Author Topic: Wikipedia cleanup (Read 17008 times)

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #45 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:00:19 PM »

Um, meant to say "far from awful." You get the drift. And as no less than Jimbo Wales (a.k.a the Wikipedia God-King) has said, no encyclopedia should ever be cited for research. Especially, say, an article on Jimbo Wales that Jimbo himself edited...to much amusement.

There were (and are) two terrific James sites - and many others that are of some value - before I got the article through the FA grinder. The thing is, it was fun to rewrite the article up to demanding standards. Even if I had to footnote that James preferred writing fiction to studying law, which is like having to footnote in which direction the sun is known to set. Actually, there are a number of places where careful footwork was required in the phrasing before I ever got to the article. You can read all about it on the discussion page.

In one of the sillier NPOV disputes ever, an administrator didn't like my saying that one of James' autobiographical books was a "charming memoir." So the "charming" had to go. Only time I ever had to change something for NPOV. I don't edit the Ann Coulter or Al Franken articles, though.

Of course, there's nothing to prevent future vandalism on any article. But there are some safeguards in place to get rid of it, and there's always a chance that the article will be improved, as has happened with the James article and, for that matter, the Cullen article.

clemon79 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 20, 2006, 05:05:20 PM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 20 2006, 02:00 PM\']In one of the sillier NPOV disputes ever, an administrator didn't like my saying that one of James' autobiographical books was a "charming memoir." So the "charming" had to go.
[/quote]
Why is that silly? Neutral is neutral, and that isn't. Is it a minor point? Sure. But if you gloss over it, someone tries to push a slightly-less-minor opinion, and so forth. If you're gonna be neutral, be neutral across the board.

ChuckNet · « **Reply #47 on:** March 20, 2006, 06:38:34 PM »

Quote

The biggest problem I've seen, just like with IMDb and Jump The Shark, is that people think it's funny to post blatantly inaccurate info, i.e. with JTS, saying a show jumped with a bogus plotline.

Yeah, most people don't remember the ep of Who's the Boss where Jonathan got caught touching himself, or the Mr. Rogers ep where Mr. McFeely took a wrong turn and got mugged by the Zoom kids.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

clemon79 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 20, 2006, 07:44:50 PM »

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Mar 20 2006, 03:38 PM\']Yeah, most people don't remember the ep of Who's the Boss where Jonathan got caught touching himself
[/quote]
Wow. Every fantasy I've ever had about Alyssa Milano just went careening out the window. Thanks for that, Chuck. 'Preciate it.

sshuffield70 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 20, 2006, 11:36:59 PM »

[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Mar 20 2006, 05:38 PM\']

Quote

The biggest problem I've seen, just like with IMDb and Jump The Shark, is that people think it's funny to post blatantly inaccurate info, i.e. with JTS, saying a show jumped with a bogus plotline.

Yeah, most people don't remember the ep of Who's the Boss where Jonathan got caught touching himself, or the Mr. Rogers ep where Mr. McFeely took a wrong turn and got mugged by the Zoom kids.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[snapback]113627[/snapback]

[/quote]

Was Jonathan looking at Tony when he did that?

aaron sica · « **Reply #50 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:07:07 AM »

[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Mar 20 2006, 11:36 PM\'][quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Mar 20 2006, 05:38 PM\']

Quote

The biggest problem I've seen, just like with IMDb and Jump The Shark, is that people think it's funny to post blatantly inaccurate info, i.e. with JTS, saying a show jumped with a bogus plotline.

Yeah, most people don't remember the ep of Who's the Boss where Jonathan got caught touching himself, or the Mr. Rogers ep where Mr. McFeely took a wrong turn and got mugged by the Zoom kids.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[snapback]113627[/snapback]

[/quote]

Was Jonathan looking at Tony when he did that?

[snapback]113655[/snapback]

[/quote]

LINE.
OF.
THE.
DAY.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #51 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:09:29 AM »

Hey, I dropped the "charming." It really was no big deal. Or even a subatomic particle-sized deal. I just brought it up because I mentioned NPOV and wanted to give the only example I've been personally involved in.

By the way, I went back and checked the time frame for the only incidence of vandalism on the Cullen article since 2004. The vandalism edit survived for a half-hour on January 25, 2006 before it got reverted out. The article really is an example of Wikipedia getting it right. The last edit did push the article more towards NPOV, but that's what an encyclopedia should do.

I still think the article has potential for featured article status. Yes, technically any article has that potential, but the Cullen article has already made a decent start. Right now it's about where the James article was a year ago. If I have some time over the next few months, I might try researching and writing the article up to a higher level and pushing it through the featured article process.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #52 on:** March 21, 2006, 10:50:22 AM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 21 2006, 09:09 AM\']I still think the article has potential for featured article status. Yes, technically any article has that potential, but the Cullen article has already made a decent start. Right now it's about where the James article was a year ago. If I have some time over the next few months, I might try researching and writing the article up to a higher level and pushing it through the featured article process.[/quote]
Again, I'm not exactly sure how much "researching" you'll need to do. There are already several references that couldn't have come from anywhere but my website, where there's already an extensive biography and pretty much any other information you'd need.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #53 on:** March 22, 2006, 08:04:49 AM »

Matt, no doubt your site will be a prime source. But there are always some other goodies out there. A Google book search turned up a tome on the old radio show Monitor with some good analysis of why Bill was such an engaging personality, along with some really nice Cullen quotes. And I've stumbled across a few other interesting bits and pieces, like a story where Cullen "blasts off on 1,001 things."

It'll take a while, but I'll try to get the article into FA shape.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #54 on:** March 23, 2006, 12:02:45 AM »

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2006, 08:04 AM\']Matt, no doubt your site will be a prime source. But there are always some other goodies out there. [/quote]
Do tell.

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2006, 08:04 AM\']A Google book search turned up a tome on the old radio show Monitor with some good analysis of why Bill was such an engaging personality, along with some really nice Cullen quotes. [/quote]
That would be Monitor: The Last Great Radio Show (iUniverse 2002) by Dennis Hart, a friend of mine who interviewed me for his book. If you owned the book rather than browsed a page or two on Google, you'd see my name in the acknowledgements.

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2006, 08:04 AM\']And I've stumbled across a few other interesting bits and pieces, like a story where Cullen "blasts off on 1,001 things."[/quote]
And THAT would be the November, 1958 issue of TV Radio Mirror with Bill on the cover. Among the subjects on which he "blasts off" are Ed Sullivan (likes), cocktail parties (doesn't like), extroverts (doesn't like) and poker (likes, but only high-stakes). He also congratulates Barry-Enright on the success of Twenty-One!

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2006, 08:04 AM\']It'll take a while, but I'll try to get the article into FA shape.[/quote]
Knock yourself out, but don't begin to think you're going to discover any information that Adam Nedeff and I don't already have, and the only reason such information doesn't appear on our sites is because we've already don't the work that you feel you need to do by determining the best, most accurate and most relevant information and providing it in an easily accessible form. I'm just trying to save you from needlessly duplicative efforts, especially when there are so many other deserving game show legends whose entries could benefit from your research.

CaseyAbell · « **Reply #55 on:** March 23, 2006, 08:38:24 AM »

Your concern's premature, anyway, because I'm first going to write an article on Rebecca Goldstein, a novelist and biographer. I'm reading her book on Kurt Gödel, which is kind of interesting even if a little dry. She's got a web site and there's other stuff on the web to use. Then I really would like to try to improve the Jane Austen article, which isn't as bad as the Joseph Conrad article but could use some help. Then I might get to the Bill Cullen article. If you think other game show hosts deserve attention first, well, you're welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia.

And don't worry, I don't knock myself out over any Wikipedia article. I'm not getting paid for this.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #56 on:** March 23, 2006, 09:00:04 AM »

If anything, Wikipedia isn't really designed to be anything but superficial. If I were to put up a Wiki on Kurt Godel, wouldn't it be better to just direct people to Rebecca Goldstein's book, rather than rewrite her work on Wiki?

Links to Matt's and Adam's sites are all anyone needs to find out about Bill Cullen

calliaume · « **Reply #57 on:** March 23, 2006, 10:04:56 AM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 09:00 AM\']If anything, Wikipedia isn't really designed to be anything but superficial.

[snapback]113886[/snapback]

[/quote]
Yeah, but people use it to check their research. (I'm using it now to check a few facts for a book I'm copyediting, although I use other sources as well.)

Tim L · « **Reply #58 on:** March 23, 2006, 10:35:15 AM »

[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 10:04 AM\'][quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 09:00 AM\']If anything, Wikipedia isn't really designed to be anything but superficial.

[snapback]113886[/snapback]

[/quote]
Yeah, but people use it to check their research. (I'm using it now to check a few facts for a book I'm copyediting, although I use other sources as well.)

[snapback]113891[/snapback]

[/quote]

I've seen recent news stories quote Wikipedia. I've considered writing articles about some of my interests outside of Game Shows and wonder if it would be worth the trouble..

Robert Hutchinson · « **Reply #59 on:** March 23, 2006, 03:17:41 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 09:00 AM\']If I were to put up a Wiki on Kurt Godel, wouldn't it be better to just direct people to Rebecca Goldstein's book, rather than rewrite her work on Wiki?[/quote]

If by "put up a Wiki" you mean "put up a Wikipedia article", I don't see how. Is Goldstein's book online? Hyperlinked? Available for instant editing in response to errors or developing events? If the last three are in fact the case, is the book formatted like an encyclopedia article?

Wikipedia does have its uses, honest. It's a quick place to look for certain facts: I can pretty much count on finding Bill Cullen's full legal name right at the top of his article in about two seconds (and there it is). I checked a couple of my Jeopardy! answers recently on Wikipedia, also very quickly. (Mary, Queen of Scots and Mary Stuart are one and the same, and "Yao" is Yao Ming's family name and thus acceptable as an answer. If anyone was curious.) And linking to a bunch of specialized sites would completely ruin my favorite Wikipedia activity: opening every article link I come across that catches my eye, until I have an unholy tree of information in my browser tabs.

Of course, all of this assumes the ideal about Wikipedia. Poor and/or missing information hampers all of this. Still the most amusing example of this I've yet heard: the battle over Ken Jennings' middle name in his article, fought between (apparently) the most obstinate person in the world, and Ken Jennings' father.

(My God, I just used three colons.)