All of these developments seem to warrant a MLWiki

[humpty]

Heather Pampers Rules
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Knot_(company)&oldid=492438274

[bumppkathleen]

It's been reinstated. We can play this game indefinitely. There are more of us than there are of them.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2012 23:18:35 GMT -5 @bumppkathleen said:

It's been reinstated. We can play this game indefinitely. There are more of us than there are of them.

It was down a few minutes ago, but I added it back in. I seriously have nothing better to do. I have a MacBook, iPad, and iPhone...I can access Wikipedia at any time on several devices. No sweat off my back.

[RITS]

I just looked at the page of edits and I liked this:

07:48, 14 May 2012‎ Smartse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,499 bytes) (-3,927)‎ . . (→‎History: rm poorly sourced negative content again) (undo)

Emphasis mine.

[esdreturns]

It's up now. This might be the best thing ever lol.

[decemberwedding07]

May 14, 2012 5:43:17 GMT -5 RITS said:

I just looked at the page of edits and I liked this:

07:48, 14 May 2012‎ Smartse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,499 bytes) (-3,927)‎ . . (→‎History: rm poorly sourced negative content again) (undo)

Emphasis mine.

I am not sure that smartse is a Knot employee. Here is his/her info page. Included under "Areas I Edit:" Pages where people may have a conflict of interest, often through posts at the relevant noticeboard.

[RITS]

May 14, 2012 8:43:57 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

May 14, 2012 5:43:17 GMT -5 RITS said:

I just looked at the page of edits and I liked this:

07:48, 14 May 2012‎ Smartse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,499 bytes) (-3,927)‎ . . (→‎History: rm poorly sourced negative content again) (undo)

Emphasis mine.

I am not sure that smartse is a Knot employee. Here is his/her info page. Included under "Areas I Edit:" Pages where people may have a conflict of interest, often through posts at the relevant noticeboard.

Oh, I know it's not someone from the knot. I just thought it was funny that they had to write "again." I could just imagine someone being frustrated from stalking the page to keep editing.

[decemberwedding07]

May 14, 2012 8:47:30 GMT -5 RITS said:

May 14, 2012 8:43:57 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

I am not sure that smartse is a Knot employee. Here is his/her info page. Included under "Areas I Edit:" Pages where people may have a conflict of interest, often through posts at the relevant noticeboard.

Oh, I know it's not someone from the knot. I just thought it was funny that they had to write "again." I could just imagine someone being frustrated from stalking the page to keep editing.

Got it. I am slow. Also, your sig is hilarious.

[marynjoe]

Wow! It's getting serious!

[Smartse]

Hi all.

Please see this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BumpKathleen#Please_stop

Thanks

Smartse

[OHMBLEEGOHHHHH!]

Smartse:
Go over there and look around and you'll see that it is fact (what's left of what hasn't been covered up and deleted, anyway).
Also if you're at work, only read the first page of BumpKathleen's "To New Posters" post. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.

[bumppkathleen]

Smartse - I reviewed the TOU. Nothing prohibits accounts based on personal opinions. The entry is impartial as written - it does not say the Nest sucks, it says the users think it sucks (which I think is a generally accepted fact). I took out anything that could even arguably be viewed as untrue.

What are the sources for the other entries on that page? Were they made by people employed by the Company? Wouldn't they be even more biased?

[Smartse]

We're not so interested in fact, what we need is sources.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TRUTH for a humorous take on it.

And nope, not at work. Where's this message? (i.e. link?)

[RITS]

Smartse, what kind of source? Would a blog post work?

[Smartse]

May 14, 2012 14:56:11 GMT -5 @bumppkathleen said:

Smartse - I reviewed the TOU. Nothing prohibits accounts based on personal opinions. The entry is impartial as written - it does not say the Nest sucks, it says the users think it sucks (which I think is a generally accepted fact). I took out anything that could even arguably be viewed as untrue.

What are the sources for the other entries on that page? Were they made by people employed by the Company? Wouldn't they be even more biased?

The terms of use aren't about what should be in articles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5 should explain things.

As to the other content, yes, it probably was: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KSerrano. That isn't a good argument for why more crap should be added though. Feel free to remove anything which has no references or that you think isn't neutral.

[Smartse]

May 14, 2012 15:10:07 GMT -5 RITS said:

Smartse, what kind of source? Would a blog post work?

Unlikely en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLOGS. You need a newspaper / well known website. I checked google news and there is nothing. I imagine that it's very unlikely that there will be anything in the future either.

[bumppkathleen]

Look, I am open to a reasonable argument. But deleting all of the entry is heavy handed. It is all independently verifiable. No one - not a single person - is disputing it.

[RITS]

Anyone a journalist? Write for a school paper? lol.

[Smartse]

May 14, 2012 15:09:32 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I really love you for this.

assets.diylol.com/hfs/232/4b8/39a/resized/fry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-not-sure-if-sarcasm-or-serious-e14739.jpg

[melindafelinda]

May 14, 2012 15:20:57 GMT -5 @Smartse said:

May 14, 2012 15:09:32 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I really love you for this.

assets.diylol.com/hfs/232/4b8/39a/resized/fry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-not-sure-if-sarcasm-or-serious-e14739.jpg

DON'T STEAL MY GAGS.

[bumppkathleen]

May 14, 2012 15:20:35 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

May 14, 2012 15:19:27 GMT -5 @bumppkathleen said:

Look, I am open to a reasonable argument. But deleting all of the entry is heavy handed. It is all independently verifiable. No one - not a single person - is disputing it.

I am assuming the PTB at the Knot are disputing it.

Are they? Have they? It seems hard to dispute since it is all framed as "certain users believe" and not "it is so."

[bumppkathleen]

But I have to go back to work so I'm going to leave it. As long as Smartse sticks around. She's (he's) a good addition. LOL at C_Joy. The phone call is indeed inside the house.

[cameronscott]

May 14, 2012 15:20:35 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

May 14, 2012 15:19:27 GMT -5 @bumppkathleen said:

Look, I am open to a reasonable argument. But deleting all of the entry is heavy handed. It is all independently verifiable. No one - not a single person - is disputing it.

I am assuming the PTB at the Knot are disputing it.

Hi, another Wikipedia editor here - we don't actually care if they dispute it or not, we don't take sides like that.

The main considerations for us are:

1) Has a reliable source (Journal, newspaper, magazine) reported on this matter

2) Is our coverage a fair reflection of that reliable source?

That's the start and end of it for us - as noted, we don't accept talk-boards or personal accounts as reliable sources. We are interested in verification not truth.

[bumppkathleen]

May 14, 2012 15:25:11 GMT -5 cameronscott said:

May 14, 2012 15:20:35 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I am assuming the PTB at the Knot are disputing it.

Hi, another Wikipedia editor here - we don't actually care if they dispute it or not, we don't take sides like that.

The main considerations for us are:

1) Has a reliable source (Journal, newspaper, magazine) reported on this matter

2) Is our coverage a fair reflection of that reliable source?

That's the start and end of it for us - as noted, we don't accept talk-boards or personal accounts as reliable sources. We are interested in verification not truth.

That standard is not consistently applied. Please review the Jesus entry. It, like the Knot entry, is written from the perspective of "people believe" and not "it is so." I don't think you have a copy of the Jerseulum Times reporting on his death. So unless you are willing to accept reports regarding mass opinions I am not certain how any of your historic content gets sourced.

Regardless, perhaps someone will be kind enough to print a Special Edition of the ML Times so we can properly cite our source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

[eightangryreindeer]

What is truth, Cameron?

If 11,000 users say the sky is blue, but you're trapped in a tiny, windowless office without verification* then what color is the sky, Cameron?

Wanna get a latte and talk about it?

*let's say that all "truth" is ultimately unverifiable, unless agreed upon by the majority as truth, shall we?

[cameronscott]

"That standard is not consistently applied. Please review the Jesus entry."

That's called "other stuff exists" - basically there is always problems with other articles that need fixing - there are currently 3000 on my backlist I need to get to...

"I fucking love that source material is the only thing that matters. We all sort of know Wiki isn't necessarily concerned with fact, but it's refreshing to hear someone just up and say it."

People are always surprised to find out that it's one of most fundamental policies :-)

[hubes]

Why is The Knot entry all of the sudden important, if you have 3000 on your backlist?

[cameronscott]

"If 11,000 users say the sky is blue, but you're trapped in a tiny, windowless office without verification* then what color is the sky, Cameron?"

That's actually a good way to think about it - wikipedia is trapped within a tiny, windowless office - it doesn't matter how many people say the sky is blue, it only matters that a newspaper is blue.

"Regarding the source material, it seems a little odd to only allow material that has ostensibly been reported on before by another source. It would seem to existentially limit Wikipedia's reach."

that is *why* the rule exists, otherwise we'd be overwhelmed with what is termed 'original research'.

[eightangryreindeer]

May 14, 2012 15:33:55 GMT -5 hubes said:

Why is The Knot entry all of the sudden important, if you have 3000 on your backlist?

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

[cameronscott]

May 14, 2012 15:33:55 GMT -5 hubes said:

Why is The Knot entry all of the sudden important, if you have 3000 on your backlist?

It's to do with how our watchlist function works - I saw a report that there was edit-warring on the page and took a look, I generally tackle whatever is at the top of the list - if I took a look five minutes later it's likely I would have missed it.