 or 9, [her father] developed Lou Gehrig's disease. He died a few weeks after Jardin's 10th birthday." SSDI gives his death as August 1980, which would put her birthdate at 1970, not 1972.  Jokestress 08:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancy- LA Times 

message: The criticism section should probably include something about the removal of the QuickTopic reader comment feature in September 2003, but we need to link it to this article. It seems that it was removed in part because of comments about Ms. Jardin, but we need some good citations, preferably quotations from Boing Boing editors. Previously, Ms. Jardin had written a testimonial for QuickTopic:
:QuickTopic is an indispensable part of every blog project I've been part of, from BoingBoing to kevinsites.net. The ease-of-use for both administrators and audience is unparalleled. Half of what makes a great blog great is what the blogger has to say. The other half? What the audience has to say. QuickTopic rules my blogosphere. 
On the NewsHour citation I added yesterday, she said:
:Well, it's not something that's unique to The Washington Post or even newspapers. Other blogs, other Web sites that allow anonymous comments, it's just a problem that crops up when a really hot issue is being discussed or when the site starts to get really a lot of traffic.
:Part of the issue here is that when people are able to comment anonymously, I mean, we all believe in the importance of free and anonymous and protected speech on the Internet. But it seems that when people are able to sort of fling mud without having to be attached to any kind of identity online or otherwise, things can get out of hand very quickly. So it's definitely a crisis that happens commonly on the Internet. 
:Well, I know that the weblog that I co-edit, Boing Boing, I we had to shut down a comment system because it wasn't set up in a smart way. I think this really is a technology issue more than it is an issue of any one publication.
:Definitely systems that require registration are helpful but really one smart thing is for newspapers to tap into the energy of their readership. If people are excited enough to congregate online and comment about your stuff, sometimes readers can be encouraged to kind of govern the comment section themselves.
:Sites like Metafilter and Slash Dot, you'll see some interesting kind of self-policing, self-organizing happening among the people who frequent those forums. 
I recommend adding the comments in bold as part of a bullet on QuickTopic and their removal of the feature. Thoughts?  Jokestress 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments in bold make it seem like this is not an issue relevent to Jardin's biography page. Instead it would be more relevent to BoingBoing's page. There have been references above and on some of the criticism links saying the the removal was due to someone mimicing Jardin successfully, but I haven't seen anything that meets your criteria for 'notable' evidence. If the removal was directly related to jardin then it may belong. Dstanfor 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems like a good assessment. I wish there were some better sources (Wired, or at least /.), because there's a pretty good amount of circumstantial evidence it was related to spoofing and abuse (some of which was directed at Ms. Jardin). I'll add it to the Boing Boing page later. Jokestress 21:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Dstanfor's comment.  This is a Boing Boing related issue. Glowimperial 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QuickTopic feature removal 

message: Since she's known for journalism, I tightened up the pre-journalism work stuff, which is all detailed in the references. We should examine some of the stories she has covered though. The Zero Gravity flight report seems notable (it included other notable people), but there was a question from another editor. Thoughts? Jokestress 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, here is the article, which was already listed on the Zero Gravity page by someone a while ago as a reference. Jokestress 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tightening up and adding notable stories

message: This was removed earlier today:
:She received a scholarship to the San Francisco Art Institute, where she studied for a year. While in San Francisco, she met Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam, whom she considers her mentor, and traveled with him to Mexico and Guatemala. In the mid-1990s, she took journalism courses at San Diego State University .
This seems relevant, does it not? It's all from the LA Times. Jokestress 05:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does she do art? Does a journalism course(s) vs a journalism degree have relevence? is it notable? I don't think Dr. Q is notable since the only time he comes up is in reference to Xeni. Dstanfor 14:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems at least as relevant as the travel agency job. It helps show how she ended up in SF and early influences. Jokestress 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really think the travel agency job is relevent either. It would be relevent that she currently lives in SF. Without anything to relate her early influences to ( And that's why she does blah-de-blah) they seem unnecessary. And its odd with an unusual name like Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam that the only time he shows up on google is in regards to xeni. It's probably still worth mentioning that "Xeni considers Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam her mentor". Dstanfor 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: I saw a WP:RFC and responded to this in good faith as a disinterested party, as have some other editors. However, such comments have been swamped by responses from involved editors, in particular the editor who made the RfC in the first place. I regard this as quite inappropriate. It does not show respect for the spirit of RfC nor the attempt by outside editors to help resolve this conflict. This section has been opened for outside editors only, i.e. editors who have not worked on this article, by whatever name, nor are connected personally to the subject of the article. I suggest that at this stage involved editors refrain from reacting to outside comments in order to demonstrate they are capable of restraint and are willing to take advice, and accept community consensus, even if that goes against them. If involved editors wish to communicate with me on my talk page, please do so (but keep it short). I propose no comments on this talk page for 5 days by involved editors to give the RfC a chance, and then see where things stand at the end of that time.Tyrenius 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In reading the article, I see that the featured critics are (a) not notable, (b) not significant, and (b) they are just people that don't particularly like this person's journalistic style. I would remove this section altogether. Had the criticism been reported in mainstream media, that would have been a different situation. I would invite involved editors to read Bioagraphies of living people: Opinions of critics, opponents and detractors for some useful related guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments - for outside editors only

message: I think a big problem with this article is that it is too short, so that any criticism section appears disproportionate. I have set up a temporary sub page Xeni Jardin (notes) to try to build up more information to enlarge the article. All editors are invited to contribute to this. It is not an article, but simply material which can be used as a resource. Interested editors are requested to familiarise themselves with the guidelines on Biographies of living persons. Please contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss this. Thanks. Tyrenius 06:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to all editors for more material

message: Jimbo says:
"A wrote:
1. Is a '____sucks.com' blog a notable or reliable source?
Usually not.  In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog,
into wikipedia as "critics say..."
2. If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?
Absolutely.  The distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki (or on-project and off-project) behavior is one we should be careful about, but in general, the standard is not some rationalistic nonsense but rather simple good judgment about when someone is behaving badly and disrupting our work or not.
3. Are 'criticism' sections valid in general, or do they just become a repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?
Often they are necessary and important, I think.  But they are also a magnet for trolls.
4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources? What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?
Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail.  What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough.
5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this kind of criticism in their biographies?
WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy." WAS 4.250 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: Those that want the full context of the above and other responses should go to Mailing list and scroll to, or search for, "Criticism sections on bios of living people". It shows a range of views on some of the pertinent issues and the best statement I can find in it is "Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail." I should state that I have no intention of getting involved in the issue of offsite attacks and want to focus on getting consensus for the article, although I think at this stage it is obviously not in any editor's interest to be seen to be identified with such attacks. Let's draw a line under the past.Tyrenius 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full context

message: Do not alter the text in this section, as it is a record of a debate copied from a user talk page, not an ongoing discussion.
I have created a sub-page in my user space with a proposal to deal with the conflict. This is based on my understanding of Wiki guidelines, and how I feel the issues would be viewed by the wider community. You are invited to look at it on Xeni Jardin - towards consensus. Thanks. Tyrenius 05:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards consensus

message: Editors who are prepared to accept the above points in order to reach a consensus are invited to sign their names below. If you do not agree, then please communicate with me on my talk page about it, not on this page. This page is for consensus! Thanks. Tyrenius 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreement

message: *Original text of consensus proposal + some extra talk following it
*The background talk leading to consensus proposal and agreements as above
*User:Tyrenius/Xeni Jardin (notes) Some material for the Xeni Jardin article.
Tyrenius 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links relevant to the above

message: Please do not add to the "Towards consensus" section above as it is a record of a debate that has taken place and is copied from my talk pages. To add to it now gives the impression of comments made during the debate, whereas any comments now are made after that debate and after editors of different views have reached a consensus, despite their differences, in order to enable the proper editing of this article (i.e. adding content) to take place. This consensus should not be taken lightly, and anyone disagreeing with the consensus should seek a new consensus before editing against the agreement it contains.
The following is a comment on it, after it had been reached. It was added into the text below this text:*Accept, with the following provision: that the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink. The link is to the NYTimes... and that its inclusion at all is subject to review at a later date. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ludicrous. The only reason to do that would be to make it more difficult for someone to navigate to the site. Last time I checked the web was supposed to make information gathering easier not harder.--Gerardm 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but this whole "Towards consensus" stuff is ridiculous, I have no clue what it is based on and you are saying you don't accept disagreement except directly though you, great way to make it appear that consensus exists even when people disagrees. I completely disagree, and others have pointed elsewhere in this page they don't agree either, and I hope more editors will also publicly express their disagreement. Lost Goblin 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the editors involved in the consensus discussion were completely happy. We all compromised in some way (for example: I still maintain that the contents of the section were entirely unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Yet we all signed our names to a compromise in order to get the page unprotected and make some progress, and we've all subsequently demonstrated good faith by sticking to it. - Motor (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Towards consensus" later comments

message: Sorry, I've had connection problems for the last 2 days, but I'm back now. I would first of all like to express my appreciation for the exceptional efforts made by all parties to reach a consensus, and I acknowledge this has meant accepting for the time being aspects that you may not entirely agree with and putting aside personal will to consider a bigger wiki interest—namely that co-operation with editors of conflicting views is a fundamental necessity of a collaborative project. I would also like to stress that nothing is set in stone forever, but that the main aim is to refocus on the purpose of the article, namely a biography of a person's life, and sourcing sound content for this. The consensus is that the article should be a minimum of three times its current length with neutral factual material before the issue of critical content is looked at again, and for the time being critical content will not be added.
I suggest that if and when that time comes, there is discussion first before posting such content (or deleting such content) and that if consensus cannot be reached on the talk page, then outside feedback is obtained, perhaps through a straw poll. The priority is to avoid getting bogged down again in irreconcilable entrenched positions.
I have left a note on the talk page of Deskana, the admin who protected the page. I have put forward the consensus with a request to remove the protection. Obviously if this is done, it will create a potentially dangerous situation, when new or anon editors may seek to thwart the consensus. I would like to make a special request to those who have agreed to it, to make sure that it is upheld. This is obviously a matter of integrity, and it would be the best procedure if editors were to revert any such edits which are in their favour, but which transgress the consensus. It should of course not be assumed that any such edits are necessarily malicious (AGF).
Should any editors disagree with this consensus, they should take the appropiate steps to attain a new and different consensus, before acting against it. 
Tyrenius 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not as worried as you are, Tyrenius, about new or anon editors causing problems.  Historically, IP editors here have respected the consensus, even in the Xeni Jardin page.  The problems that led to the edit war and 3RR has revolved largely around new editors, with accounts and names, however, they have all now joined the new consensus, with its weird red lines and all.  I think total unprotection is probably fine now. - 66.92.73.52 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I have not, and will not sign the consensus.  I will respect it.  I have two reasons for not signing it, one sort of good, the other bad.  The sort of good one is that I think in order to reach consensus, silly compromises were made with respect to the microfine distinction between including an address of a web site, that when pasted into a web browser, instructs the website to show you that site, and providing a clickable link, that when clicked on, does the same.  The bad reason is probably mere grumpiness about the vague attacks some editors have made against IP editors, and our motives.  The tempest in the teapot about this article is just bizzare, as I'm sure everyone here agrees. - 66.92.73.52 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So just to make sure this is clear, the article can say 'Xenisucks.com' but can't say 'XeniSucks.com' ? Dstanfor 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope that is not the case, that would be completely ridiculous. Lost Goblin 16:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus next step