Captainhendry
Welcome!
Hello, Captainhendry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Astroturfing
editThanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Astroturfing. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Astroturfing is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- ..Ronz, Well, the heading under which I posted on the discussion page was directed at one particular user who had been deleting items without cause. His is the only name I used. Beyond that I am simply trying to point out that those who are deleting the edits have offered no grounds to do so, which I take to be the appropriate response here. Captainhendry (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- "the heading under which I posted on the discussion page was directed at one particular user" Which is one of the reasons I changed the heading, per Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages.
- Also "TW" is not an editor, but a tool that editors use, WP:TW.
- Also, the editors have offered their rationale, that the source is not reliable, and you've responded specifically to that concern. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
3RR warning
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Astroturfing . Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
You appear to have been editing as 24.30.187.22 (talk · contribs) [1], who was warned earlier. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will limit myself to once a day, but these additions have been removed without justification or discussion. Please note that I have tried to discuss the situation with the persons who are removing the edits and they have not responded. It seems clear to many (see the discussion page) that the system is being gamed to favor a particular political viewpoint. Have the users doing this been warned as well? Captainhendry (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) and Readersclub37 (talk · contribs) have both been warned as well.
- I've seen no evidence that any gaming is being done in the manner that you claim. Best to avoid such accusations without clear and strong evidence, and don't use article talk pages for making such accusations. Instead focus on improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, "gaming" was a poor choice of words. Let me put it this way. There is a discussion of bias on the talk page which dates to November of 2009. Then there is a similar discussion under the heading Ellie Light from January 2010 (also using the word bias). Now we have a third heading under OFA and I am essentially suggesting that the reasons given for removing my edits once again appear to involve bias. As to the specifics, I just provided a link in the talk page to a story on a PBS website from 2006. The author, an experienced journalist, labels scripted letter writing campaigns like the ones OFA is doing as Astroturf. He uses the word several times and notes examples from both the left and the right. Claims that this is not Astroturf don't hold water. As to the source, I maintain that Big Journalism, which is a professionally edited news blog, is every bit as credible as other sources (TPMuckracker) cited in the same section. If wiki's reliable source guidelines exclude Big Journalism (right leaning), they should exclude TPM (left leaning) as well. I did not attempt to delete the TPM sourced entry so I do not think my entry should be removed either. At base, I am not trying to edit maliciously but I do want to know at what point the problem of bias which is longstanding on this page becomes a pattern which needs to be addressed? Captainhendry (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen evidence of bias. We've blocked a few editors because of it. However, the editors that we've blocked have been ones that repeatedly complain of bias without evidence or merit. Don't get caught up following their lead.
- WP:RSN is a good place to get others' perspectives in disputed about reliable sources. However, it's best not to confound disputes as you are doing (eg if A is not a reliable source, then neither is B), nor label sources (eg A is conservative, B is progressive, etc).
- If there are bias problems, provide evidence. If you can't, then drop it. I can go into detail as to why, but I hope that won't be necessary. Problems with bias are remedied by providing and properly using independent, reliable sources. The first step is to find reliable sources, which is the current topic of discussion. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your perspective. There have been two issues raised. One is sources, which I will attempt to bypass through more accurate writing and the use of direct reference to sources contained in the Big J story. The other question which has been raised is whether this qualifies as Astroturf at all. I believe I have substantially demonstrated my case on that count via the talk page. A revised draft of my addition will appear as soon as tomorrow. Hopefully it will resolve the problem. Captainhendry (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion on the talk page seems to be going well, so I'll probably not involve myself further. Thanks for your patience. Wikipedia is very big, and you can get a very skewed perspective of Wikipedia working on controversial topics. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your perspective. There have been two issues raised. One is sources, which I will attempt to bypass through more accurate writing and the use of direct reference to sources contained in the Big J story. The other question which has been raised is whether this qualifies as Astroturf at all. I believe I have substantially demonstrated my case on that count via the talk page. A revised draft of my addition will appear as soon as tomorrow. Hopefully it will resolve the problem. Captainhendry (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, "gaming" was a poor choice of words. Let me put it this way. There is a discussion of bias on the talk page which dates to November of 2009. Then there is a similar discussion under the heading Ellie Light from January 2010 (also using the word bias). Now we have a third heading under OFA and I am essentially suggesting that the reasons given for removing my edits once again appear to involve bias. As to the specifics, I just provided a link in the talk page to a story on a PBS website from 2006. The author, an experienced journalist, labels scripted letter writing campaigns like the ones OFA is doing as Astroturf. He uses the word several times and notes examples from both the left and the right. Claims that this is not Astroturf don't hold water. As to the source, I maintain that Big Journalism, which is a professionally edited news blog, is every bit as credible as other sources (TPMuckracker) cited in the same section. If wiki's reliable source guidelines exclude Big Journalism (right leaning), they should exclude TPM (left leaning) as well. I did not attempt to delete the TPM sourced entry so I do not think my entry should be removed either. At base, I am not trying to edit maliciously but I do want to know at what point the problem of bias which is longstanding on this page becomes a pattern which needs to be addressed? Captainhendry (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)