Talk:John Harnad

Really amusing thing

I added an opinion of this man about Wikipedia based on a Google knol article. Got it automatically tagged as:

01:35, 25 December 2011‎ 71.163.236.199 (talk)‎ (2,843 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

Then there are reverts and comments justifying reverts:

(cur | prev) 23:38, 30 December 2011‎ 71.163.236.199 (talk)‎ (2,843 bytes) (Undid revision 468679643 by Phase Theory (talk)Rubbish??) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
(cur | prev) 23:35, 30 December 2011‎ Phase Theory (talk | contribs)‎ (1,679 bytes) (Undid revision 468679341 by 71.163.236.199 (talk) no, not vandalism; just unsourced rubbish) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:33, 30 December 2011‎ 71.163.236.199 (talk)‎ (2,843 bytes) (Undid revision 468447028 by KarlJacobi (talk)Vandalism?) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
(cur | prev) 04:28, 30 December 2011‎ KarlJacobi (talk | contribs)‎ (1,679 bytes) (Undid revision 467576940 by 71.163.236.199 (talk). Reason: removed vandalism.) (undo)

I just wonder how this page monitor learns so quickly about the nature of the added text?

--71.163.236.199 (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As an editor much like yourself, I may not have all of the answers to your direct and implied questions. I'm going to give it a shot though.

1. The entries you marked in bold above are called Tags. Tags are inserted automatically by the Wikipedia software via a mechanism known as edit filters. These filters use pattern matching to flag entries. In this case, as your edit was on a Biography of a living person, and used words such as 'ignorant', 'ban', 'censor' and the like, it was tagged as a possible violation. This makes it easier for editors monitoring for abused (such as myself) to zero-in on the most likely edits to be abusive. BLP articles are especially important to watch closely, as they are often contentious. So, an algorithm flagged your edits with that text.
2. Other editors then saw your changes to the article (as well as the tag) and likely decided that it looked like either a commentary of Wikipedia itself or at best a quotation sourced by a non WP:Reliable citation. I don't know exactly what their reasoning was, but those would have been my first thoughts if I had been the one reviewing the edit.
3. You have now brought the content to the right place to discuss it. If you wish to include what are (evidently) controversial edits to the page, then you should discuss those edits here and get WP:Consensus for the addition.

Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Happy Editing!? How could anyone come to this Tags inserted automatically by the Wikipedia software via a mechanism known as edit filters.? Simply, for using some words, no matter what it might be, I am automatically disqualified by a primitive algorithm or by sensless interpretation of the senslessly marked text this way? Then some, who has no academic background, or that background is far below of the prof. Harnad's and prof. Hewitt's academic level, can mark their statements as un-sourced and un-reliable? Consensus!! I wish to include what are (evidently) controversial edits to the page?! What are you talking about? What is your academic level that makes you to pass such statement?--71.163.236.199 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Try not to sound so indignant; bluster doesn't work here and nor does pulling academic rank. Wikipedia has many rules and policies, most of which exist for good reason. The Biographies of Living Persons policy is there because of the risk of legal action being taken against Wikipedia for libel. The source you have given for Prof. Harnad's quote is a 'knol' - effectively a self-published source; such things are ceteris paribus not considered reliable. Moreover, the material is not relevant; Prof. Harnad is not 'known for' his criticism of Wikipedia, nor is there anything exceptional or noteworthy about it (he is far from being the only academic to dislike Wikipedia). To phrase this in another, more succinct manner: the material is not encyclopædic. It may well be true that Harnad holds these views, but not all truths belong in an encyclopædia.

If you can find a reliable source for Harnad's remarks and their noteworthiness, then I will have no problem with its addition; until then I shall remove the material again, and I would ask you not to add it again without consensus: under BLP policy we will continue to revert it and we may request that the page be protected against editing for a period of time. Lastly, it appears you are new to Wikipedia editing; I strongly advise you to read Wikipedia's core content policies, and don't take it personally - we're reverting the edit, not you. PT 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• In your response I do not see much sense. Wikipedia is a self-published source, therefore disqualified by itself! Using phrases like "because of the risk of legal action being taken against Wikipedia for libel" does not explain anything. Which legal action could be ever considered for quoting someone and something publicly available? If you want to question whether it is true what prof. Harnad said, you have his public address available. "If you can find a reliable source for Harnad's remarks and their noteworthiness, then I will have no problem with its addition;" !! "... we're reverting the edit, not you."!! As to the Wikipedia rules, I strongly advise you to respect the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia which only makes sense here. Also, learn a little bit more about civilty and tone down your responses, i.e. avoid a big talk, for apparently you are not aware of the limitations of your knowledge and of your academic level and background.--71.163.236.199 (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)