User talk:Mahagaja/If

Your userpage

I don't know if you're aware but your userpage may be against a policy called WP:SOAP. It also doesn't assume good faith -WP:AGF- of your fellow editors. I assume you didn't know this, but it's not really appropriate for wikipedia. Please consider changing it.Merkinsmum 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My userpage is a response to User:Moreschi/If, which violates WP:SOAP much worse but was recently kept at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 28. It seems to me if a page actively advertising an external, for-profit website can be kept, so can an essay suggesting that Wikipedians keep an eye on quality articles to make sure they don't become non-NPOV (which of course people should be doing anyway). As for AGF, there's no requirement that one continue assuming good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's a response to it though, and it doesn't link there. People stumble onto this page when they see your signature, and it reads as an unwarranted attack against Veropedia. It could be an attempt at humor, but it's hard to tell a person's tone of voice when you're reading their words, and once again, it doesn't say it's a humor page. It just seems like some socialist rant that doesn't really say anything of importance, and it doesn't even give a believable scenario IMHO. People are going to write positive things on Wikipedia about corporations? First of all, there's nothing wrong with that as long as it passes WP:RS. Secondly, it's far-fetched. It assumes that their sponsors will actually read the articles (which is doubtful), and that the sponsors are actively pressuring unpaid editors to alter their articles. Your essay's tone makes it sound like this is already happening. Without any evidence, this is nothing more than an attack on editors associated with the site. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing intended to be humorous here is the nickname "Viropedia". Everything else here is intended quite seriously. My essay does not say it is already happening, it merely warns people to be vigilant lest it happen. The scenario seems all too plausible to me, as I believe you cannot trust any source of information that is either for-profit or funded by advertising. This holds true for Encyclopædia Britannica, CNN, and The Times as much as for Veropedia, but Veropedia is the one whose content we Wikipedians can control, provided we don't let them control ours. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Viropedia" nickname, because it was causing confusion. The fact that nickname was intended to be humorous was leading people to believe the entire page was intended to be humorous, which it wasn't. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your warning to beware the Veropedians, but how do we recognise them? Dare you give us a list here?

I was puzzled, though, by your answer to the question on capitalisation of The definite article in countries' names. dbfirs 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a list to give, although many openly declare themselves on their user pages. Basically, you have to keep an eye out for anyone introducing POV into articles. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Shut up!

Just let this man have his own friggin user page... damn. Oh and I. Pakonin, your "socialist rant" comment violates the NPOV! I'm deleting your face. Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A Word in Edgewise

Would "exhibiting anti-corporatist sentiment" be considered more NPOV? Heh. Regardless, user pages are for the facilitation of discussion relevant to editing Wikipedia. If a user is using their page toward something other than that end, you shouldn't just "let this man have his own friggin user page." But this is a warning for editors to look out for potential abuse, and and regardless of whatever its motivation may be, is very relevant to the editing process and Wikipedia as a whole. As such, this is perfectly valid content for user pages.

That being said, I strongly disagree with Angr's implication that publications that generate advertising income necessarily alter their own content to appease their customers (advertisers). I believe my reasoning is fairly straightforward: publications, websites, and TV shows who generate revenue from ad space generally seek to develop and maintain the largest audience they can in order to be appealing to advertisers; that is to say, the product is the audience and the customer is the advertiser. In order to provide a better product, publications must make their content appealing to the audience. With news and reference, audiences frequently consider neutrality and veracity to be desirable traits, and will tend to favor publications that demonstrate these characteristics. Advertisers, wanting their advertisements to be viewed by a large number of people in their target market, do not usually wish to interfere with this audience-gathering.

Although this balance can break down under certain conditions (e.g., targeted markets, managerial incompetence), there is no reason to think that it is more likely to fall apart with a profit-seeking organization than with an organization whose agenda is something completely different. I actually think that Verapedia might be particularly resilient against these things specifically because their entire business model relies on people perceiving them as trustworthy. I mean, their raison d'etre is to be like Wikipedia, but with the guarantee that no one will randomly introduce false information. This means they have a very strong incentive to preserve their neutrality.

Now, I'm not saying that publications never kow-tow to their advertisers; I'm just saying that it's difficult for it to become systematic. But it's not impossible. So if Verapedia is really corrupting articles, please provide proof so that I can begin looking out too. I really like the goal of NPOV on Wikipedia; I wouldn't want to condone attempts to systematically violate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jriddy (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) -- sorry about not signing. J Riddy 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Oh I see i'm sorry, when I saw you had deleted them I couldnt work out why as I wasnt aware of the agreement of the copy photo. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)