OpenFuture (talk | contribs) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
::Yes, I understand Frescos model. Accusations and personal attacks doesn't help, and you "keeping notes" on me is, well... interesting. I don't think that's an attitude that will help consensus building here. |
::Yes, I understand Frescos model. Accusations and personal attacks doesn't help, and you "keeping notes" on me is, well... interesting. I don't think that's an attitude that will help consensus building here. |
||
::If you want to have papers that praise Frescos economic model, find one by an economist. If you think Gilonis has no right to call the Zeitgeist movement a cult, then don't use him as a source for the statement. To me it's pretty obvious that Gilonis isn't making any scientific claims with his article, but maybe I'm wrong. Citing a published paper *do* imply scientifically based statements, and in this case it's obvious that they are not. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
::If you want to have papers that praise Frescos economic model, find one by an economist. If you think Gilonis has no right to call the Zeitgeist movement a cult, then don't use him as a source for the statement. To me it's pretty obvious that Gilonis isn't making any scientific claims with his article, but maybe I'm wrong. Citing a published paper *do* imply scientifically based statements, and in this case it's obvious that they are not. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Let's not resort to exaggerations. Calling into question bias is not a personal attack. So I'll ask you bluntly: are you biased towards this man? When you delete praise which you claim is illegitimate, yet you don't delete clear and obvious libel which I intentionally included to test you, suggests you may have a bias. Beware of the experiment. You let the KKK claims (with negative connotations) slide through, even though Fresco is used as the source for that, yet you take issue with him being the source for his claims of accomplishment. Why is this? This raises honest suspicion of bias, with good reason to suspect. |
|||
:::Furthermore, you are mistaken if you think all published papers are scientifically based. That is only implied if you have the need to see it implied. Even if the top economist stated that the model is revolutionary, that would still be his '''opinion''', which is all it can ever be regarding such praise, because such a statement cannot be scientifically assessed. Thus the Smitha reference is legitimate because it is her opinion, given the knowledge she has on the topics she addressed, which are related to Fresco's model. --[[User:Biophily|Biophily]] ([[User talk:Biophily|talk]]) 00:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:33, 1 April 2011
![]() | Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Industrial design Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
The new article is up. There may be some contentious information in it. I realize the "Reception" section may be most controversial. Some may recognize that there are events and issues missing from the article. This is because some popular claims have not been verified yet or cross-confirmed. On the other hand, there may be some things that are superfluous. Discuss suggestions here. Good luck editing it; it's an intricate string of text. --Biophily (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
- Good job! I do have some concerns with some of the sources, though. "The Soveriegn Independent" is hardly a reliable source, but just one these infinite slanted political outlets claiming to be "alternative news". Russia Today is notoriously unreliable as well with load of nonsense news about aliens making it look more like Weekly World News that a source of information. In addition the Florida Living Magazine article is basically an interview with Fresco, and therefore the source is Fresco himself, and as such it may break WP:BLPSPS. That goes for Jack Roberts Miami news article as well, but at least it's used much less as a source. And that article works fine as a source for him being called a dreamer, though. :) And why did you add Frescos claim of making a car with only 32 moving parts, not not his claim of inventing a 3D TV with picture so real you could feel you could touch it? ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I considered whether some of the news articles will be reliable beings they use Fresco's word as their source. But in many instances, the citation is doubled up and the claim/information is cross referenced between those two sources. But if some is unacceptable then we will have to make adjustments.--Biophily (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it can be rescued if we point out that it's his claims and we say that he *claimed* to develop a car with only 32 moving parts. We have no source for this except two interviews with him, one which he also seems to claim to have invented 3D TV, that articles' reliability is maybe not as high as we want it to be. But I suspect that in biographies we shouldn't have personal claims even if we mar them as such, but somebody with more BLP experience than me should make that call. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I included the 32 part car mainly because of the first source for it, which is a part of a newspaper's newsbriefs. The reliability of it is a bit shaky, so it can be removed if necessary.
- Also, the Sovereign Independent is used as an example of accusations that Fresco is rubbing shoulders with elites. It's not a source that says people are accusing him of that, it is the accusation itself. So it's used as an example. So it's used as a primary source.--Biophily (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Venus Project theory section
There are some parts of the article regarding the theory of The Venus Project that I disagree with, but on the whole it seems to be an outstanding piece of work. There is a lot of stuff about Jacque Fresco that I would have never known about if this article had never been written. Very nice, short, interesting biography; well done. I like it. --(Gharr (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
- For the most part, I copied that info from the Venus Project article. I plan on expanding the Venus Project article to cover more of the theory, and will then modify the info for it on the Fresco page.--Biophily (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The Use of Claims
Sloane added Fresco's claim about the Klu Klux Klan. I can't find a source for it outside of interviews from the past 10 years. There's no mention of it in any primary or secondary sources that I have found so far. So this is clearly a claim. How should it be handled? Other significant claims that aren't well backed up include (in order of decreasing sources): 32 part car, 3D technology, Immaculate Pig experiment, trip to Cuba, and many others. There are others but these are examples. Leave them out? Or include them as claims (and cite the primary source for the claim)? Perhaps just adding a section called "Purported Experiments" could cover these things? --Biophily (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The KKK thing is also referenced in the Wessex Scene article. And there's a number of primary sources about it. So it's not really controversial or anything.--Sloane (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, but it is still a claim. Even the Wessex article calls it an "imaginative claim." The issue at hand here is whether or not to include unverified claims. Many claims have been made and it is not controversial whether or not the claims have been made. Whether or not the claims are true beyond a reasonable doubt is the concern. If we include this claim, then by precedent, other claims will be permitted to be included in the article. Just pointing this out because I think it is an issue for which everyone should decide.--Biophily (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of interviews
I can't find anything about how interviews should be handled in BLPs. It should mostly be treated as a primary source, correct?--Biophily (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Acceptability of self-published sources by the subject
I'd like to know how anyone thinks this applies to this article.--Biophily (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Examples of self-published sources would include:
- FAQs on TVP website
- anything claimed in his books or articles
- possibly anything from his audio lectures on disc or videos from venusprojectmedia
How might the claims in these self-published mediums be handled for a BLP?--Biophily (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- This definitely excludes the videos of him where he talks about KKK. I got so bored I couldn't listen through all of it, and could not find a place where he actually claimed to "turn them around". It may not be "self-published" in the way that it isn't him who put it up, but this is not a reliable source and it definitely is unduly self-serving if he really does that claim.
- I'm also still skeptical about the newspaper articles about him who are clearly just interviews with him. In all cases *might* be OK to change it to "Fresco claims that...", but I don't know what the practice is about having those things in BLP's. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Again, in many cases where there is a citation from a newspaper, the citation is doubled-up to avoid sole dependency on the newspaper. And there is only some information in a few of the newspapers that is clearly derived from interviewing Fresco. You will need to point out such information so that we can modify it or remove it to better come in line with policy. Modifying it will require careful crafting of statements. However, there is other information for which it is not clear whether it was from interviewing Fresco or from the writer's own knowledge or research. In some instances, it is clear that it is from the writer's own knowledge/research.
- "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word 'claim' can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to favor one position over another."
- To me it is clear, that the ultimate appraisal of claims by Fresco or by the sources is determined by each editor depending upon his/her personal views about Fresco, whether it be prejudice or admiration, and not on whether there is actual demonstrably good reason to doubt or trust the authenticity of the claims. It's quite a gut-feeling controlling approval here, instead rationale. In such cases the editor needs to recognize their personal attitude and edit against it to achieve a neutral point of view. It appears to me that some editors watching this article may be particularly cynical and distrustful of *any* claim or statement made by or about Fresco. I suspect that this distrust is born out of prejudice, which results in nearly every sentence in the article being contested and thus needing a source (which creates a lot of work for other editors). This prejudice exists despite the fact that Fresco has never been caught in a lie. So the reason for the distrust is not altogether clear or remotely justified. Editor attitudes (whether justified or not) will affect what can be agreed upon as *reasonable doubt* of authenticity of a claim or *unduly* self-serving claims. Taking a look at many other BLPs of lesser known individuals on Wikipedia, you will find a modest quantity of sources and a meager series of citations. Taking a look at the Fresco article, we can see that such simple, modest, and meager referencing has been forced into much more than would usually seem necessary for an article of such length. This may reveal the level of prejudice or distrust present in the editorial overseers. Such prejudice will end up driving this article to be the most elaborately sourced BLP on Wikipedia, as every minute, trivial, and modest statement is contested with suspicion. It's a long shot, but I humbly ask that everyone keep their non-rational appraisals at a minimum and give better reasoning for their trust or doubt when they contest a statement. I for one, will start:
- I have found no inconsistencies between information presented in any of the sources. This fact lends some credibility to the claims.
- Fresco does not have a reputation for being a liar, so his self-published information is candidate for careful inclusion
- much of the information on Fresco's resume or in his self-published claims, is not really that unbelievable or extraordinary. (This leads me to suspect prejudice behind anyone who doubts them without giving an explanation).
- Again, regarding the information derived from interviews in the newspapers, those contesting the information will need to point out what exactly they don't accept, and we can proceed to modify the phrasing or find other sources. I too am uncertain of how to handle information derived from interviews. They may have to be treated as primary sources, and therefore, for the passages in question, it will have to lose Wikipedia's authoritative voice stating it as fact and be reintroduced as Fresco's statements or the source's statements. We could use statements such as, "Fresco recounts the early days of his life beginning with..." or, "Fresco informed a reporter from the Miami Herald that in the 1930s..." These kinds of statements may make the article very abrupt and blunt as we shift from source to source, but staying in line with policy is worth sacrificing the uniformity and voice of the article. --Biophily (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Elaine Smitha reference
I undid the edit referencing Elaine Smitha. She is as far as I can tell a motivational speaker, and certainly not an economist. The paper is published thanks to being a part of a conference which is focusing on... computer safety!? I can't see how a quote from that context can be seen as a reliable source about an economic model. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- and Samuel Gilonis isn't an expert on cults...but you haven't deleted that....Why? could it be bias? I've been testing you and taking note...
- "Computer safety" is an over-simplification. The publication is certainly based in computational processes. What is Fresco's model based in? -computational processes. Who is talking about computational processes in a social context? -Elaine Smitha. Who believed Elaine Smitha was qualified to talk about this? -a publication called Communications in Computer and Information Science. Sorry, I trust their judgment more than yours. Do you understand Fresco's model?
- Conference Summary:
- "The annual International Conference on Global Security, Safety and Sustainability (ICGS3) is an established platform in which security, safety and sustainability issues can be examined from several global perspectives through dialogue between academics, students, government representatives, chief executives, security professionals, and research scientists from the United Kingdom and from around the globe. The three-day conference focused on the challenges of complexity, rapid pace of change and risk/opportunity issues associated with modern products, systems, special events and infrastructures. The importance of adopting systematic and systemic approaches to the assurance of these systems was emphasized within a special stream focused on strategic frameworks, architectures and human factors. The conference provided an opportunity for systems scientists, assurance researchers, owners, operators and maintainers of large, complex and advanced systems and infrastructures to update their knowledge on the state of best practice in these challenging domains while networking with the leading researchers and solution providers. ICGS3 2010 received paper submissions from more than 17 different countries in all continents. Only 31 papers were selected and were presented as full papers. The program also included a number of keynote lectures by leading researchers, security professionals and government representatives." - (from preface) --Biophily (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand Frescos model. Accusations and personal attacks doesn't help, and you "keeping notes" on me is, well... interesting. I don't think that's an attitude that will help consensus building here.
- If you want to have papers that praise Frescos economic model, find one by an economist. If you think Gilonis has no right to call the Zeitgeist movement a cult, then don't use him as a source for the statement. To me it's pretty obvious that Gilonis isn't making any scientific claims with his article, but maybe I'm wrong. Citing a published paper *do* imply scientifically based statements, and in this case it's obvious that they are not. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Let's not resort to exaggerations. Calling into question bias is not a personal attack. So I'll ask you bluntly: are you biased towards this man? When you delete praise which you claim is illegitimate, yet you don't delete clear and obvious libel which I intentionally included to test you, suggests you may have a bias. Beware of the experiment. You let the KKK claims (with negative connotations) slide through, even though Fresco is used as the source for that, yet you take issue with him being the source for his claims of accomplishment. Why is this? This raises honest suspicion of bias, with good reason to suspect.
- Furthermore, you are mistaken if you think all published papers are scientifically based. That is only implied if you have the need to see it implied. Even if the top economist stated that the model is revolutionary, that would still be his opinion, which is all it can ever be regarding such praise, because such a statement cannot be scientifically assessed. Thus the Smitha reference is legitimate because it is her opinion, given the knowledge she has on the topics she addressed, which are related to Fresco's model. --Biophily (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)