If I had to guess, I'd guess this happened because Wikipedia's policies are rarely followed simply and literally and it is in fact often difficult to get social media posts accepted as sources. Here, I would expect pushback on the two mutually-reinforcing grounds of (1) recency and (2) lack of notability. There are editors who believe Wikipedia should wait for secondary sources to include personal details before Wikipedia does because "the detail must not be notable or must be too recent if it is not yet covered by secondary sources." The consensus on how to apply official policy on any given page is generally set by a very small group of watchers of the page, and these small groups of watchers can interpret and prioritize the different policies very creatively and stubbornly.
Well said. I also jumped into reading the talk page for this and it’s a very long debate. I still think the initial advice was bad but it seems like many of the Wikipedia editors involved in that debate were attracted to the conversation because of the publicity stirred up, not because they had any knowledge of her.
Yes, one of the facts about Wikipedia is that since it's totally unpaid, conflicts of interest are policed aggressively, and there's so little thanks for the work, the incentives leading people to participate are often emotional. Not infrequently, editors' participations seem primarily driven by emotional needs for identity and drama in lives that would otherwise be very lonely.
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean it to be harsh, I meant it with love. It's a lonely age we're living in and I really like the small fraction of people who, when faced with that loneliness, choose to do the work of editing a massive public reference resource as one of their coping mechanisms. I don't look down on coping and I like the people who channel their coping into public benefit! Even if now and then it makes them frustrating to work with or they sometimes let the emotional needs trump the public benefit in particular instances, on net I don't judge them harshly for this.
There are only a few things that the general public needs to understand about Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia. The reliability of Wikipedia content, however, is evaluated based on writing according to reliable sources. These are critical standards for a web site that is all user-generated content; that is, any random user can edit Wikipedia and does so without supervision of professional content editors or scholars. "Wikipedia policies are rarely followed" is wildly off the mark. Social media posts are not reliable sources, so the refusal to accept them is FOLLOWING policy, and rightfully so.
I said "Wikipedia policies are rarely followed simply and literally," not "Wikipedia policies are rarely followed," and the difference is crucial. Simplifying me that way is an absurd approach and it's rude. On the Internet there's no effective rule against or recourse against this kind of rudeness so I don't expect different or expect any immediate benefit of pointing it out, but so you know for yourself and so other readers understand: you've immediately made a terrible impression.
The policy I was referring to was the policy that the original post cited that certain sorts of social media post are considered reliable sources under certain circumstances. In practice, "simple and literal" can't be done here because simplicity and literalness conflict, and the simplification "social media is unreliable" tends to override the more complex literal rule.
Here: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves…. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources."
I like Wikipedia, but I do have a problem with Wikipedia insofar as norms like "no wikilawyering" means its norms drive out most of those capable of the difficult, subtle skills of implementing policy and interpreting argument literally, instead gathering a community of people who habitually and self-righteously mistake policy eisegesis for policy exegesis.
I don’t interpret it that way. I think she just got bad advice and was trying not to violate Wikipedia’s best practices. Also, if she edited it herself it would be conflict of interest.
If I had to guess, I'd guess this happened because Wikipedia's policies are rarely followed simply and literally and it is in fact often difficult to get social media posts accepted as sources. Here, I would expect pushback on the two mutually-reinforcing grounds of (1) recency and (2) lack of notability. There are editors who believe Wikipedia should wait for secondary sources to include personal details before Wikipedia does because "the detail must not be notable or must be too recent if it is not yet covered by secondary sources." The consensus on how to apply official policy on any given page is generally set by a very small group of watchers of the page, and these small groups of watchers can interpret and prioritize the different policies very creatively and stubbornly.
Well said. I also jumped into reading the talk page for this and it’s a very long debate. I still think the initial advice was bad but it seems like many of the Wikipedia editors involved in that debate were attracted to the conversation because of the publicity stirred up, not because they had any knowledge of her.
Yes, one of the facts about Wikipedia is that since it's totally unpaid, conflicts of interest are policed aggressively, and there's so little thanks for the work, the incentives leading people to participate are often emotional. Not infrequently, editors' participations seem primarily driven by emotional needs for identity and drama in lives that would otherwise be very lonely.
Oof, that's a harsh assessment in your last sentence but you're probably not wrong.
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean it to be harsh, I meant it with love. It's a lonely age we're living in and I really like the small fraction of people who, when faced with that loneliness, choose to do the work of editing a massive public reference resource as one of their coping mechanisms. I don't look down on coping and I like the people who channel their coping into public benefit! Even if now and then it makes them frustrating to work with or they sometimes let the emotional needs trump the public benefit in particular instances, on net I don't judge them harshly for this.
ah, taken with love then! you didn’t offend me. I do view my Wikipedia activity as often cathartic though.
Good to hear it can be cathartic for you, I think that's great! I like to use it for grounding and winding down.
There are only a few things that the general public needs to understand about Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia. The reliability of Wikipedia content, however, is evaluated based on writing according to reliable sources. These are critical standards for a web site that is all user-generated content; that is, any random user can edit Wikipedia and does so without supervision of professional content editors or scholars. "Wikipedia policies are rarely followed" is wildly off the mark. Social media posts are not reliable sources, so the refusal to accept them is FOLLOWING policy, and rightfully so.
I said "Wikipedia policies are rarely followed simply and literally," not "Wikipedia policies are rarely followed," and the difference is crucial. Simplifying me that way is an absurd approach and it's rude. On the Internet there's no effective rule against or recourse against this kind of rudeness so I don't expect different or expect any immediate benefit of pointing it out, but so you know for yourself and so other readers understand: you've immediately made a terrible impression.
The policy I was referring to was the policy that the original post cited that certain sorts of social media post are considered reliable sources under certain circumstances. In practice, "simple and literal" can't be done here because simplicity and literalness conflict, and the simplification "social media is unreliable" tends to override the more complex literal rule.
Here: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves…. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources."
I like Wikipedia, but I do have a problem with Wikipedia insofar as norms like "no wikilawyering" means its norms drive out most of those capable of the difficult, subtle skills of implementing policy and interpreting argument literally, instead gathering a community of people who habitually and self-righteously mistake policy eisegesis for policy exegesis.
Well said
I suspect you didn’t read what I wrote above
how is an author not competent enough to update a wikipedia page. jfc
I don’t interpret it that way. I think she just got bad advice and was trying not to violate Wikipedia’s best practices. Also, if she edited it herself it would be conflict of interest.