Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-10/In the media
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Discuss this story
- So much to cover in this Signpost. First off, I think this is a pretty good Signpost article. It shows both sides evenly and gives links in every part so readers can go look up the information themselves. It doesn't appear that Roth ever stated the Tumin story anywhere else. This is especially evident in past interviews he's had, where he was asked where his inspiration came from and he merely said that it wasn't Broyard, but that he had no particular inspiration. SilverserenC 05:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- As for Shapps, you should probably note that the edits in question happened years ago. SilverserenC 05:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Have noted with a quote from the Daily Mail - thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- And it'll be interesting how the admin activity rate compares after August, considering we had a lot of admins promoted, far more than we've been averaging for quite a while (more than 10!). SilverserenC 05:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Questions. With respect to " IP editor—claiming (truthfully). " What evidence establishes this as fact. The only competent evidence would be a confirmed (published) statement by the biographer, confirming that they are the IP. Although suppositions could be made, I don't see the direct evidence that the biographer did so. The IP did make the claim but has the biographer also confirmed? And if so, where? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I assumed that the IP's claims are true – it's hard to argue against when the timetable goes 1) IP makes claim 2) short amount of time passes 3) Roth's open letter talks about an interlocutor making edits on his behalf. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was bold in editing, just now, to avoid assumption about living person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I assumed that the IP's claims are true – it's hard to argue against when the timetable goes 1) IP makes claim 2) short amount of time passes 3) Roth's open letter talks about an interlocutor making edits on his behalf. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- The story is not quite right. The correspondence took place on UTRS - ticket #3217. I do not know if they are also an IP, the author's representative is certainly an account. Secretlondon (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen that stated anywhere... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- What what do you expect me to say.. If you have access to UTRS you can check. UTRS correspondence is private. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not exactly. UTRS is limited to administrators only because only administrator's can act on requests. We've discussed ways of making it more transparent. However, Ed, if you would like to create an account, as an administrator you certainly can and you can see the ticket. Short of that, we haven't come up with a better solution to making it more transparent.--v/r - TP 20:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well it would be inappropriate for me to post the contents of the ticket on the wiki. My reading of the privacy policy is that it makes the content of tickets exclusively for unblock purposes, and makes UTRS a bit of a walled garden. Obviously any admin with a UTRS account can see the ticket. Secretlondon (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I read that as only requiring keeping the "private" "data" identified there (IP, email, etc) private. The written body of the two e-mails looks like it could be released. Even if any user names are also redacted, I think it would be a good idea to put the rest out there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- This might be the wrong forum for this discussion. Perhaps the Village pump or WT:UTRS?--v/r - TP 20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the latter is too low traffic and I'd certainly be more comfortable if there was consensus before releasing info. VP? Secretlondon (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK. As it's already (apparently) been partially published and characterized in the New Yorker, I'll VP it, unless one of you want to, instead of me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the latter is too low traffic and I'd certainly be more comfortable if there was consensus before releasing info. VP? Secretlondon (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- This might be the wrong forum for this discussion. Perhaps the Village pump or WT:UTRS?--v/r - TP 20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I read that as only requiring keeping the "private" "data" identified there (IP, email, etc) private. The written body of the two e-mails looks like it could be released. Even if any user names are also redacted, I think it would be a good idea to put the rest out there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well it would be inappropriate for me to post the contents of the ticket on the wiki. My reading of the privacy policy is that it makes the content of tickets exclusively for unblock purposes, and makes UTRS a bit of a walled garden. Obviously any admin with a UTRS account can see the ticket. Secretlondon (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not exactly. UTRS is limited to administrators only because only administrator's can act on requests. We've discussed ways of making it more transparent. However, Ed, if you would like to create an account, as an administrator you certainly can and you can see the ticket. Short of that, we haven't come up with a better solution to making it more transparent.--v/r - TP 20:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- What what do you expect me to say.. If you have access to UTRS you can check. UTRS correspondence is private. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen that stated anywhere... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Roth story was covered in a rather anti-Wikipedia trollish way (IMHO) by Gizmodo here: http://gizmodo.com/5941460/how-philip-roth-outfoxed-wikipedias-idiotic-rules . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here's an ironic twist: Salon published an account of the controversy that was sympathetic to Philip Roth, apparently blithely unaware that it was their own critic Charles Taylor who came up with the "literary gossip" that Roth sought to remove. Dcoetzee 01:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is an evenhanded write-up of the Roth story, well done. As for Shapps, I looked into Shapps' edits to his own biography in a bit more detail, and reported my findings here, along with brief comments on some of the other recent news stories. JN466 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
← Back to In the media