Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 156
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | → | Archive 160 |
Talk:Phys.org#Edits today
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Jytdog (talk · contribs)
- 83.54.140.34 (talk · contribs) who has created the account Naesco (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This discussion involves edits of 3 articles: ScienceDaily, Phys.org and Eurekalert. Jytdog has placed several references to churnalism, and removed all other content, that he claimed to be SPS. Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement makes these articles biased and non-neutral. He cites only blogs sites that discuss churnalism, making the whole articles opinion-based, rather than fact based. Not to mention that these are the blogs where science journalists from rivalry websites discuss influence of churnalism on science journalism (COI?)
He rejects any edits with links to WP:ABOUTSELF even if they make sense, or even with links to externals sites with whois data, traffic stats etc.
I have requested a 3O, that agreed that these articles should be written in more neutral style. Jytdog has rejected that as well. Somehow ScienceDaily has not been reverted (may be yet) - and I believe it is now written in a neutral way.
Jytdog has said and I quote here: "phys.org, sciencedaily,etc ...that useless and pernicious".Redacted by volunteer.I suggest that an independent editor reviews these articles.
Redacted by volunteer
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Third opinion was requested, but ignored by jytdog
How do you think we can help?
Re-write ScienceDaily and Phys.org in neutral non-biased style. Churnalism should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be the only information. Remove churnalism claim from Eureaklert section; it is false and it is not even supported by the references.
Summary of dispute by 83.54.140.34
- I've added myself to the Users involved. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note to moderator: This dispute is between jytdog and myself. The above mentioned users haven't contributed anything valuable to the discussion. Alexbrn have only reverted the page (without contributing anything to its content) for a plain "I don't agree" reason. The Quixotic Potato did the same for a made-up reason (I explained that on the Talk page). I suspect that both have simply acted on behalf of Jytdog, so that he could not be blamed for Edit Warring. PaleoNeonate have only once commented on my Wikipediocracy reference that blamed Jytdog and Alexbrn working in tandem. Mark Marathon provided a requested 3O who backed up my point, but was ignored. This was my reasoning for not including any of these editors into the dispute. If you believe I should still include them, please let me know. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary: First of all, I apologize for the attack on the editors. These are my comments on the content. There are 3 almost identical edits (rev,rev,rev) of 3 articles referring to the same sources. If I'm obliged to tackle a lone article of phys.org in this dispute, so be it. However, in the context of the discussion, it is absolutely necessary to describe the other pages to address the "similarity" statement. My initial suggestion: make lead sentences according to WP:NPOV -- describe things the way independent reliable sources describe them, namely:
- Eurekalert: nowhere in the secondary sources[1][2] it is accused of churnalism or described as '... generating churnalism, similar to...'. Shipman[1][3] describes it as press release distribution site and bulletin board for PRs, Angler[2] as news service ... that organize news into categories. This is also supported by [4] [5].
- Science_Daily: Shipman[1] doen't talk about churnalism on ScienceDaily. Angler[2] describes it as press releases news service (page 44). There are sources that describe ScienceDaily as 'science news website'[6][7][8] and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism. [4][5][9]
- Phys.org - Shipman[1] describes it as large news aggregator (page 24) and science news website ... that practice churnalism .... where much of content is directly from press releases (page 42). 'Much of content' is not all of the content, which requires further clarification. This ref[10] describes it as summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles, and staff written stories are reported by Livescience, Sciencemag, space.com, CNN, IEEE Spectrum (1,2),The Guardian etc (3, 4, 5, 6). Again, there are sources that describe it as 'science news website'[7][8] and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism.[4][5][9].
My IP has changes, from now on I'll comment under new user name. Naesco (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Question to moderator: is the dispute in progress already, so we can discuss the quality of each individual ref? I didn't do it in the summary of the dispute as I needed to keep it short. Otherwise, I can add it to the summary now. I just want to avoid cherry picking when some blogs are WP:RS and some are not. And shall I open separate disputes for other 2 articles or can we discuss it within this one, because the refs are the same? Naesco (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary on refs: Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi who is an established science journalist with the proven track record -- she wrote for Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. Not to mention that it is the most up-to-date ref (2017). So please no card stacking. I may agree that [8] might have a COI because they are a PR service. The same is valid for [5] and [9] -- according to WP:RS both refs have COI on 2 points out of 3 -- authors are paid by competitor websites, articles are published on the same websites (imagine a blog on Apple.com would criticize Microsoft). Ref [3] is clearly a WP:RS/SPS.
All in all, however, I am not suggesting to exclude any of these references, but instead strictly adhere to WP:NPOV guideline: ensure all majority and significant minority views ... are covered.
I want to make one thing clear: I do not want to revert back to my earlier edit, I agree that it was not properly sourced and SPS (WP:BITE). This is my suggestion for the lead sentence (in full accordance to WP:NPOV - describe things the way WP:RS describe them). It is practically a word by word quote from our most reliable and independent source [1]:
- Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news website, that practices churnalism, where much of content is directly from press releases [1]. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [10].
Can we agree on that? Naesco (talk)
- Question to the moderator: What are the exact criteria from WP:RS that ref. [7] does not meet? It is not clear from your comment, so I would like to clarify. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e Shipman, W. Matthew (2015). Handbook for Science Public Information Officers. University of Chicago Press. p. 42. ISBN 9780226179469.
- ^ a b c Angler, Martin W (2017). Science Journalism: An Introduction. p. 44. ISBN 9781317369813.
- ^ Shipman, Matt (16 April 2014). "The News Release Is Dead, Long Live the News Release". Science Communication Breakdown.
- ^ a b c Timmer, John (23 September 2009). "PR or science journalism? It's getting harder to tell". Ars Technica.
- ^ a b c Choi, Charles Q. (January 24, 2012). "From the Writer s Desk: The Dangers of Press Releases". Scientific American Blog Network.
- ^ "The Best Websites for Expanding Your Scientific Knowledge". howtogeek.com.
- ^ a b "How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True". lifehacker.
- ^ a b "What Are the Best Websites for Science News? We Have Your List". cglife.com.
- ^ a b Yong, Ed (11 January 2010). "Adapting to the new ecosystem of science journalism". National Geographic Phenomena.
- ^ a b "Scientists Should Talk Directly to the Public". Scientific American.
Summary #3: I want to address several key points of this discussion, that we can't agree on.
1. Content: press releases or something else? Obvious choice and commons sense suggests using WP:ABOUTSELF. If I simply browse through the latest headlines (yes, I'm aware of WP:NOR, I'll address it shortly), there are indeed plenty of articles adopted from press releases. But at the same time, there are stories credited to Associated Press, AFP. On top of that, there are reports, that are indeed short summaries of articles from peer-review journals. Since WP:OR is not accepted, these are references from WP:RS: Treehugger, Usatoday, The Register. They report on a stories from "AFP/AP via Phys.org". It's not difficult to find plenty of such links online. As for the staff-written reports, I've already shown in my first summary refs from CNN, livescience, sciencemag etc that quote reports from Phys.org. In addition, this one is from BBC (!) quoting a "report from science news website Phys.org". Those reports are original staff-written summaries, these are not press releases [so many respected news outlets cannot not be mistaken]. My point here is that both statements: Phys.org publishes only press releases" and "Phys.org publishes only staff written content" are incorrect. Based on all the refs here, can we agree that this statement about the content is true "Phys.org publishes press releases, news articles from various media agencies, and self-written summaries on science articles"?
2. News website or PR services? BBC and others clearly describe it as a "news website". Shipman describes it as a "science news website". I don't see any WP:RS that state the opposite. This again rises a question about WP:NPOV. It does not matter what one thinks about this subject, what WP:RS say matters. I personally think that a 'news aggregator' [1] is the most appropriate description. I understand the churnalism criticism -- it's totally relevant -- but it mostly relates to the nature of the origin of the content. However, the content itself is news. The same way The Onion is described as a "news satire organization" and The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) as "a tabloid newspaper". News journalism has many genres (blogging, analytics, opinion, citizen, etc.), and churnalism is one of the forms of journalism. So we should not mix two different concepts. Can we agree on the point that, based on all WP:RS, Phys.org's content is news and its genre is, in big part, churnalism?
3. If we are to summarize all WP:RS from above we should describe it as something like this:
Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news aggregator, that publishes press releases from research organizations, stories from news agencies, such as AP, AFP, and summaries on peer-reviewed science articles. Phys.org practices churnalism as much of its content is directly from press releases.
Alternatively, we may quote the WP:RS as is, as I proposed earlier. Anything else will not be WP:NPOV. Naesco (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric:: I understand your point. Thank you for proposing a new lead, I do believe it now starts to sound more NPOV, and we're moving forward in this dispute. To fully reflect on all RS collected, I suggest slightly modifying the 2nd part of the proposed description -- I'm not sure whether any RS quotes '... sometimes slightly edited' or describes the degree of editing:
- Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic British science, research and technology news aggregator website. It mostly republishes press releases and stories from news agencies, such as Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, etc. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.
- Naesco (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- 'Science journalists writing about science journalism' - am I the only one who sees the potential COI here (the same as it was for [8])? Anyway, regarding ref [7] : it clearly says : Phys.Org is primarily a news site, but they’ve dedicated plenty of articles to debunking popular rumors.... And jytdog just proved that point: there are articles about debunking - some are from press releases, some are not. Actually his second link is republished from The Conversion - it is not a press release. These are 'debunking' stories from AP, AFP, Universe Today, Physorg own reports, etc, etc, etc. Again, that just proves my point -- there are press releases, stories from news agencies and staff written content. The ref [7] describes the site exactly as it is -- ' primarily a news site'. And I don't think that any ref that says something positive is by definition 'promotional'. (And every ref that criticizes should be taken as a golden example. All authors describe their own opinion. Some references are clearly incorrect about describing the site. For example, they say that Phys.org only distributes press releases. But there are enough references that prove there are other content sources. So we should not blindly rely on them). Moreover, debunking or not - it has nothing to do with the proposed lead. It only distracts us from a constructive building of a good Wikipedia article about the site. Should we focus on writing a good lead?
- Word 'British' is based on WP:ABOUTSELF: the company is registered in the Isle of Man. Last statement is from ref [10]. I don't think that talking to the authors behind the scenes and interpreting answers should be taken as an argument, it's more a psychological warfare. If it 'has zero value here' why bother and present it here? And cross examination would be beyond the scope of this dispute.
- PS. OK, we all clearly understand that jytdog doesn't like the website, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. A lot of emotions about the website design are counterproductive. A person with this attitude shouldn't write a WP article in the first place. Again, let's focus on writing an NPOV article here. Naesco (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- In general, I think the latest Jytdog's proposal is pretty good. However, I suggest to cite as closely as possible to the sources, as proposed by the moderator. For example, words 'occasionally publishes' are not from ref [7]. On the opposite, the website seems to publish several per day. I would like to propose the following summary. It is very close to what Jytdog has proposed today, but applies almost direct wording from the references:
- Phys.org is a British [ref] science, research and technology news agregator [1 page 24], [7], where much of content is directly from press releases and news agencies, a practice known as churnalism [1 page 42], [3],[4],[5]. It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [10], [ref],[ref]. In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health [ref].
- I don't fully agree with the 2nd part about similarity with ScienceDaily and Eurekalert, but I'm not addressing it here. I've already pointed that out in my first summary. This needs to be discussed separately once we're done with the 1st paragraph. Otherwise, the discussion may get side-tracked. Naesco (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Have you seen my version (it looks like our posts have crossed)? Please review it. I don't think your latest version is in agreement with your earlier statement to cite 'as closely as possible' to the sources, especially the 2nd sentence. It also looks like there is some opposition from Jytdog to use words 'science news website', so I propose 'news agregator' as stated by Shipman in his book [1], page 24. "Much of content is directly..." and "summaries on peer-reviewed articles..." are also direct quotes from the sources. In general we are all on the same page about the 1st sentence, but I prefer the Jytdog's wording. Naesco (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest to go sentence by sentence:
- It looks we all agree on the 1st one. Shall we consider it as settled?
- Although I agree in essence with the second sentence, I can't agree with the wording. This statement is fundamentally correct, but the wording "practices limited science journalism" does not explain anything to WP readers. This is generalization / interpretation of the fact that the site publishes "summaries on selected science papers". Ref. [10] description is factually correct, supported by what we've seen with all the examples by BBC, CNN, Science magazine, IEEE, etc (see above). Why are we excluding source 10? It is WP:RS and describes the things as they really are. This is one more ref that supports this statement: "...strive to publish peer reviewed science...". Moreover, words "occasionally/limited" are not supported by any source, and are vague and subjective (What's the exact percentage for something to be described as "limited"? How should "occasionally" be interpreted - once a year, once a month, once a day?) The word 'daily' would be more appropriate if we use ref WP:ABOUTSELF. So for the second sentence I propose something like: It also (daily ref?) publishes summaries (reports?) on selected science (peer-reviewed?) articles [7], [10], [ref] (, which is known as science journalism?). Naesco (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- update: Eurekalert is a paid press release distribution site (no editorial control, etc) similar to AlphaGalileo. It is like PRWeb or Business Wire for research organisations. It is not a news website, and it is clearly described by the sources as a PR distribution service, so comparison with it is incorrect. Comparison with ScienceDaly is in general correct, but only in terms of churnalism for republishing PRs. It is well supported by the references. But it doesn't look like that it runs its own science journalism. I'm not sure how we should handle this for the 2nd paragraph, but I believe it is not correct to simply say that both sites are similar. Maybe something like this: "ScienceDaily is similarly criticized for churnalism ..." Naesco (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree with 'post-doc wanna-be-science blogger'. Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi who is an established science journalist with the proven track record -- she wrote for Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. I've already commented on that. Ref [7], [10] supports my second statement. The link is the most recent (2017) and factually confirms all the report examples from CNN, BBC, IEEE, Science mag, many others. @Winged Blades of Godric: I agree with your last proposed modification. Naesco (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I found two more secondary sources to support the ref [10]: this one (page 27) describes Phys.org as publishing '.. accessible articles on recent developments..' and the second book (page 250) as '... science news and information site...' . Again, I think ref 10 describes the site journalistic part in the most accurate way, and it is also supported by other sources. I'm Ok with the proposed lead sentence, but it needs to be complemented by the other part that describes the science journalism as suggested by other sources. Otherwise it's not balanced and fully factual. Naesco (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree with 'post-doc wanna-be-science blogger'. Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi who is an established science journalist with the proven track record -- she wrote for Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. I've already commented on that. Ref [7], [10] supports my second statement. The link is the most recent (2017) and factually confirms all the report examples from CNN, BBC, IEEE, Science mag, many others. @Winged Blades of Godric: I agree with your last proposed modification. Naesco (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Request @Winged Blades of Godric:: I will be travelling for the next few days, and will not be able to respond at least till Monday. I kindly request to put the dispute on hold until then. Naesco (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric:: I'm waiting for your comment on ref [10] supported by two new sources from text books( one (page 27), two (page 250)) Naesco (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: The book is available via Google Books (you may scroll down up to page 45) (scan of page 27) Naesco (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Do we agree on the latest sentence supported by the new ref and refs [7] and [10]: It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines [ref], [7],[10] ? @Winged Blades of Godric: / @Godric on Leave: - Thanks a lot for your valuable time and efforts. I noticed that you had taken a wiki-break. Would it be better in this situation to delegate moderation of this dispute to other moderators? Naesco (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Godric on Leave: In general, I agree that "summaries on peer-review journals" is only sourced by ref [10]. This may be expressed in another, more general, way, which is supported by the ref [7] ("debunking stories") and the new ref ("accessible articles on several science disciplines"). But I disagree with the wording "limited/occasional". I've already showed tens of sources that cite phys.org stories, which seems to be widespread rather than limited. ABOUTSELF shows it's actually "daily". How do you suggest to source "limited", or should we completely omit the subjective opinion about the quantity that is not referenced anywhere? Naesco (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I cannot fully agree with the latest proposal, but since we reached the point when we need to stop the dispute, I propose that the last version is posted to the page, as it's better than the current one there. So I am OK with it. What's the procedure now for updating the page? Naesco (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jytdog phys.org
The content is dispute is simple. The IP prefers the old version of the page (diff for Science Daily, diff at Phys.org), each of which was promotional and dominated by content sourced from these websites themselves and had unsourced content, and misrepresented what they actually do. Both lightly edit press releases and republish them and do not state clearly that what they publish are press releases. Our articles now state this clearly. As I have said before, if the IP wants to propose an independently sourced alternative I am more than open to hearing that. Such a proposal has not been forthcoming, since their first comment on this matter here: User_talk:Jytdog#Churnalism (I trust that the DR volunteers will remove comments that are not about the content itself in the OP) Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- As I already pointed out at the article talk page, ref #8 is on the website of a company that sells PR services to biotech companies. Of course it thinks phys.org is great. Not independent by miles and miles. With regard to ref #10, Esther Ngumbi 's blog posting in Scientific American, this person is not a science journalist, but rather is a post-doc at Auburn, and the piece is naive with regard to phys.org as well as other aspects of science communication. The sources I originally brought are by well established scientist journalists. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am not OK with the second sentence of the proposed content. The source is weak. Fwiw I reached out to the author and asked her to read the refs in our article, and she said she regretted what she wrote but cannot change it. I realize that has zero value here. But I do not change my opposition to using a low quality ref to support a promotional claim.
- With regard to the 1st sentence, I struggle, mightlily, with referrring to phys.org as a "news site". It is not legitimate science journalism -- it is just part of the science PR machine and is not transparent about what it is doing.
- Folks have said that they feel that "churnalism" is jargony. I would accept something like "phys.org is a website that republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited". Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:Winged Blades of Godric my apologies for not replying.
- About ref #7, if "best by miles" means "most amenable to being used promotionally" then one can only agree.
- That is an interesting source. The ones that I have brought are by science journalists writing about science journalism. This is from someone who characterizes himself like this: "Alan Henry is a technology enthusiast. He’s a full-time geek, a technology and lifestyle writer in one life here and now, and a technical project manager in another, a long time ago. He writes, he herds cats, he games, he writes some more. He tweets, he plurks, he spends a little time liking things on Facebook, but that’s about it. He’s severely opinionated, which explains why he writes so much. He’s also a coffee snob, a little bit of a gourmet but not too good to not visit a food truck. He likes workspace mods, desk accessories, anime, music, gadgets and gear, and bunnies.", writing on "lifehacker" in a sassy, trying-to-draw eyeballs kind of way. So that is the context.
- Rather than writing from perspective of people who write about science, Henry writes from the perspective of the consumer of information, faced with a bewildering internet. In that context, I guess a press-release laden website is better than NaturalNews or Mercola. But really. This is not about science journalism, it is just another blog trying to catch eyeballs. (and yes he is good at that, which is surely why the NYT hired him for their digital strategy)
- It is really hard to find good refs that actually talk about phys.org in the context of actual science journalism and reporting. I probably spent about 4 hours to find the ones I did. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am sorry but "majorly" is not good English. What is the source for them being a) British, and b) publishing summaries of articles?
- Following the Lifehacker ref, I went to their site to look for "debunking" which is one thing that source says they do. (I just searched their site for "debunking".) In this first page I found two.
- Video: Should you pee on a jellyfish sting?. So what is that? A video from Youtube, with text apparently from the American Chemical Society. (one of things that is most irritating about phys.org, is that they put a link at the name where they credit the content they
steal republish from, but if you click on that, you don't actually leave their website. You end up at a brief description of the organization (lifted from Wikipedia, with a link to their Wikipedia article) and a list of other content from that organization that they republished. There you get a link to the organization, but not to the actual source they were republishing. They trap you. Great webdesign for making money - really terrible for helping anyone follow the story.) You have to kick out and google it, and if you do on that one, you find the original from ACS. There is no added value, content-wise, to what phys.org did there - and they didn't actually produce that. - Why urban legends are more powerful than ever, not really debunking, but OK maybe. Anyway, that is republished from the original. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Video: Should you pee on a jellyfish sting?. So what is that? A video from Youtube, with text apparently from the American Chemical Society. (one of things that is most irritating about phys.org, is that they put a link at the name where they credit the content they
- I have said nothing about site design. Don't know where that is coming from. I find the "COI" thing kind of bizarre - the IP/Neesco has been upset that phys.org is not given some kind of credit for being legitimate science news. Science journalists are the people who generate science news. Science journalists look at phys.org and say "that is not what we do". And now that is a COI? Good lord.
- Anyway, this is not a matter of "liking" anything. Phys.org is what it is is - is republishes stuff it gets from elsewhere, without making that clear. It is just science PR, not science news. This is what the best sources say about it. However we say this, is fine with me. I am not married to "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:Winged Blades of Godric - OK how about
Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism.[1][2][3][4][5] It occasionally publishes its own science journalism.[6] In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health.[7]
ScienceDaily is similar to it;[2][3] EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it only aggregates press releases and clearly labels them as such.[1][4]
References
- ^ a b Shipman, W. Matthew (2015). Handbook for Science Public Information Officers. University of Chicago Press. p. 42. ISBN 9780226179469.
- ^ a b Timmer, John (23 September 2009). "PR or science journalism? It's getting harder to tell". Ars Technica.
- ^ a b Yong, Ed (11 January 2010). "Adapting to the new ecosystem of science journalism". National Geographic Phenomena.
- ^ a b Choi, Charles Q. (January 24, 2012). "From the Writer s Desk: The Dangers of Press Releases". Scientific American Blog Network.
- ^ Shipman, Matt (16 April 2014). "The News Release Is Dead, Long Live the News Release". Science Communication Breakdown.
- ^ Henry, Alan (June 20, 2012). "How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True". Lifehacker.
- ^ "Press Release: PhysOrg.com Spins Off Medical News Channel to Create Medical Xpress". PhysOrg via PRWeb. December 15, 2011.
- I reject "british". I have no idea why neesco is leaning on that so hard, but none of the independent refs mention that and there is nothing particularly british about the site. They use american spelling, there is no ".uk" in the URLs, and the "contact" offers no physical office at all (similar to other dubious organizations). So no "british".
- I have compromised as far as i am willing and spent about as much time as i am willing.
- btw I have come to accept the distinction with EurekaDaily, which is honest that it republishes press releases - it is a press release aggregator. The thing that makes phys.org so toxic is that it that it hides that the fact these pieces are press releases. Even ScienceDaily has more integrity in that it generally says "press release" right at the top, when it passes them on.
- So i am actually going to push back from what i offered above and add Phys.org is a website that republishes press releases ,not labelled as such,and syndicated news pieces about scientific research and technology, a practice known as churnalism."
- And no we are not linking to phys.org's "feature" search section - this is spamming. And the BBC ref is just a passing mention to a "report" on phys.org.
- Again I have compromised with this PR effort as much as I am willing. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The "not labelled as such" is central to the definition of "churnalism" which i have compromised on, by moving to the end. One of the good sources, Ars, says "The coverage at Science Daily and PhysOrg is eerily similar, with many instances of identical phrasing, starting with the title itself. That's because both are using mildly edited versions of a press release made by the publisher, Cell Press, which was available via Eurekalert, an aggregator of science press releases. If others are presenting science press releases as news, why shouldn't the universities cut out the middleman?". (ref) And the ScientiicAmerican piece says "We also have press-release farms such as PhysOrg and ScienceDaily that seem to me to do little else but repackage press releases one can find on science press releases sites such as EurekAlert.." (ref) "not labelling them as such" = "presented as news" and "repackaging" from the sources. This is not "jamming down the throat of the reader", it is simply more clearly defining "churnalism". Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- with apologies i am not catching the "work around" with regard to ref 10 (which is the post-doc wanna-be-science blogger passing mention, that we already dismissed right?) as for mediabiasfactchecker - nothing at RSN. Looks like they just took the marketing blurb from phys.org and stick a "pro-science" label on the site. no value there; just a directory. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- with regard to ref 10, it is what it is. hopefully the person you talk with will see it for the naive wanna-be error that this passing mention to phys.org was. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can live with that last version. Thanks for your work on this! Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
IP seems to want to downplay the well-sourced churnalistic nature of these sites and big up on self-sourced and/or unreliably-sourced content. Our articles should be based on decent secondary sources, so I disagree with those ambitions. I too wonder if there is a COI aspect to this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Phys.org#Edits today discussion
General comments
Note to volunteer: there are many more than two editors involved in this, at least: me, The Quixotic Potato, PaleoNeonate and Mark Marathon. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It is generally a good idea to comment on content, not the contributor. Maybe even more so for IPs who end up at WP:DRN because other people disagree with them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the invitation to comment. I agree that my role in this dispute was only to remind the IP address editor 83.54.140.34 of WP:TINC. I have rarely read Wikipediocracy threads but I remember that the few I read did not portray a rational view of the particular scenarios involved and appeared to be rants by people who have issues with Wikipedia. I don't think it can be used to justify aspersions. It may even be best for Wikipedians to not care about it, it's preferable to discuss Wikipedia matters using on-Wiki public talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikipedia processes like this one for scrutiny. I had no initial intention to debate the content here, but I could perhaps participate by commenting on the various sources presented, if I'm invited to do it. My experience with source evaluation in this field is however limited. —PaleoNeonate - 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I more or less agree with Jytdog et al. I am too lazy to explain how Wikipedia should work to Yet Another IP With A COI (YAIWACOI). I would like to point out that I am not a fan of publishing statistics about the amount of visitors of websites on Wikipedia articles because they are often incorrect and misleading. Anyone who uses Google Analytics knows that a statement like "Website X received Y visitors in year Z" isn't useful information; you'll need a lot of other numbers to provide context (e.g. how long did they stay?). Interpreting those numbers isn't as easy as it may seem. The constant stream of ad hominems gets boring fast. Jytdog has tried to explain the situation in detail on the talkpage. On the internet republishing content made by others is a profitable business model (go ask Ray William Johnson if you do not believe me). Has the IP declared a COI? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer/moderator comments
- Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - This noticeboard isn't for a dispute between an editor and one other editor only; it is for disputes about the content of an article. If the filing party isn't interested in article content, only in the conduct of User:Jytdog, they are in the wrong place. Also, it isn't constructive to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and say that they are acting on behalf of another editor or that they have made-up reasons. Is this really one unregistered editor against the world? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note -
- Aspersions/attacks on editors have been redacted.Winged Blades Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- @IP editor:-- Can you please summarise the points of content dispute sans any reference to any editor?(In the form of:-- 1)Whether source XXX constitutes a rel. source. 2)Whether the word YYY(supported by a, b, c) can be mentioned in lead....)Winged Blades Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've updated the summary (under new username). Naesco (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- We are tackling a lone article here.Winged Blades Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn and Mark Marathon: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- @The Quixotic Potato and PaleoNeonate: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades Godric 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note--Thanks to everybody for your valuable comments!Will be shortly commenting!Winged Blades Godric 09:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note--I don't think LifeHacker,Howtogeek.com, blogs etc. to be constituting WP:RS and don't attach much value with other rel. sources referring to Phys.org as an evidence of it's non-churnalistic nature.Pinging Jytdog for his takes on Ref-8 and Ref-10.But the quality of the sources describing the site as churnalistic are superb!Am not commenting on websites rel. to other articles.Winged Blades Godric 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Yeah,you may post concise summary about the three sources I specifically opposed to, the two sources whose credibility were effectively questioned by Jytdog and about my second concern.No, first let's confine ourselves to this article only.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- responded with the second summary Naesco (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note--@Jytdog:--Thanks for your opinion!Winged Blades Godric 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Thanks!
- Volunteer note--
- WP:RS states:--
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
.So, I don't wholly concur on the treatment of [3]. - References [6] and [7] are discounted as they fail the stringency required to be a WP:RS in this regard.
- Reference [8] is discounted for having COI links.
- Jytdog is asked to counter(if he chooses to) the point raised by Naesco in defence of [10] and Naesco's description of [3].
- Reference [9] is a WP:RS by miles--written by credible journalists.
- Jytdog is asked to look at whether the compromisatory solution seems viable.Winged Blades Godric 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- WP:RS states:--
- @Naesco:--
Basically the source is some type of collective blog and I have strong doubts about credibility of the journalist.I will be double-vetting the reliability soon!Winged Blades Godric 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- FYI: The site itself is a part of Gizmodo Media Group, owned by Univision Communications, a global media company. Alan Henry is a professional writer and editor. Last years he served as an editor-in-chief of Lifehacker. He is now a senior digital strategist at The New York Times. He wrote for Ziff Davis (Extreme Tech, Geek.com, PC Mag) and Purch ( Tom’s Guide) websites. He is by miles the most reputable expert of any others represented here. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Naesco:--Geesh! I replied that w.r.t to [6].Err....Winged Blades Godric 17:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, ref [6] is not really applicable per rules set in this dispute, as it only discusses ScienceDaily and not Phys.org. I'm not sure how this dispute is supposed to proceed: am I allowed to comment on the latest Jytdog's arguments or should I wait for the moderator? Naesco (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment---Heartfelt regrets for the long delay.Got stuck IRL.Will be commenting soon!Winged Blades Godric 13:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog and Naesco:--How about something like:--
Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic science, research and technology website, that mostly republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited.
- Sources to be used acc.(after each phrase or so).Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment --- @Jytdog:--Your opinion/rebuttal (if any) is sought on Naesco's assertions about Ref-7(spec. to the point-- that it's the best source by miles).Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---Well, how's about
Phys.org is a majorly churnalistic
Britishscience, research and technology news aggregator website, that mostly republishes press releases.sometimes lightly editedIt also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed science articles.
- Sources to be used acc.
- Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--Leads are hardly so complex in structure and syntax.NPOV does not warrant inclusion of minor and major viewpoints with equal weight--in the lead.
- To reply you comment-wise:--
- 1)I agree to an extent.But in my opinion there can exist a much better way to include the point (that they publish summaries et al) with due credence to weight.
- 2)On some research, yeah churnalism is a form of journalism.Maybe utterly despicable but it is!
- 3)Disagree.See afore-proposed lead.Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- To reply you comment-wise:--
- Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:-Any comments?Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---Lead slightly edited.I personally have objections to mentioning press-agency names etc. in lead.(Keep it short!)Winged Blades Godric 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Now redundant
|
---|
|
*Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer/moderator comments (continued..)
- Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--My views tend to share a similarity with the opinion exppresed by Neasco throughout (except the presumed COI in case of science journalists) and esp. in the second point of his last post.I am asking Neasco to propose a new lead borrowing words as closely as posible from the sources, strictly adhering to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.--in lines of my last-proposed lead.Ref-a0 shall be omitted and Ref-7 may be used(I scanned the RSN about life-hacker and there seems to be a consensus that they are gen. reliable).I don't find major problems with the word British.Winged Blades Godric 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: short question - what do you mean by Ref-a0? is it ref 8? Thank you. Naesco (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)@Naesco:--Ref 10.Sorry for the delay!Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Thanks!Let's wait for Naesco to propose his/her preferred one.Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Another moderator-proposed lead
|
---|
Preferred lead--My preferred version (bordered on Jyt's version) goes as:--
|
- Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Without going into the 2nd paragraph, Naesco's proposed lead (esp. the 1st part) looks good.But I have doubts as to the sourcing of the second line.(I prefer the self-reference and the BBC piece be removed and the Lifehacker piece added.)Also, the second line shall preferably adheres to Jyt's version.(Despite me asking Naesco to adhere to the sources as closely as possible!)You may build on the version adding more references and fine-tuning the language.Any comments?Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---@Naesco:--V.good proposal!Ref 10 shall be excluded!Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Next Lead:--I would prefer something like:--
Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.It also practices limited science journalism.Life-hacker piece and another source In April 2011 Phys.org started the site Medical Xpress for its content about medicine and health. ScienceDaily is similar to it and EurekAlert! is somewhat different in that it self-describes as a churnalistic site.
- All other lines could be comfortably and un-controversially sourced!So, no mention of sources.Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The another source shall be a WP:RS which mention(s) phys.org non-trivially!Winged Blades Godric 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---Jytdog's arguments about removal of British are accepted.We are quite good to remove any mention of the nationality from the lead when the website-owner-organization are themselves not quite openly stating it and we have to resort to some synthesis.Further, the latest suggestion is particularly non-needful.We ain't waging a battle against Phys.org despite their dubious journalism and don't need to push something down the reader's throat.Winged Blades Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---I would also strongly suggest Naesco to bring another source(which was afore-seeked) within 36 hours, pending which we can make some slight changes(about the 2nd line) and ask the parties about their acceptance of the lead and proceed to close this accordingly.And Naesco the next post shall be only about such sources that you may have discovered and a concise one/two-paragraph statement about your proposed line(w.r.t to Science Daily and EurekaAlert) and reasons for opposing the current version .Winged Blades Godric 08:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---To make my points clear to both the sides:--
- 0)We are all good about the 1st sentence.
- 1)Regarding the BBC piece and the self-reference, I've already given my views that they are un-acceptable.Self-referencing in controversial cases are dis-allowed.BBC piece covers the site too non-trivially to be used to buckle the lead.
- 2) That leaves us with the LifeHacker source which is reliable.But, I am not comfortable with inserting a certain information in the lead on basis of only one RS that counters diametrically opposite info backed up by several other sources.Thus the need for at least another RS covering Phys.org non-trivially.
- 3)Ref-10 is interesting.I will be adding my points soon.I'm thinking of asking out some editor who regularly frequents these areas and have a know-how about the credibility of these sources?Winged Blades Godric 09:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- 4)I am quite uncomfortable with Jytdog's recently proposed phrase-addition for reasons described in my last comment.Winged Blades Godric 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment ---@Jytdog:--Any comments about my proposed work-around about Ref-10(It will be similar to as it happened in the revolving door case.)?And any comments about whether this passes WP:RS.I am skeptical.Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment---@Jytdog:-Sorry for not making myself clear.I am at cross-roads about Ref-10.Thus, my way-out was that (just like I asked Kudpung in the prev. IACA dispute as a 3O) I will ask someone who has long wiki-experience in these areas to comment on suitability of 10 as a reference.Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment---Echo Jytdog about mediabiasfactcheck.com.Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment---As an alternative, I'm comfortable with --
It shares many similarities with ScienceDaily and EurekAlert! in the sense that all of them practice heavy churnalism.<footnote>(EurekaAlert! though self-describes itself as a churnalistic site.)</footnote>
Also, it may be duly noted that we are not linking the trio up, the science-journalists are!Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC) - Volunteer comment---Naesco, do you agree with my last proposed modification.(The footnote portion will appear at the end of the article.)Anyway, I will be soon asking about Ref-10.Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment---@Naesco:--The problem with Prospects in Nanotechnology is it's trivial covg. about the subject in disc.Connecting across discliplines looks good to be sourced to but I can't access the book to make a definitive comment.(And none of the libraries I subscribe to, does have a copy:))Now, coming to source 10, I tried to contact two persons on-wiki (both of whom had reservations about commenting on an ongoing DRN) while amongst the two I contacted off-wiki, there was a tie as to the quality of the source w.r.t to the statement it will be issuing.(A RSN after the DRN concludes will be the best approach!)Thus, out of the trio, the one which may be be used is probably the second one.But it will be helpful, if you could get a scanned copy of Pg. 27 for display.Godric on Leave (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment---@Naesco:--Thanks! The scan helped!(In my region, GBooks omits Pg-27 & 28 from the preview.)But, nothing in the source supports the phrase
summaries on peer-reviewed articles
.I am willing to go with Ref-10 iff another RS clearly and nearly used the same language.So, I'm not seeing any way-out!(Except adding the phrase limited science journalism.It may be a bit abstract but I'm hard-pressed to think of any other viable alternative in the given circumstances.)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC) - Volunteer comment---I fairly dislike such objectivity(to the word--limited), esp. given the circumstances at play here.The out-balance of sources which contrasts the journalistic style of Phys.org is aptly brought out in the word--limited in my eyes.As an example:--We often say--He has got limited skills in the aspect. To approach the speaker to specify the levels of the skill(s) ofthe subject quantitatively would be akin to madness.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Last proposed lead---
Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.It also practices limited science journalism.Life-hacker piece and another sourceIt shares many similarities with ScienceDaily and EurekAlert! in the sense that all of them practice heavy churnalism.<footnote>(EurekaAlert! though self-describes itself as a churnalistic site.)</footnote>
- Volunteer comment--In the event of either of you dis-agreeing with the last proposed lead, I feel that we are clearly past the point of continuing or rather lingering this discussion--without hampering optimisation of editor productivity.Please seek a RFC on the topic and approach for a community consensus.As a side-note, it would be best if you propose your version as one option and Jytdog's as another(which he shall post) and ask the participants to compare and input their preferences.Both of you may use this discussion to polish up your versions.Feel free to ping me if you need any help.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer comment--Will be updating the article and closing the thread(soon).14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Restaurant to Another World
![]() | Closed as premature. There has not been discussion on the article talk page. The editors should discuss the challenged edits on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
William M. Branham
![]() | Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. Second, the discussion doesn't appear to have been about article content so much as about the subject of the article, and Wikipedia policy is to report on what reliable sources have said about the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Richard William_Howard_Vyse
![]() | Closed. The discussion on the article talk page has not been sufficient to warrant discussion here. Also, the filing editor has only listed one editor, not the other editors. The filing party is advised to comment on content, not contributors, and to register an account. Other editors are advised that if editing or discussion are disrupted by unregistered editors, they may request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:Khysion#edits_to_Swahili_coast_and_Swahili_people
![]() | Closed. The filing editor has opened discussion on article talk pages. If discussion on the article talk pages is inconclusive, a new discussion can be brought here. Report sockpuppetry at sockpuppet investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Pictures for Sad Children
![]() | Closed. After brief discussion on the article talk page, the article has been semi-protected. The unregistered editor is advised to register an account. It works better. If further discussion is needed, use the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Closed. No comments from editors in more than a week. Any further discussion should be on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Pictures for Sad_Children
![]() | Closed as, among other things, incomprehensible. The filing party insists that the subject is being misgendered, although the consensus is precisely to avoid misgendering the subject by the use of gender-neutral pronouns. The filing party is advised to ask for guidance at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies or simply to discuss at the article talk page. Other editors are advised to read WP:DISCFAIL for what to do about an editor who has complaints that are not clearly formulated. Other editors are reminded that if an unregistered editor is disruptive, they may (again) request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Honda J_engine
![]() | Closed for various reasons. First, there still hasn't been any real discussion on the article talk page. Second, what discussion there has been has still been uncivil. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know that yelling "vandalism" to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. Both editors are told to discuss in a civil fashion on the article talk page. Edit-warring may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard, and editors are reminded that the responses to edit-warring include locking the page down, and blocks of either editor or both editors, and that insults are also a way to get blocked. If there is civil but inconclusive discussion, a new request can be filed here. Also, it seems that this has been taken to WP:ANI. That would be reason enough for closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)
![]() | The fundamental pillar of DRN is that it is non-binding and that the parties have agreed to the particular method of dispute resolution. That now, one of the chief protagonists of the dispute has opposed abiding by any decision, arrived at here, there is no point in keeping this running.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:Kleuske#Wood_as_an_art_object
![]() | Closed as not properly discussed. There has been discussion, although not extensive, on a user's talk page. Discussion on an editor's talk page is not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page, because third party editors who are interested in the article sometimes join in a discussion on an article talk page. Also, the filing here does not specify what article is being discussed. The editors should discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new thread may be opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
IBM PC DOS, etc.
![]() | Closed as not being discussed on article talk pages. Discussion on article talk pages, not just on user talk pages and not just via edit summaries, is a precondition to discussion here. If an editor is reverting the edits of another editor (which is what is being reported here), discuss on the article talk page first. If attempts to discuss are unsuccessful, see WP:DISCFAIL, and consider requesting page protection, which is among other things a way of forcing discussion by stopping edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section
![]() | Closed as failed. Unfortunately, the editors do not appear to be trying to reach a compromise. The most nearly satisfactory way to resolve this dispute at this point will be a Request for Comments, which should be neutrally worded. I am willing to assist any editors in providing a neutral RFC if requested. Do not edit-war, and do not claim that the "consensus" version should be restored, because there is no consensus. Discussion (with or without an RFC) should resume on the article talk page. Disruptive editing may be reported to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, but editors are encouraged to resolve this dispute without going to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2#Photograph
![]() | Closed as not an article content issue, at least not as presented. User:Kintetsubuffalo is warned that referring to another editor as a "liar", even if their statements are inaccurate, is a personal attack. Resume civil discussion on the article talk page. Report personal attacks at WP:ANI, but only if they continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Ayy%C4%81r
![]() | The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Dispute resolution is not appropriate at this time. Nihlus 16:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
multiverse
![]() | Closing this. Both editors have agreed after discussion to take this matter to an official Request for Comment on whether or not the changes should be made to the articles. The main point of contention was whether or not the quality of the article was worth ignoring the rules in relation to sourcing and whether or not this violated WP:SELFCITE and and WP:REFSPAM. In the end, the matter will be resolved by the community during the RfC process. -- Dane talk 02:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Holly River State Park
![]() | Closed. It is hard enough to conduct dispute resolution with an unregistered editor whose IP address shifts. It is even harder if the unregistered editor signs their contributions with an IP address but the IP address is no longer the same as the signature. I am closing this with recommendations to the unregistered editor to: read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on secondary and primary sources; disclose any affiliation that they have, such as with the park; sign their contributions with four tildes; and register an account (which may be a pseudonym, which preserves privacy better than an IP address). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|