Talk:Xeni Jardin

The subject of this article, Xeni Jardin, has edited Wikipedia as User:Xenijardin. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Xeni's name history

A google search shows that Xeni went by the name "Xeni Jardin Hamm" when she worked for Latham & Watkins in 1999. Are there earlier references to other names she's used? I ask because a commenter on Metafilter said that her original name was Jennifer (Jenny?) Gardner. --Zippy 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

partly answering my own question, I found this link to her work with the Traveltrust travel agency, where she used the name Xeniflores Hamm. Here's an excerpt from the page:

Traveltrust

Address: 445 Marine View Ave Suite 200, Del Mar, CA 92014

Company Contact: Xeniflores Hamm

...

Website: http://www.traveltrust.com

Description: Travel discounts for cruise packages, lowest airfares and discounts for princess, holland america, crystal cruise lines royal caribbean, celebrity and more Leisure Business Travel. Traveltrust, Travel, San Diego, Corporate Travel, Leisure Travel, Low

An archived page for Traveltrust contains the text Site design graphics, Navigator logo, feature articles ©1995-1997 by Xeniflóres Hamm. On this page, the name Xeniflores Hamm a hyperlink mailto for travel@traveltrust.com.

"Jardin doesn't reveal [her given name], she says, because she wants to avoid dangerous people from her past." (From LA Times article) What do you think, Zippy? --Christopherlin 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good question. In the same article, she gives the full names of her father, mother, and brother, along with photos of herself. These, plus the fact that she works hard to be in the public eye, make we wonder whether she is really concerned about being recognized. --Zippy 19:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a journalist and a blogger. While it's accurate to say that this sort of role involves working hard to distribute information publicly, and being publicly visible in relation to that work, there's a big difference between that and "works hard to be in the public eye," which implies other motivations that don't fit here. Regarding the rest of this statement, please be aware that I did not write the LA Times profile, nor did I "give" the LA Times the photo that ran with it. --Xenijardin 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. In one of your recent comments you claim it is untrue that you've tried to obfuscate your past, yet when we're discussing something very easy for you to simply tell us (namely given name and birth year), you continue to be vague. One of the main criticisms on the xenisucks.com site is the focus you have on yourself and your friends, which is certainly not typical of most journalism standards. And it's also certainly not difficult to find photographs of you, on your own website taken by your mentor and your friends. 208.20.220.72 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And every single article, comment, news story, radio show, radio story, magazine article, seminar (ad nausea) that Xeni has ever given has been solely about her friends? Wow I would like to be one of her friends then! The jealousy and scrutiny over this woman's career is amazing to me. I would like to have half of her exposure! Look at this page! I must find a way to make maladjusted men not like me so that way I can get lots of publicity too. Maybe I will move home and live in my mom's basement. Matt N 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Xeni, I wasn't trying to imply a motivation, and I apologize that it came across that way. Regarding the photo, I didn't mean you handed them the photo, I meant that you apparently gave them permission to photograph you for the article, and this, along with naming your family members, birthplace, etc, seemed at odds with Christopherlin's quote that "[you] want to avoid dangerous people from your past." No motivation implied, just puzzlement on my part. --Zippy 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think her full / original / legal / birth name should be listed on the main page, assuming it can be confirmed. --PaulSchreiber

Hey, everyone: Xeni Jardin is my real, legal name. My (deceased) biological dad's last name was Hamm. Xeni is short for "Xeniflores," which is cumbersome for people to pronounce and write -- so the name was shortened to "Xeni" over time, and that's now my legal name. Period. My father gave my name to me. I didn't make it up, and it's not an alias for some other name. I use one name. Mine. There's no conspiracy here. My name is not now (nor has it ever been) Jenny Jardin, Genie Garden, Jenny Murden, Jennifer or Jenny Gardner, John Jordan, nor am I related in any way to Fox Mulder, although I do believe he has an excellent hairdo and an enviable collection of personal firearms. Hope that clears the matter up. --Xenijardin

Darn it, I was just working the Fox Mulder angle! Thanks for the clarification, Xeni. --Zippy 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Xeni - would you like to clarify this particular piece of text from your L.A. Times profile? I don't think there's any doubt that Xeni Jardin is currently your legal name, but from the particular piece of text below (which you do have archived on your own website, without any disclaimer or statement that it is incorrect) seems to indicate that "Xeniflores"/"Xeni" and "Jardin" are nicknames that you aquired as an adult, and that your "given name" different and for some reason concealed.

Xeni Jardin, pronounced SHEH-nee zhar-DAN, isn't her given name. Jardin doesn't reveal that, she says, because she wants to avoid dangerous people from her past. "Xeni" comes from "Xeniflores," a word with origins in Guatemala's native culture. Jardin means "garden" in Spanish and French.

It was a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala with her mentor, Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam, a writer, performer, director, composer, entrepreneur and Mayan expert whom Jardin considers her adoptive father.

If you would address the specifics of that statement and how it does or doesn't conflict with your statement above, it would be much appreciated. Glowimperial 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Glowimperial. No, my name is not a "nickname acquired as an adult." I've already responded to the questions relevant to maintaining a factually accurate Wiki entry, and I'll take leave of this discussion now. --Xenijardin

I take it to mean that it would then be 'factually accurate' to state that Xeni Jardin or Xeniflores Jardin is not her given name, as the LA Times article states. Presumably, she previously went by Xeniflores Hamm since there are plenty of google searches returning this name, including this article stating that a Ms. Hamm was due a refund from the IRS, but they couldn't find her (because of a name change perhaps?) http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/10/29/business/news/11_39_1310_28_05.txt 208.20.220.69 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And we have a 'Xeni Jardin Hamm' (http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing/archive/archive-jul-1999/msg00143.shtml) --Gerardm

I am just about ot edit the page to include a reference to what would appear to be Xeni Jardin's birth name, Xeniflores Hamm. Feel free to correct this if the name is incorrect but I would ask you do not delete it. This place is about facts; if Xeniflores Hamm is Xeni's birth name and it deserves to be included.

This whole episode is somewhat silly but goes to, in my mind, prove a point. You can't pick and choose what facts appear in an encyclopaedia. --Gerardm

The LA Times article states "Over the years, Jardin says, Quetzalkanbalam taught her "how to craft stories, how to deliver on-camera and on-radio; he taught me voice, acting." She traveled with him, acquiring her new name, ...". Xeniflores Guatemalan source seems like the sort of thing to come from Quetzalkanbalam, the Mayan expert and Jardin's "surrogate father" 208.20.220.69 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied that Xeniflores Hamm is Xeni's birth name (as in the name she was given by her birth parents in 1973). To add that information as her birth name would be speculative at this point. We've been fortunate to have the subject of the article weigh in on the matter, but I feel that her involvement has not cleared the water on this issue in a satisfactory manner. I'd rather have the article not have a birth name than have us put up incorrect information at this time. Are we in a hurry here? Glowimperial 12:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I am quite satisfied that Xeniflores Hamm is Xeni's birth name. First off it appears quite logical and second, I'm sure if it wasn't then Xeni will be in touch. We aren't in a hurry but until proved otherwise the evidence suggests Xeniflores Hamm is her birth name.--Gerardm 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to know her birth name you need a birth certificate. Only her family can get one though. The second option is to get yearbooks/class photos from her elementary/middle schools.--69.236.102.234 15:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Xenisucks.com

• /Archive 1: March 27-April 19th. Discussion of xenisucks.com relevency and strawpoll on including link.

Article for site?

I don't think XeniSucks.com would make WP:WEB guidelines. If it deserves any sort of encyclopedic writeup, it should be here under criticism, if it gets longish, under a subsection of critcism. Besides, it's kind of strange for a criticism section to be almost as long as the rest of the article. --Christopherlin 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB states:

"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

XeniSucks.com has be referenced in both the New York Times and BoingBoing iteself. Doesn't that make it relevant per the guidlines in WP:WEB? C33 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of birthplace and family

Her brother Carl wrote a brief bio of himself that mentions their birthplace and confirms some other bio details. Here's an excerpt:

I was born in Richmond in 1976 - we had a house on Peach Tree blvd.. off of Broad street. This was the only house on the block and the rest of the block was woods--- just up from Willow Lawn where they have since built a very big shopping center and a bunch of new homes that all look alike. I was told that back then, those woods were filled with all sorts of rare trees and flowers that are native to Virginia. My sister and i spent hours and hours exploring in "our" forest. Whenever I got snagged by a thorn bush she'd say "step over them, or on them! Don't walk straight into them silly!!" That was a great metaphor for dealing with life's problems.

My father, who was a painter and VCU art professor, passed on when I was 3.... My mother was an editor for the Publications department at The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts for 25 years and has recently retired to do freelance writing, editing, and publishing....My Stepfather, who married my Mother when I was 10...

--Zippy 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this wording is somewhat confusing

"Her father, artist Glenn B. Hamm Jr., died in August 1980 of ALS. The death affected her deeply, and Jardin left home at age 14 but remained in school in Richmond."

Specifically, I think it leads the reader to believe that her father's death was the direct cause of her leaving home, shortly after it happened. While I think its possible Mr. Hamm's death was an important cause, considering the dates, it appears she left home some 6 years later. In my mind its likely that there were other causes as well. Assigning one event to the cause like that seems like speculation. Also, what child wouldn't be affected deeply by her father's death? Perhaps this should be tied into some significance regarding her development. I propose changing the wording to at least split the "left home" wording into a different sentence from the death "affected her deeply" wording.

--C33 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The LAT is a little murky with dates and details, and as I have found from another recent project, sometimes people simply misremember some things. There was also vague mention of a stepfather somewhere, so I will see what other published info we can find. Jokestress 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Career

I removed the following info because it was not cited. Please find a verifiable reference and then repost it upon adding the required references.

Xeni started as an event producer and writer for Jason Calacanis at Rising Tide Studios which produced the Silicon Alley Reporter and Digital Coast Reporter.

Questions, comments, concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a cite. http://www.calacanis.com/2005/04/09/xeni-finally-gets-a-profile/ --Zippy 10:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, "started" is a poor choice of words. I started as an embryo, as did we all (androids excepted). But yes, in the late '90s through September, 2001, I was a contributing writer and Vice President of Conferences for Rising Tide Studios. The company produced tech events and online and print publications including Silicon Alley Reporter and Digital Coast Reporter. --Xenijardin 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the Career section to not sound like a stalker was drooling all over the page. It's not complete. Her website has more detailed information if someone actually cares to go through it and add her entire CV. Seems kinda pointless though. Ioerror 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalkerish? I'm sorry it came across that way. That certainly wasn't my aim. I do think that notable people are, well, notable. I think the arc of a person's career shows where they're coming from, where they're going, and gives some depth to the article. I included detail here on the discussion page to make it possible to fact-check the article. --Zippy 04:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The way the possible names were listed seemed like a PI was taking some spare time to fill in a wikipedia entry. Or a google sleuther with far too much time on their hands. I suggest that someone just take her CV from her website. She wrote it and it's probably the easy way to make sure it's correct. I mean, if someone cares to fill in her entire job history. I think that she's done lots of notable things that aren't listed but I'm pretty busy so I haven't bothered to update it. Ioerror 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia (and news weblogs as well) are so tremendous precisely because there are users who love to do their own research and cross-check what's presented to them, often for the joy of making an article stronger. Xeni's official bio is a fine citeable source, but Wikipedia articles are more credible when you can say "yes, her official bio says this, and here's an independent verifiable source that supports it." In the end, the Wikipedia is what it is largely because of searchers with way too much time on their hands :) --Zippy 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose I was pretty put off by the original tone of the section in the wiki article. It's been fixed, good job on the edits. ;-) Ioerror 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To a point I agree. However, is her career prior to '99 relevent? Does it reflect on how/why she is notable? If so, what about her escapades in guatamala, or her history with drugs (according to the LA times article) ? Dstanfor 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Her career before '99 is relevent. If this article is intended to be a comprehensive source of information on the subject, then the life of the suject prior to the events that make them notable for inclusion in Wikipedia is of absolute relevence. One of the problems with writing a good page on this particular subject is that the subject appears to be entirely non-notable prior to her blogging career and that the subject appears to have gone to some length to obfuscate her past. Glowimperial 18:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This -- "appears to have gone to some length to obfuscate her past" -- is a non-neutral and decidedly unreasonable statement with no base in fact. The public record, including material I've blogged myself on BoingBoing, proves that quite the opposite is the case. Xenijardin 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't the best person to point out who's being neutral and whos not in this discussion. 208.20.220.72 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Xeni - There's nothing wrong with trying to obfuscate one's past. I'm not critisising or attacking you for doing so. It is my perspective that you have made efforts to obfuscate your personal history, including the history of your name. I don't have any malice towards you whatsoever, I'm just trying to make this be the best and most comprehensive article that it can be. I don't particularily enjoy having to read into your statements regarding your past or the history of your name, as I have no desire to have portions of this article become speculative in nature, but I do feel that your statements regarding yourself could be construed to be either vague or intended to obfuscate the issue. Of course, you have no obligation to provide information regarding yourself at all or to participate in what I'm sure is an odd discussion regarding yourself (Being written about by a bunch of people who have never met you and are attempting to author a comprehensive biographical document about you, is most likely an irritating situation, given the vast gulf of ignorance in our knowledge of the subject.), and your attention to the matter is appreciated. Glowimperial 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of "photographer" from the career section. I found no references to Xeni's work being professionally shown in galleries or anything other than her snap shots on the web. Taking pictures does not make one a photographer. Posing for a photographer who is known publicly to be a personal friend seems non-notable as well. LikeItsABadThing 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin has editted her entry

It bothers me that a user named Xenijardin has been editing this entry. I hope that it's an imposter, not because I admire her - I think that the "blogosphere" is a bunch of bunk, and boingboing is like a five man mob - but because it would be terribly unethical.

Well, whatever, he/she has been restoring the images recently and creating a new article about one collaborator of her. It too bothers me. --J 11:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering that Xeni Jardin is a supposed progressive tech blogger and correspondent, and that the BoingBoing collaborators are outspoken proponents of Creative Commons and progressive media, I think it would be in the interest of the actual article to note that she created/edited the page. Vanity and self-promotion can become problematic in the wiki model; her role in the tech community would warrant this kind of spotlight. TGV 06:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the net result of Xenijardin's edits was +2 cats, -1 stub, and +1 picture. --Christopherlin 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In the early days of this entry, I made a few edits to preserve factual correctness and provide assets that would not have otherwise been available. Nothing that strayed from the imperative to maintain neutral point of view. There's nothing "terribly unethical" about that, nor does it reflect "vanity and self promotion," nor does it contradict the goals of Wikipedia. That said, I later learned that editing an entry about yourself is generally frowned-upon and considered best avoided -- so I haven't edited the page since. --Xenijardin

Jokestress added that Xeni is a photographer. Has she been shown in non-vanity galleries, honored or paid for her photography? If not, then she is a photographer like anybody else is who owns a camera is. Her posing for photographs by a photographer, how is that notable?

Criticism

I actually like the idea of this new criticism section. Nice work and finally a way to be balanced about the whole issue. Matt N 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but between myself and User:Dstanfor, I think we've finally found a nice compromise on the XeniSucks and script issue (as of my last edit). There is not too much information or too little and all sides have a say. It is not defamatory or too fluffy. Matt N 02:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize I'm "glaringly bogus" but I fail to see why the reprimand for creating the script on company time is relevant to an encyclopedia article. Actually, I don't think the script itself is that relevant. I'm new here, but I don't really think the script or the apology/reprimand associated with it belongs in the article. --C33 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The apology/reprimand seemed tongue-in-cheek and not at all serious. 129.55.200.20 13:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

People do not literally have to come out and say "I am sorry" when making an apology. Yes, he was very nice about it (that is called "diplomacy"), as it is really not a big deal, but he was very definitely making an apology to Jardin and Boing Boing. Readers who know nothing at all about the event (that would be 99.999% of the world) should understand that the act of writing the script was seen as inappropriate by the person who employed Jesse Andrews, and that he felt badly enough about it to make a very diplomatic and good-natured apology. Matt N 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "apology" to "reprimand". Probably better that way to satisfy everyone. If there is no note made of the reprimand, then I agree that the whole script thing should be removed, though the act of writing the script is in itself a valid form of criticism. Dates should remain for perspective since it will be 2007 before you know it! Matt N 14:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Any mention of this alledged "reprimand" is entirely unencyclopediac. First of all, there is no independent confirmation that the author was reprimanded. All we have is a unverified follow-up posting to Boing Boing (hardly a trustworthy source). Secondly, so what? What does is have to do with the script? Based on the various edit times in this page's history, we're probably all cruising for a "reprimand" to get back to work! Should we include such notes for all of the edits? Front243 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MattN, rather than just silently reverting the article, please explain why a mention of this alledged reprimand has any place on this page. Thanks. Front243 14:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a small blurb that I hope, without furthering the criticism, gives a NPOV summary of the criticisms of her. I'd appreciate it if people could tighten the language or expand it, while maintaining NPOV. Thx. --Kickstart70·Talk 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No argument here, Admin! Seems reasonable and fair (I just cleaned the wording a little bit). Matt N 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

'Admin'? Not me (at least, not on Wikipedia), I'm just another pedantic user firmly committed to NPOV :) Your edits are good. --Kickstart70·Talk 15:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Critisism section reads really well - It puts context on the critics of Jardin's work, which allows the reader to understand the context of that critisism without endorsing or condemning it. Glowimperial 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see Jasoncalacanis, a friend of Xeni, try and remove the mentioning of xenisucks.com. Ah, gotta love Wikepedia! --Gerardm 01:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Boing Boing Lite edit to the actual Boing Boing page. Seems more appropriate there, siince it is not specifically anti-Xeni. Matt N 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant here, because it shows that the Greasemonkey script isn't the first time that someone found the BoingBoing editors annoying enough to require filtering. Also, note that Xeni's name appears first in the list of filters. Coincidence? I think not. Front243 14:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Xeni's persona is silly and I find Xenisucks.com to be excellent, if ungentle, parody of that persona. Given its recent mention in the New York Times and the web kerfluffle from Violet Blue over Xenisucks.com, maybe a stronger case is emerging for Xenisucks.com getting its own page. I think the strong reaction xenisucks.com occasioned in violet blue is notable and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, but this page doesn't seem the best place. Ryan Norton 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not sure there's enough to say about 'XeniSucks' to make its page little more than a stub. If you think there is, then by all means write a page for it and prove it. Terraxos, 20 April 2006

The "criticism" section is not representative of actual legitimate critique. For instance, not enjoying someone's writing style is entirely subjective and could be listed as a critique for every single author and writer in wikipedia. Absent NPOV background and context the allegation of inappropriate self-promotion is an unsubstantiated and non-encylopedic smear.

Random citation for smear campaign evidence and sexism as motivation:

http://xenisucks.com/comments.php?y=06&m=04&entry=entry060418-090706 MockTrannyJardinFTW Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 11:12 AM We're not winning the war at Xeniflores Man's wiki page, we won that shit. --66.92.15.224 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, I think there was some consensus about the criticisms section, even Matt N was OK with it, your edits are clearly POV, and your "references" are 1) out of context 2) not representative. Have you noticed that many critics of xeni are female? and that cory has a big collection of critics and satirists, for example see http://corysucks.com and http://www.doctorouch.com/ which predate http://xenisucks.com --Lost Goblin 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you think I'm too POV. But are you honestly suggesting that the current version is a balanced reflection of Xeni's notworthiness? There is a tiny stub about what she does, followed by a slightly longer list of positions she has held in the past, and then a skewed summary of an organized smear campaign that is presented as objective fact. Does any non-biased person here honestly contest the fact that the article, in its present form, has been shaped by people with extreme malice towards the subject? Have you all seen the talk page (since reverted and deleted, check the history) where extremely disingenuous people are pretending to naively wonder if she is a transexual or a man? Basically, by including their criticism in this article, wikipedia has become a platform for their defamation. Just because they have shouted loud enough their criticism has been deemed noteworthy. If it's that important, why not have an entire article historically documenting the smear campaign in its entirety... from trolling the Boing Boing commenting system with death threats (forcing comments to be abolished), to the public stalking and wikipedia edit wars? </rant>--66.92.15.224 07:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What I can never understand is why people are happy to have positive things about someone written but get all defensive when people are negative. Everything on Xeni's entry is true. Whilst I think your point about some posters on Xenisucks.com being sexist is a non-starter (just because you criticise someone who is female does not make you sexist) it still remains that the work of Xeni Jardin provokes this reaction. And the Boing Boing comment systems was NOT abolished because of death threats; it was abolished because publicly people were expressing their disappointment and negativity about Boing Boing. Again, why are people always happy with praise but can't seem to take it when people criticise? --Gerardm 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think the article is unbalanced, why not add some more meat to the sections that describe her positive accomplisments, rather than re-writing the criticism section? The critisicm section as it stands now neither endorses nor condemns the critical reacion, but it is a bit long compared to the rest of the article. I think the proper solution is to add more substance to her achievements rather than making a biased edit to the criticism. --C33 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Birth year 1972

Confirming per LA Times:

"Jardin, 32, was born in Richmond, Va., the older of two children."

• Piccalo, Gina (April 10, 2005). Behold, the wizard of blogs. Los Angeles Times.

This assumes the 5 August birth date in the current article. Will try to confirm that, too. Jokestress 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From boingboing entry:

"Besides being my birthday (w00t!), and Jason DeFillippo *and* Reid's birthdays (Thanks, Joi!), Tuesday August 5 is National Pray for Fox News Anchor Bill o'Reilly to Die Day, according to California gubernatorial candidate Larry Flynt." [1]

Will try to confirm elsewhere. Jokestress 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section redux

Coming to this with no prior information, I read the archived Talk page and wanted to share the following suggestions:

I looked at the xenisucks.com site and was pretty underwhelmed by the quality of the content. Further, the site really doesn't seem to be that notable. Alexa has it at 270,000th or something like that. The "criticism" is basically one tepid potshot for each BoingBoing post made by this article's subject. If you are going to rant on someone for their "lameness," your rants better not be lame in comparison.

I am going through this and doing footnoted references, so I propose these criticisms be footnotes. If there were substance to the xenisucks posts, it might warrant a sentence or two in the article, but as it stands, it really doesn't seem notable in any sense. The filter seems more interesting and notable to me than the hate site.

Minutemen: The uncaptioned photos, especially the poster, would have been better presented with additional information, but it seems like sloppy reporting rather than an attempt to imply the poster was made by the Minutemen. The poster claims to be produced by a group called "Campaign for Public Awareness," which does not appear to be any officially recognized organization. Mark Ebner's site doesn't have this in its archive, and I don't have access to the Globe article to see if it ran there with a caption.

So, to sum up: hate site non-notable (maybe as footnote), filter worth mentioning, criticism of non-captioned photo of poster legit. Thoughts? Jokestress 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue of the site, which was featured by Xeni herself and in the NY Times has been debated ad nauseum and there is a consensus that it is notable. The use of "hate site" reveals what appears to be a non-NPOV, and seems to be the wording of choice for everyone who decides to stop in and have Xenisucks removed. LikeItsABadThing 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't come up with "hate," to describe xenisucks.com, New York Times did. Now cited in the article. Jokestress 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, either is notable enough for you to word it the way you did, or it's non-notable as you earlier claimed. I find your present wording not only not NPOV, but intellectually dishonest the way you use the cite to get it to read the way you think it should. You also added the site creators name back in. If you want to say "what the NYT called a hate blog", fine, do it, and do it NPOV. I have edited accordingly. LikeItsABadThing 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am working toward consensus. I think it's unimpressive and non-notable, but since we are going to have to do a hardcore WP:CITE on this, let's reach consensus on this talk page.

I added the name for parallel construction. The bullet above it contains the author's name. I propose this:

• In 2006, Matthew Neal Sharp opened XeniSucks.com, a site the New York Times called a "hate blog." It openly criticizes and parodies Jardin's posts on Boing Boing.

For balance, we can add that the New York Times said Mr. Sharp seemed a lot like the Comic Book Guy. If any other published sources have described xenisucks or Mr. Sharp and his writing style, those would be great to add, too. Let me know what you think of the revisions above. Jokestress 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on the Xeni sucks item had been reached for some time. You have come in today and decided there is none, because you say there isn't?

I'll leave reverting the other questionable edits to another editor.LikeItsABadThing 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say three weeks is a long time, but the cool thing about Wikipedia is that when a new editor comes along with a few issues about an article as it is presented, we all work together to make sure it's accurate and meets NPOV. That's how articles improve, through these ongoing challenges and re-examinations. When I got here, this article was pretty poorly cited, so I am trying to do that first and foremost. You can't have it both ways, either the NYT article you mentioned is notable enough for me to word it the way I did, or it's non-notable and shouldn't be included. Jokestress 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly personal for you and I'm excusing myself.

19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I'm going to be bold and put the NYT citation you mentioned back in. Jokestress 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Minuteman criticism

Trying to think of how to tighten this up:

• In April 2005, Jardin published an entry entitled Snapshots of volunteer "Minutemen" on US/Mexico border containing three pictures. Two pictures are of Minuteman Project volunteers, and the third photo is of a poster. The poster is from a different, unidentifiable group and runs counter to the stated Standard Operating Procedures of the Minuteman Project. The entry does not explain the source of the photos and based on the title of the entry, many readers may have falsely assumed that it was a Minuteman Project poster.

How about this:

• On April 15, 2005, the blog lonewacko.com criticized Jardin after she published uncaptioned photos sent by Mark Ebner while covering a Globe piece on the Minuteman Project . One uncaptioned photo showed a provocative poster but did not explain that the poster was not part the Minuteman Project and in fact went against their policies .

Disregard notes 1 and 2 above-- just an artifact of earlier refs on the page. 3, 4 and 5 are for this bullet. This is half as long and conveys the same meaning, I think. Thoughts? Jokestress 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up, does this criticism meet notability and verifiability criteria for published sources? I know we can use blogs, but was this reprinted in a newspaper? Jokestress 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless lonewacko.com is the only place that you found mentioning the minuteman thing, I don't think mentioning it in the sentence is necessary. It makes it seem like one guy (say, a lone wacko) had this criticism, and it therefore might not be valid. It is appropriate to link in the citation section.

Wikipedia incident

I just added this:

In August 2005, Jardin broke the news of a Wikipedia hoax regarding Boy*d Upp and Jamie Kane .

Is this non-notable or too self-referential? Jokestress 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it along with the page about her experiences about zero gravity. As I said in the edit, this is not Google and we don't include every article written. If that were the case then some journalists would have pages and pages of links.--Gerardm 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically with you on the Jamie Kane thing, but the Zero Gravity seems like a pretty notable thing. Originally, it said "innaugural flight," but I couldn't confirm that in a published source yet. Jokestress 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Date discrepancy- LA Times

Just a note for later. According to the LAT profile: "When Jardin was 8 or 9, [her father] developed Lou Gehrig's disease. He died a few weeks after Jardin's 10th birthday." SSDI gives his death as August 1980, which would put her birthdate at 1970, not 1972. Jokestress 08:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Right now the opening paragraph of the Criticism section is uncited and has a lot of weasel words. The statements need to be supported by verifiable examples in sources that meet notability requirements. These should either be inline refs of bullets.

Criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion . Criticisms of Jardin are mostly published online. Other criticisms disparage her irresponsible journalistic practices , her writing style and vocabulary , her choice of subject matter , and her appearance .

or

Criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Criticisms of Jardin are mostly published online. Other criticisms disparage her irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary, her choice of subject matter, and her appearance.

• "irresponsible journalistic practices quotation" and cite
• "writing style and vocabulary quotation" and cite
• "choice of subject matter quotation" and cite
• "appearance quotation" and cite

As it stands, these generalizations don't really cut it. Jokestress 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you mean by weasal words in this context. I'm also not really very happy with the citation happiness that you've gone to. I understand it, but don't think it reads well. Anyway, I think the given criticism sites have all of these complaints. irresponsible journalistic practices is on the minuteman site, and xenisucks. vocabulary criticism is on xenisucks at a minimum. Complaints about xeni's topics is at xenisucks at a minimum. Criticism xeni's appearence is at xenisucks at a minimum. However, citing all of these things to xenisucks alone will make it appear as if it's the only source of these criticisms, when I don't believe that is true. Dstanfor 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the first link in my post above for what I mean by weasel words in the context. Basically, we can't say, "Critics have remarked on her appearance." We have to say, "___ said Jardin "looks like a ___ that had its __ ___ed," or whatever the criticism is, with a citation and a quotation. This is so that the reader can look up the source (verifiablity), and a judgement can be made regarding the notability and credibility of the source. This is necessary on articles that are controversial in order to maintain neutral point of view. I have no opinion of Ms. Jardin one way or the other. My interest is making sure that Wikipedia biographies of controversial living people are not in violation of Wikipedia policies. Her best friend and worst enemy should both be able to read each sentence of the article and say, "yes that's true." The only way to do that is to cite sources for each fact presented. Jokestress 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That opening is unsupported, so I am moving it here for now. Here's what is said:

"Criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Criticisms of Jardin are mostly published online. Other criticisms disparage her alleged irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary, her choice of subject matter, and her appearance. All of these criticisms can be found on Xenisucks.com, and specific examples may be found in any of the references below."

I propose this:

"Criticisms of Jardin are generally posted on other less notable blogs. While some blogs have questioned Jardin's journalistic practices, others, notably XeniSucks.com, mix criticism of content with ad hominem attacks."

Then go into the specific examples. Jokestress 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The 'less notable' wording sounds dismissive and biased to me, I think it would read better without those two words. --C33 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

One other note on that...BoingBoing used to have open comments and they were pretty much overtaken by criticisms of Jardin. Cory Doctorow eventually turned them off, if I remember correctly. I'll hunt for this in their archives and report back. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The last Boing Boing post with comments is here, but the post where Cory Doctorow lambasts the participants of the forums appears to be gone. Comment on prior posts do contain some of the criticisms of Jardin ("The depth of Xeni's ignorance never fails to amuse me.", etc.). You can look through the remaining comments (some have apparently been deleted wholesale) here. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing "less notable." Mentioned the comment removal in the Lehrer citation in the earlier section. If we have a citation that they removed the feature because of comments about her, we should definitely add that here. I could only find that they were removed. Jokestress 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hmm, surely some of the detractors would have kept a copy or commented on this significant change in policy in their own blogs. Given how high emotions seem to run among some of these bloggers, there must have been a lot of contemporaneous cheering and booing. If that's the exact date (September 1, 2003), we should note that in the article and see if we can find any commentary on Slashdot-type sites or the blog search sites. Ms. Jardin does not mention specifics on PBS except to say the Boing Boing system wasn't well thought out, or words to that effect. Jokestress 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting claim over here (search the page for 'One of the most riotous'). Basically, they say that people were impersonating the writers of BB. They also link to what I guess might have been the now-deleted comments about this. It's all kind of fishy-sounding, especially for a site that's openly anti-censorship, but that's just my opinion (and may belong in a criticism page on Boing Boing). --Kickstart70-T-C 03:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Same claim at StreetTech. The Quicktopics program BB used for comments did not vet sources, and people were posing as editors Doctorow and Jardin. Claim could use better sourcing for us to include here, but we can certainly mentioned they used Quicktopics and had problems. Other people have had to remove comments section, like Rosie O'Donnell, LA Times wiki, or referral-only comments on LiveJournal, etc.

Boing Boing citation: Undead Quicktopics. Jokestress 06:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have basically added the old criticism section back in. It's very clear that Xeni has been criticised for all those reasons and to remove them is to hide what people think of Xeni. --Gerardm 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)