ObjectiveThinker
|
Quizbowl
editYou deleted text i added in last 12 hours or so commenting "Section only references NAQT among current competitions and erroneosly implies that NAQT is a breeding ground for Jeopardy! contestants (to the exclusion of other competitions." I didn't imply anything of the sort, I just put in there what the articles I cited said. I am not biased, i never head of these groups before today. Find more references and improve the article if you can, don't indiscriminately delete. --Milowent (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Some quizbowl realted discussion
editGreetings OT!
I'm going to open with some personal background, which I hope you will accept as the truth.
I am fairly familiar with several (hardly all) quizbowl companies and some of the more national organizations which aren't companies. I have personally attended the PAC, the NAC, the HSNCT, and the NSC ... I have officiated at two of them, coached at one, and attended the other as as spectator on multiple occasions. I have been a question writer (unaffiliated with any company), an official, a coach, and I am a teacher. I am not connected to or affiliated with any organization or company.
There is one thing that we do agree on: there has been, on the part of some on both sides of the greater national quizbowl debate, a lack of civility. It certainly isn't everyone, but from where I sit I have witnessed the following: there are some on the more pyramidal side of things who have been uncivil. There have been those on the other side who act shocked, but treat others rather poorly (though perhaps with more civility, but poorly nonetheless) ... then the other side responds with more incivility, and the cycle continues.
For what its worth, as an educator, I strongly support pyramidal questions. While the more national formats are not universal, they have been expanding faster than other formats ... In the past two years I have seen three companies (two long standing) who sell "buzzer beater" questions go out of business as more and more regions move away from it. I have dealt with a lot of incivility to my face and electronically from people who do not want to hear this. I have been hurt quite a bit by this.
Having said that, I keep that out of my editing. Here, I know the difference between "what I like, what I want, what I feel", and what makes for good editing. I will be among those who will try and keep things to the facts ... however you and I (and others like us) will need to come to terms with the fact that facts and our perception of truth may be in conflict. More schools attend the NCT and NSC than the NAC .... that's a fact some people don't like. At the college level, buzzer beaters are long gone from competition ... also a fact. NAQT, because of its indirect connection to"J!" has had more coverage than a lot of other companies (true, it is not the only company with such an indirect affiliation, but it is the one that is documented). There are still a lot of states where buzzer beaters are standard ... also a fact. There is no universal format .... fact. Some of that, I feel supports your point of view, and some of that mine.
This is a conflict that has few saints, and that even goes for me. By Wikipedia policy, the problems with the article are not grounds for its deletion, and the article will ultimately stay. If you were to investigate other article's for deletion, you would see that it is somewhat unusual for a recently created editor to suddenly nominate an article for deletion. To have a second newly created account spring up and support the deletion also raises red flags. That does not necessarily mean the nomination is invalid, but it does often cause more experienced editors to wonder "why?" The problems in the article need to be addressed. That has already begun, and I suspect it will continue.
I am leaving this just to let you know that I (and while I am speaking for no one but myself, but I suspect) and others are not trying to make this personal, but rather are reacting to what comes across as an unusual situation here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Greetings LonelyBeacon.
Thank you for your message. I'm glad we have common ground on the matter of incivility. It is quite true that there are no saints in the Quiz Bowl debate, which is frightening when you consider the potential influence the various parties have upon our country's future leaders. You may believe that you can separate your personal biases from your writing. However, the fact that you nominated the National Academic Championship page for deletion suggests that you cannot. The existence of that competition was quite well documented, as anyone with rudimentary search skills ought to be able to establish. And the fact that you have officiated at certain of the national tournaments raises the issue of WP:COI. As for NAQT's supposed greater association with Jeopardy!, the only place I see that documented is on the company's Web site. I posit that many of the former high school Quiz Bowl contestants played at more than one national championship before heading to college. The only scientific way to determine which competition has produced more Jeopardy! contestants would be to obtain a list of all contestants since 1984 and cross-tabulate this with the names of all participants in national Quiz Bowl competitions. A daunting task, even if the lists were available. It is immaterial in any case, other that none of the competitions should be able to make claims that cannot be substantiated. Imagine the ruckus that would ensue if a question on this subject were asked at a competition! I don't have a horse in the Quiz Bowl race. I no longer teach or coach, and I don't write or sell questions. I am not advocating for or against any of the particular companies - only that all aspects of Quiz Bowl are represented equally and factually, without opinion or bias, if the page is retained. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I have a Master's degree in journalism. The Quiz Bowl article does not meet basic standards of objectivity in that profession, much less the standards of an encyclopedia. Because the Quiz Bowl article is sullied with opinion and bias, it is more akin to a blog - another example of what Wikipedia is not. As for the accusation of sockpuppetry not being personal, I wonder if it would have been raised if I had agreed with one of you instead of BullofConfusion. I have no idea who he is, but he has a logical and impartial mind.
ObjectiveThinker (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- ObjectiveThinker, I can assure you, my filing the SPI was not personal. If anything, it was more of a precaution. The circumstances are very suspicious, and I got third-party opinions from two other users on IRC, and both of them said the circumstances were quacking enough to warrant a SPI. If it comes back that you and Bullofconfusion are unrelated, then all the better for wikipedia, and I will offer you my apologies. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- OT,
- I am sorry that you interpret the removal of an article that lacked references ..... that I could find no reliable source to support, and then went through a week's long AfD in which no one could find reliable sources to support (Matt Weiner himself opposed the deletion, and tried to save the article, but was unable to find sources meeting WP:RS) a sign of conflict of interest. You note that, in your opinion, the article does not meet the journalistic standards of objectivity ... and there may be a good reason for that. WP:WEIGHT is the policy that governs this. Copying from the opening paragraph:
- Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ...
- Thus, the amount of sourcing becomes paramount. If (example only), there were 10 articles relating to how established ACF is as a quizbowl circuit/question provider/tournament sponsor, etc ... and there were 20 on College Bowl being the current quizbowl circuit/question provider/tournament sponsor, etc ... then College Bowl should (roughly) be mentioned about 2:1 compared to ACF. They should not be treated equally.
- My search for NAC some time ago turned up no secondary sources to support the article ... the only thing I could find were small articles detailing past winners of the tournament. By comparison, NAQT has (to the best of my knowledge) had more coverage in the media (as you can see by the articles being added by many editors now). Thus, by policy, the article should be balanced if there is greater mention of NAQT compared to other circuits/providers/etc.
- That should give a level of comfort to you. If you or any editor can find reliable secondary sources covering the NAC or other circuits, then they should be added to the article in approximate proportion to the coverage given in the reliable sources.
- Also, on that note ... just because an article was deleted does not mean it can't be recreated ... provided that there are secondary sources meeting the reliability policy. You said that there were ample resources out there, so I encourage you to recreate the article with the proper references and citations. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
SPI
editHi. Did you look beyond Google? In a cursory newspaper archive search, I found more than 400 hundred articles on NAC dating from the mid-1980s to this year. Most of the top dailies are represented as well as numerous smaller publications. There were only about half as many for NAQT (a lot of these reference Ken Jennings), and far fewer than that for the other national high school competitions.
So perhaps you can understand my skepticism over the article being removed for lack of sourcing as compared to tournaments of shorter duration and less media coverage?
I don't want to get drawn into extensive Wikipedia editing because I work with a textbook company that might consider it a conflict of interest. I'll provide copies of the sources to a friend who might have more time; she was the one who brought the issue to my attention in the first place.
What's going on is a shame, though. The principals of the different companies are too stubborn and self-righteous to see that they are all defecating in the same drinking water. Ultimately they hurt the students more than each other, since no major corporate sponsor would touch any of the primary offenders. It's a wonder no one has been sued yet. None of the principals qualifies as a public figure, and verifiable truth is the only effective defense against defamation charges.
Smart people can be so stupid. And for some reason Quiz Bowl attracts more than its share of arrogant jerks and know-it-alls. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see your concern regading a conflict of interest in working with a textbook company, though I would think (and I admit a certain level of ignorance here) that would only extend into areas regarding the publishing industry and books that you/your company work on (but again, I am ignorant on that).
- I have no doubt that you turned up 400 articles on the NAC ... I found them as well before the deletion argument (if you go back and look at the deletion argument ... you will see that). However, just because the NAC is mentioned in a reliable source does not mean that the tournament meets WP:N. The articles in question must directly address the tournament, and not do so tangentially. For example, and article about a team winning the tournament does not drectly address the tournament. A brief announcement about the tournament would not qualify (the verifiability policy has more on this). While I do not want you to think that I am equating the NAC and litte league, there are plenty of newspapers who cover their area little leagues and their players, but everyone agrees that these players and these leagues do not warrant articles. If you have any particular links, I would be happy to take a look at them. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm primarily afraid that I would forget that I had written something for Wikipedia and then write something similar for a textbook. But I also don't care to venture too deeply into the Quiz Bowl morass.<
Your arguments might carry weight if the articles on the other national quiz tournaments contained sourcing that met WP:N or WP:V standards. In fact, they contain almost no sourcing of any kind. If the NAC page was deleted, then they should be deleted also, for the same reasons. In fact, I still doubt that the Quiz Bowl page can be cleaned up and maintained free of bias. The Ken Jennings book is suspect as a source due to his relationship with NAQT. In any event, it is not a scholarly work. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bullofconfusion for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)