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.)

Archived talk

• /Archive 0: February 28-May 1. Xeni's name history discussion
• /Archive 1: March 27-April 19th. Discussion of xenisucks.com relevancy and strawpoll on including link.
• /Archive 2: February 28-May 1. Confirmation of birthplace and family, Career, Xeni Jardin has editted her entry

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)

You need to add examples. There are only two right now:

• "irresponsible journalistic practices quotation" and cite (example given - lonewacko.com)
• "writing style and vocabulary quotation" and cite - NO EXAMPLE
• "choice of subject matter quotation" (example given - de-Xeni script)
• "appearance quotation" and cite - NO EXAMPLE
• "self-promotion quotation" and cite - NO EXAMPLE

For more on why this is being done, see the discussion above. Jokestress 07:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to cite everything, otherwise Wikipedia would be a collection of links. If you want to be anal about this, everything listed above is covered by people on Mefi and xenisucks.com. Would you like a copy of Xeni's birth certificate to prove she is who she says she is? Her name isn't cited; it could be made up.--Gerardm 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You do have to cite anything that is not ridiculously easy to verify. You do have to cite what appears to be supposition or claims to clearly supported by other citations. What I would suggest is dividing the criticisms section according to Jokestress' 5 dividers, then providing at least one cite for each. Really that's not too challenging a task, as that information is available in existing links. And yeah, a birth certificate for her would be nice, to end the questions about her real, original, name. Currently it's far too easy for Wikipedia editors to add whatever crap they want and then claim that they don't need to cite it. It's making WP quality drop and combatting that is well worth the (minimal) effort. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress, let's compare the two versions of the criticism section.

Original version "Though readership has jumped more than tenfold since 2004 , some readers have had a negative response to Jardin and her work. These criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Other areas of criticism highlight her irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary, her choice of subject matter and her appearance."

Your version "Though readership has jumped more than tenfold since 2004 , some readers have had a negative response to Jardin and her work, citing her choice of subject matter and journalistic practices."

So comparing the two you want to me to prove someone criticising:

her irresponsible journalistic practices - http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259338 "I love how Xeni added in the personal data on the guy behind the site, sent in by some real cool internet detective. I guess the whole privacy/anonymity on the internet ends when someone makes fun of you?"

her self-promotion - http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259546 "I would side with those who say Mark/David's contributions are the best. I think Xeni and Cory ought to concentrate on adding new stuff to the site and not flogging whatever projects they happen to be working on. But I have met Xeni briefly in person before a couple of times, and she seems totally nice and genuinely interested in her job as a reporter. She is an asset to the site for sure but just needs to tone down the "look what I'm doing" as it is a bit off-putting. posted by cell divide at 6:09 AM PST on March 28"

her writing style and vocabulary http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259380 "Xeni and Cory make me gag. They're like the kids who start working at the highschool newspapers so they can write articles about how cool their friends are."

http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060417-151523 Xeni clearly demostrates that she has no idea what the phrase "ad hominem" means.

her appearance http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060501-095418 Comments on that post reveal many attacks on her appearance. Same is true of many other posts.

So let's run through what your edits achieved. You decided that anyone who looked at Xeni's page shouldn't be able to see the main reasons why people don't like Xeni and in the process of your edits you left a massive grammatical typo. I'd say given the amount of edits you have done on this subject it is rather clear you have some hidden agenda here.

The criticism section goes back to the way it was.

Also, don't start quoting to me Wiki guidelines and removing what I have said about you from this talk section. I have cleary pointed out that in your haste to water-down criticism of Xeni you left a massive grammatical typo. That is not good editing practice. More haste, less speed. It was not a flame; it was and is fact. I have removed the only word that could have been considered a flame which was my sarcastic use of the word "Bravo".--Gerardm 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Though readership has jumped more than tenfold since 2004...", this is a false correlative argument, in any case. The increase in readership might have nothing to do with Xeni, or the increase may have been better without her contributions. Wording suggestions? --Kickstart70-T-C 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that reference go out too because it can't be linked to Xeni and the way Jokestress was worded it implies a massive increase in people who read Xeni's work exclusively.--Gerardm 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That fact should go on the Boing Boing page and not imply the jump is because of any one factor. I added a thing there about the comment feature removal there. Jokestress 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm struck thru if you don't want it removed. Please maintain civil tone, and that extends to your edit summaries. Focus on improving the article and reaching consensus per Wikipedia policies, not making personal comments about other editors. Jokestress 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress, I don't think it's cool for you to edit what other's have said about you. Gerardm appears to be irate because you have taken it upon yourself to re-edit a page that we had finally got agreement on. His complaints about your editting don't appear to be uncivil to me. Dstanfor 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Gerardm is being disruptive and sarcastic. Comments were removed per WP:NPA#Remedies. I suggest we all try to focus on the article. Personal comments have no place here. I have worked on many controversial articles, and you have to assume everyone is working to make the article as accurate as possible, even if they disagree with you. And for the record, I haven't expressed an opinion either way on Xeni Jardin. However, this article as it stood when I got here was poorly sourced. I am primarily concerned that any reader who comes here can look up the sources and confirm everything in this article. I have worked on articles of people I admire as well as people I find morally repugnant, but my interest is always verifiability, NPOV, and notability. Now, let's move down to the next section and discuss those citations of anonymous comments on blog pages. Jokestress 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Once I've had my dinner I will unstrike my comments. I am being civil; I just don't agree with you. With your focus on improving the article you put in citations that were incorrect and gramatical errors. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.--Gerardm 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please resist the temptation to be sarcastic. See Wikipedia:Etiquette. Jokestress 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And again, it's totally not cool for you to strike out another editor's comments about your editting on the talk page. Dstanfor 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism citations

Gerardm suggested the following as citations:

• http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259338
• http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259546
• http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259380
• http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060417-151523
• http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060501-095418

I don't think the first three are notable or substantive. The fourth one seems the closest to being citable, and the last one is about me more than Ms. Jardin. Maybe the fourth one, but it seems pretty trivial. Is that the best there is? Jokestress 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are not notable or substantive? They are a person's opinion and one that backs up that people are criticising the work of Xeni. Does someone writing in the LA Times have more right to an opinion than someone on Metafilter? After all, they are both human beings. It's not the best evidence for the dislike of Xeni but who cares quite frankly? They serve to prove that people criticise her and her work. Or would you like more evidence? Is that the logic you work by? If more people have an opinion then somehow it is more valid? Opinions are, by their very nature, subjective.

Before the Internet, not only would we not have Wikipedia but we also wouldn't have a way for ANYONE to express their opinion on any subject. Now *you* want to take that voice away because *you* deem their views to be non-notable or not substantive. You make a mockery of the Internet and Wikipedia with your transparent attempt to hide any criticism of Xeni Jardin and quote meaningless Wiki guidlines whilst at the same time flouting them. Essentially being a bully who hides behind their keyboard. --Gerardm 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Gerardm, please refrain from statements with the word "you" in them. They are almost always about the person, not the content. Now, regarding the content of the above criticisms, I don't think anonymous comments on a weblog meet the notability criteria. See the recently added templeofme citation for an example of a specific criticism that gets close to meeting a minimal standard: established site, specific criticism. Too bad it's anonymous, but at least there is some substance and specificity to it. If this were an article about a film, we wouldn't consider an anonynmous blog reader's message in a comments section to be worth inclusion as a notable review. We have to look at criticisms in that sort of context. The metafilter citations above just don't cut it. Jokestress 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello? I can make statement with the word "you" in it because I am talking about *you*. Who on earth do you think you are?--Gerardm 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about a film, its an article about a blogger. Since this article is about a blogger, other bloggers represent the subjects peer group and seem like a perfectly reasonable source of criticism. --C33 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The peer group would be other professional award-winning bloggers, not all bloggers, and certainly not readers making anonymous comments on blog pages. Just because I shot a home movie doesn't mean my opinions of a major studio film are notable enough to include in the Wikipedia entry. If I started a blog today, my comments about Boing Boing or Ms. Jardin would be irrelevant here. Jokestress 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Xeni posted about the spoof site herself, on her award winning blog Boing Boing, it validates the criticism and the site. It was noteworthy enough to be posted there.216.39.146.25 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I agree that anonymous blog posts aren't notable for inclusion into Wikipedia, but at the same time I think the opinions of those consume of her product (blog readers and other bloggers) should be considered relevant. If BoingBoing allowed comments, I think those would be relevant, but since they dont, we're left searching elsewhere for expression from her rank and file readers. Is there a compromise that captures the sentiment of a community of critics yet meets notability requirements? --C33 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The source of the sentiment needs to meet notability guidelines for websites (again, I'm not sure xenisucks.com meets this). My interest is in stabilizing this article, and then having a few other neutral parties take a look at the evidence to determine its notability. There are obviously a vocal group of people who dislike Ms. Jardin and her work, but the article needs to reflect the critics' relevance in relation to Ms. Jardin's life and work. As it stands, the criticism section seems way out of proportion to the article as a whole. Jokestress 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem we come across is the notability requirement. For instance, I'm having a problem finding a 'notable' website mentioning xeni and self-promotion. However, a google search of xeni self-promotion returns many individuals remarking upon xeni jardin and cory doctorow's use of boing boing for self promotion of themselves and their friends. There are also references of xeni using her friend sean bonner as a source in a Day to Day story. So it does seem relevent that many individuals are saying this, but there's not a very convenient place to link to describing this. What is your suggestion in this case? Dstanfor 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think individual comments under a blog entry really qualify as notable or verifiable. I recommend we do all the new ones you added as bullets. It looks like most of them can go under one xenisucks.com bullet, since that seems to be the source of most criticism. Since Mr. Sharp appears to be the primary source of criticism, it makes sense to put all that together. That allows readers to get a better sense that most of the verifiable attributed criticism can be traced to Mr. Sharp's website. If you find other sources, preferably at Boing Boing's level of notability, those would be ideal. Jokestress 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Mr. Sharp is not the sole writer behind xenisucks.com. Does it make sense to give him all the credit/blame for the contents of the site? Dstanfor 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to press this point too hard, but do you have a cite for your understanding? --Kickstart70-T-C 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sharp is no longer the sole writer of XeniSucks.com. There is at least one additional writer (Mr. Quicksilver is his/her nom-de-blog), and I have no reason to believe that Sharp has any motivation in sockpuppeting additional writers for his site. Glowimperial 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If we have a verifiable source naming other contributors, we should by all means list them (real names, not blog micknames). His is the only name I have seen in a published source, and the domain is registered to him. The xenisucks entries average about 300 views and a dozen comments a day so far this month, which gets to my earlier point about web notability. That's not exactly a lot of traffic, especially when compared to Boing Boing. As I said, it's about contextualizing the criticism relative to the article's subject. Jokestress 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have access to the logfiles for xenisucks.com, and are basing your number of "views" on what SimplePHPBlog is willing to show you. Further, the domain isn't registered to me, it's registered to 'mnslab', a separate entity. Additionally, I hereby verify that I'm not the only one writing content at xenisucks.com, and despite your protestation about "blog mickmames" [sic], I don't feel any particular need to prove there's anyone else writing for it, much less their "real name", as I know it to be factual. That burden is hereby proclaimed to be yours. I don't have any interest in giving you a count of page hits per day, nor any other information, as, ultimately, I don't care whether you, or anyone else, thinks xenisucks.com is "notable". It's certainly "notable" enough that Violet Blue felt the need to declare herself a physical threat to me. As well, since you've been the subject of mockery on the site in question, I hereby suggest you should verify in some form or fashion that you are, in fact, neutral about whether the site remains in this biographical entry or not. One more thing; comparing *any* blog's notability to what is widely accepted to be the highest-trafficked blog is a strawman argument, and either indicative of faulty logic, or evidence of a deliberate bias, with likely intent being to remove the criticism, entirely. Mnsharp 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So, if you criticize everyone making edits of this page that you don't like on your site, does that automatically make them a conflict of interest? That seems like a convenient way for you to get your way on how this page is editted. If I recall correctly, you didn't bring jokestress up on xenisucks.com until she made edits here that you disagreed with. Dstanfor 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While I see your point on this, I think it's still something that should be considered for the sake of discussion. While I don't feel Mr. Sharp should be able to simply criticize anybody who edits this article and scream NPOV, I think the fact that Jokestress was called names and her entire livelihood ridiculed might affect her motives. Perhaps Jokestress could recuse herself from the Xenisucks issue and continue with her edits on the rest of the article?

I think it should also be noted that the only other editor name specific attacks I was able to find on Xenisucks were to MattN, who's user page and archived comments on this article make very clear that he was extremely biased and could not be reasoned with. In my opinion Jokestress has come over and made some very biased and wholesale edits, and has spent a great deal of time and text arguing for the removal of Xenisucks in a very focused and one sided manner. Calling Xeni sucks a "hate site" from the beginning and throwing in all the things she has, I don't see NPOV in the area of criticism. What I do see is a legalistic, cluster bomb approach to taking over the editing of this article. In my opinion her interest in this article appears aggressive, and she has been "talking down" to other editors. That indicates to me that she is serving her own interests and not those of a peaceful and credible Wikipedia, as it at least appears that she is driven by an agenda. I could be completely wrong. These are my observations on this issue that I wish to contribute.

216.39.146.25 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point is totally meaningless. Are you (yes, I will continue to use the word *you* inspite of your stupid suggestion not to) seriously saying that because xenisucks.com doesn't get as much traffic Boing Boing the criticism is less notable? If Boing Boing hadn't removed their comments system it would appear a lot of criticism would be directed there. There are people out there who do not like Xeni Jardin. Accept that fact and maybe we can all move on.--Gerardm 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think the citations in the introduction are necessary. I think that they are a common thread linking the different xeni criticisms. I'm not sure if they meet kickstart's 'trivial to find' test, but there's not much info on Xeni that's trivial to find to begin with, simply because she's primarily notable due to boingboing. I think in your trying to clean up with citations you've gone overboard in providing cites for things that are trivially easy to find, and insisting on cites for things that are not contentious. I don't think a citation is necesasry for the 'wizard of blogs' since it's part of the links already. I don't think the defamer description needs a cite if it's part of the links. Where her mother and brother live isn't contentious, nor are most of the things in the LA times article. None of her career is contentious either which I think means the cites are unnecessary. They are certainly distracting. Dstanfor 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We should always have a citation for a quotation. The standard is not if something is contentious, but whether it is verifiable. So, if Ms. Jardin went by another version of her name previously, we need to show that. It's not contentious, but it does need to be verified. On articles like this, where there are polarized opinions/positions or POV issues, it's necessary to cite almost everything. See race and intelligence for another article that has had to do the same thing, or Daniel Brandt for another public figure involved in similar editing disputes. Jokestress 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another website with criticism of Xeni specifically. http://www.templeofme.com/archives/2006/03/the_death_knell_of_boingboing.html

216.39.146.25 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

QuickTopic feature removal

The criticism section should probably include something about the removal of the QuickTopic reader comment feature in September 2003, but we need to link it to this article. It seems that it was removed in part because of comments about Ms. Jardin, but we need some good citations, preferably quotations from Boing Boing editors. Previously, Ms. Jardin had written a testimonial for QuickTopic:

QuickTopic is an indispensable part of every blog project I've been part of, from BoingBoing to kevinsites.net. The ease-of-use for both administrators and audience is unparalleled. Half of what makes a great blog great is what the blogger has to say. The other half? What the audience has to say. QuickTopic rules my blogosphere. [2]

On the NewsHour citation I added yesterday, she said:

Well, it's not something that's unique to The Washington Post or even newspapers. Other blogs, other Web sites that allow anonymous comments, it's just a problem that crops up when a really hot issue is being discussed or when the site starts to get really a lot of traffic.

Part of the issue here is that when people are able to comment anonymously, I mean, we all believe in the importance of free and anonymous and protected speech on the Internet. But it seems that when people are able to sort of fling mud without having to be attached to any kind of identity online or otherwise, things can get out of hand very quickly. So it's definitely a crisis that happens commonly on the Internet.

Well, I know that the weblog that I co-edit, Boing Boing, I we had to shut down a comment system because it wasn't set up in a smart way. I think this really is a technology issue more than it is an issue of any one publication.

Definitely systems that require registration are helpful but really one smart thing is for newspapers to tap into the energy of their readership. If people are excited enough to congregate online and comment about your stuff, sometimes readers can be encouraged to kind of govern the comment section themselves.

Sites like Metafilter and Slash Dot, you'll see some interesting kind of self-policing, self-organizing happening among the people who frequent those forums.

I recommend adding the comments in bold as part of a bullet on QuickTopic and their removal of the feature. Thoughts? Jokestress 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments in bold make it seem like this is not an issue relevent to Jardin's biography page. Instead it would be more relevent to BoingBoing's page. There have been references above and on some of the criticism links saying the the removal was due to someone mimicing Jardin successfully, but I haven't seen anything that meets your criteria for 'notable' evidence. If the removal was directly related to jardin then it may belong. Dstanfor 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good assessment. I wish there were some better sources (Wired, or at least /.), because there's a pretty good amount of circumstantial evidence it was related to spoofing and abuse (some of which was directed at Ms. Jardin). I'll add it to the Boing Boing page later. Jokestress 21:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Dstanfor's comment. This is a Boing Boing related issue. Glowimperial 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Direction of this Article

I've been on a wiki break while I help out starting up the BME Wiki, but I've been following the development of this article from a distance. This article has taken what I can only describe as a wierd turn. It is now over cited, with those citations being used, IMHO, to back up both POV and NPOV material.

This is an article on a minor web journalist people. I cannot believe the amount of attention and bickering that has been committed to the subject of the article here. Initially there were two questions as to the nature of this article. First the nature of the subject's name, which has still not been resolved, despite the 20+ citations on this site, no one has been able to answer that question to any real satisfaction. Secondly, there was the question as to the inclusion of mention of the website xenisucks.com, and whether there was a need for a critisism section.

Despite all of the citations, this article is no better than it was when we started. Information explaining the nature of Xeni Jardin's name history is still not present, and although there is now a "wealth" of information regarding various critics of the subject in the article, I still fail to see how those critisisms are noteable. By including numerous web based critisisms of the subject in this article at all, we begin a descent down a slippery slope where our easy access to those critisisms deforms the quality of this article. I also feel that the "press release" ("wizard of blogs", "interstellar blogger sent from fifteen minutes..." nature of much of the introductory paragraph puts the article on poor footing.

While normally I'm an anal retentive Wikipedian, I cannot help but feel that this article is butchered beyond all repair. The numerous citations and the selected references from those citations serve only to calcify this article, making it a poor reference. The over citation of the article strikes me as a editing "nuclear option", forcing potential editors to operate in a manner out of touch with the normal process of consensus that produces good articles here on Wikipedia.

I pose this question - Is it too late to abandon this ridiculous conflict, or will this article continue to function as a battleground for the critics and defenders of the subject? Glowimperial 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, don't think it's too late for this article. Yeah, the recent period has sucked, but it's recoverable. I've held back direct edits for the last bit, while giving (hopefully) constructive criticisms where they were needed. What needs to happen now is some task management. Who wants to take on the following?

• Research to settle the issues with her real name - I wouldn't expect any help from the people who know her who have posted here, but has anyone directly asked XJ? A recent answer as to why would be better than this guesswork.
• Cleanup the citations - a good place to start would be removing any citations from sites that have already been used once (esp. xenisucks.com)
• Have a written agreement that allows for flexibility in content here including criticisms that (once again) allows consensus among editors

I have a baby on the way in the next few weeks and a full time job and classes, so I'm not able to take on anything more than what I am now doing, but I will help where I can. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the name issue - in an archived comment section I went back and forth with Xeni as to the nature of her name. After giving a vague and "mutiply interpretable" answer, she abruptly left the conversation. It is my belief (and I haven't edited the article to this end because it would be speculation, and any research I would have to do to confirm this information would be "original research", which I'm trying to avoid doing on the subject.) that the name "Xeniflores Jardin" orginates with her Guatemalan association (given to her by Doctor Q., who she regards as her "father"), and that she was born under a completely different name given to her by her biological parents. I found her "contributions" in this are to be unsatisfactory.

Frankly, I'd like to put this article into the wayback machine and go back to an earlier version and start from there. The citations in this article have become a crutch that is preventing proper editing. Using the cites in the article right now, I could re-write the article to either heap holy praise on the subject or to tear her a new one. Right not the cites in the article seem intentioned to do a bit of both. A balance of POV edits does not make an NPOV article.

The subject of the article does not seem noteable enough to me to merit such a detailed and lengthy article. By artificially promoting every detail of her public life, we are inflating the noteability of the subject herself, which I don't see as a good thing. We are also inflating the significane of the critisism of the subject at the same time, which is as I said, a slippery slope that can only lead to critisism centered article inflation throughout Wikipediea, something I am concerned about. This is often a problem with "internet celebrity/website" articles. The ease of finding references artificially inflates the size and depth of the article, and thus the percieved importance of the subject.

I too am exceptionally busy. I'm just trying to step in to apply a little "let's put this in perspective" here. I don't have the time to play "global thermonuclear war" over this subject, and I hate to see this article dominated by those who do. Glowimperial 06:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like there was a lot of consensus on the article prior to jokestress stepping in. For whatever reason, some of her edits have been contentious. I think removal of citations would be helpful. I also think with removal of citations, we can trim down some of the PR ish ness of the intro, and reduce the size of the criticism section. It be nice if most of the source of this article did not rely solely on the LA times piece, but there's not a lot of published info out there so there's not a way to fix that I think. I also don't think we'll straighten out the birth name issue. With a family members named Monica, Carl, and Glen, Xeniflores is pretty unexpected. Xeniflores guatemalan source seems to imply that she got the name in from either her mentor, or in her travels to guatemala. But this is all speculation, and without doing some original research on our part, we won't find anything in google. At this point it seems like the best way to keep from raising anyone's ire would be for some of the recent editors of the main page (gerardm, jokestress, and I) to try to do some trimming of our own additions. Dstanfor 05:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Glowimperial, the article is totally out of perspective. The criticism section is a litany of non-notable POV whining from a small group of people and the rest of the article reads like a press release. Except for the career portion, which reads like some creepy private investigator's report (where are the afterschool jobs?). It's amazing to me that people would put this much effort into arguing about the article, but no one is willing to do decent research to write a REAL BIO! Just simple bio! If it's worth having an article and worth having a critic's section, you would think it'd be worth it to someone to actually write something worth reading. Did I say that it was amazing to me? Maybe I meant to say that it's telling, very telling. I'm glad Jokestress is at least making an effort to clean the article up, she's doing a better job than those who "already reached a consensus".--66.92.15.224 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is too polarized. The criticism is too extreme/personal and for the most part, not relevant. While much of the rest of the page (especially the intro) reads like a vanity page. It needs more objective facts (name, education, useful biographical data) to fill out the middle ground. I've tried to contribute positively here, but I find myself being drawn into an almost political argument here. I think I'm going to excuse myself and try to work on some less controversial articles. Good Luck all! --C33 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When I first read this, it sounded like a dossier put together by an unhinged cyberstalker with a long history of antisocial behavior (which turns out wasn't far off). There's this weird "gotcha" mentality in the blogger world, where every quibble gets blown out of proportion. Hence this criticism section here, which really comes down to a web filter, some vocabulary flames, complaints about uncaptioned photos and a hate site which claims "notability" based on one paragraph in a tech column that said the owner seems like the Comic Book Guy. The criticism could be dispensed with in a sentence or two, max (with citations, natch). It's barely notable if at all.

I also agree with the comments about the opening PR type stuff being unnecessary, so I took it out.

Now that all the cards are on the table in terms of the substance of the criticism, I think we can start working toward putting it in proportion with the rest of the article. Jokestress 08:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we are still debating whether xenisucks.com is notable or not. If nothing else the campaign waged on here to stop it being included in Xeni's wiki entry makes it notable. Without Xeni, xenisucks.com would not exist. Clearly there is a community of people, who knows how big, who think Xeni sucks and point out reasons why. Your argument that it doesn't get the same level of traffic as Boing Boing is laughable. The site was also mentioned in the NYT for crying out loud. Seriously, what else do you want before *you* consider the criticism on xenisucks.com to be notable? --Gerardm 09:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting)

Criteria for web content

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

• The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • This criterion excludes:
    • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
    • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
• The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
• The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

From WP:WEB. Jokestress 09:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". Great; that describes the site. Now let's move on. --Gerardm 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What well-known site distributes xenisucks content? Jokestress 10:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Eeek, well I totally misread that. Ahem. --Gerardm 10:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reread your link:

"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia"

How is that relevant to our discussion? Notable means, in my mind and in the mind of a dictionary, to be "worthy of note or notice". We are not talking about xenisucks.com having it's own page on Wikipedia so I have no idea why you linked to that other than an attempt to justify the removal of xenisucks.com with a totally irrelevant Wiki guideline.

First *you* tell me what I can't use the word you. Now you link to a Wiki guideline about giving web-only content it's own article. Seriously, what are you on? It's great you keep on quoting these Wiki guidelines but how about a) sticking to them yourself and b) quote some that are relevant. It's becoming more and more obvious you are just a bully. --Gerardm 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Save the hysterical accusations and shrill rhetoric for your LiveJournal or MySpace, Gerardm. The rest of us are trying to get POV and balance issues with this article resolved in a civil manner, and we're doing it without resorting to rants about other users. Jokestress 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You are a joke, you really are. In your effort to try and remove xenisucks.com from Xeni's article you suggest that the site is not notable and quote a Wiki guideline. I pull up the fact that the guideline you have quoted has NOTHING to do with mentioning the site on Xeni's entry and you get all pissy. Face it, you got caught out. You tried to look all clever and instead you have looked rather foolish. Clearly you are NOT trying to get balance because you have essentially tried to mislead people by quoting incorrect Wiki guidelines in your effort to remove criticism of Xeni. You have tried. You have failed. Move along now.--Gerardm 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all sofa king ridiculous. I said above I think Xeni is lame, and still do, but Wikipedia doesn't need to include that. Can we go back to the version of the site before the Minutemen poster controvery and all of Jokerstress's edits? I thought we had a nice criticism section then: all it said was somebody created a Greasemonkey script to cull her out of BB and Matt Sharp had started xenisucks.com, which a NYT writer took notice of and which also got a reaction out of Xeni, the subject of this article. I can't really help on the name issue; I'd like to know what the real deal is but we may never know, so it seems like the only reasonable thing we can do is document the fact that she does not appear to want her birth name known. We should revert the page. Ryan Norton 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On controversial biographies, especially ones where the subject or editors have raised concerns, it's necessary to cite sources. One of the best ways to counter claims of POV is to have the citations in the article. Unfortunately, most biographies of living people do not currently have this rigor, though they should.

Regarding name, Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm appears to be the full name she's used her whole professional life, with Xeni Jardin being the shortened version of that under which she writes. Lots of actors and personalities do that (Jon Stewart comes to mind). Until we have a published and verified source that it was something else previously, any other implications or speculations are POV and original research.

I don't feel a revert is necessary. This is now getting culled down as we examine the source and weight of each bit of information. I believe the pre-journalism work history can be dispensed with in a sentence, and that some other notable reportage like the Zero Gravity trip should be mentioned. Then comes the criticism, which is pretty forgettable and probably shouldn't comprise 25% of the article. It emanates from fewer than half a dozen very grumpy people and an unknown number who could do without her, but haven't devoted their energies to hate sites and camping out on Wikipedia articles. Jokestress 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now; I see you *do* know what an ad hominem is. Consider the fact that there was a consensus before you came along throwing your agenda-laden mud, and you're one of a half-dozen minus five demanding it meet *your* criteria. And lay off the ad hominems on me on Wikipedia. This is the second time you've done it, and I'm getting tired of it. If you have proof that I'm "grumpy", cite it. If not, retract it. If you have proof that I'm an "unhinged cyberstalker with a long history of anti-social behavior", cite your evidence, otherwise save your hysterical accusations and shrill rhetoric for your LiveJournal or MySpace, "Jokestress". Mnsharp 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were a Wikipedia article on the person you say you are, I'd certainly cite sources there, but unfortunately, Matthew N. Sharp is not a notable human being. Jokestress 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress: having a Wikipedia page doesn't make you notable. Also, you are damaging this article with your obsessive edits and biased point of view. If you really need a pet article to maintain, maybe you should pick something that you can be objective about. joeynelson 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is at this point that it becomes plainly obvious that Jokestress should end her edits on this article now. She is not objective and clearly has much venom for the author of Xenisucks.com. I would hope from this point on she is reverted at every turn. This is ridiculous. Someone recently said to me that Wikipidia was degenerating into Usenet 2.0. The situation on this article seems to confirm this. Somebody please revert this article to what it looked like in April?216.39.146.25 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The front page says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". While I agree that Jokestress' edits have not been overall 100% helpful, we should not be telling her she can't edit this article. Instead, working toward a non-biased consensus is far more important, and if she makes edits that we don't like, then we certainly have the options of fixing them, undoing them, or ignoring them. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tightening up and adding notable stories

Since she's known for journalism, I tightened up the pre-journalism work stuff, which is all detailed in the references. We should examine some of the stories she has covered though. The Zero Gravity flight report seems notable (it included other notable people), but there was a question from another editor. Thoughts? Jokestress 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here is the article, which was already listed on the Zero Gravity page by someone a while ago as a reference. Jokestress 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

FKA

This recent edit suggests these other versions of her name are aliases:

Formerly known as Xeniflóres Hamm, and Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm, she currently goes by Xeni Jardin.

Her full name is Xeniflores Jardin Hamm. She has used that since at least the mid 90s. I don't think the Jon Stewart article would ever say:

Formerly known as Jon Liebowitz, and Jon Stuart Liebowitz, he currently goes by Jon Stewart. "

The wording implies some kind of subterfuge or deception. I suggest:

Her full name is Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm. "Xeniflóres" is a Guatemalan name meaning "protector of plants/flowers", and jardin is the Spanish word for "garden."

That way it doesn't sound like she is on the FBI's most wanted list with aliases or something. She has a nickname and a pen name which are variants of her full name. No biggie, right? Jokestress 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, since she pronounces Jardin the French way (zhar-DAN), not the Spanish way (har-DEEN), should we say it's the French word to help reduce confusion? Jokestress 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The current edit is correct. She was formally known as those other names, and now goes by xeni jardin. It is suspected that she had an entirely different birthname, but there's nothing but circumstantial evidence. According to Xeni, her legal name now is xeni jardin, not xeniflores jardin hamm. And there is circumstantial evidence that her name changes have confused the IRS as well. the names on the current page are all names that she has signed to her own work post Dr. Q. There's no evidence to be found about her pre- Dr. Q. Dstanfor 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is awkward, because we are dealing with a subject who has deliberately changed their entire name (I don't think that is speculation at this point, it is obvious) from their birth name, rather than simply shortened or "Americanised" their name for professional purposes. It is further made connfusing as her birth name (as in the name that appeared on her original birth certificate, outside of the "Hamm" is unknown to us. In addition, the subject has publicly stated that the name change was made for practical reasons (avoiding "bad people" from her past) which are not explained by the subject anywhere accessable to the public.

These factors make the Jon Stewart example a poor one to use in this case. A better example would be an individual who has permanently and legally changed their entire name from their birth name for purposes unrelated to their profession. The earliest and most reliable reference we have to the name change is a newspaper article listing residents in North San Diego County[3] who are owed monies or property being held by the State of California. There she is listed as Hamm, Xeniflores J., and the monies owed most likeley date from the period of her employemnt at Traveltrust, where there is a confirming reference[4] of her name at that time. It seems clear to me that she changed her name at one point, but continued to use the last name Hamm in her professional life. Maybe a better example would be someone such as Genesis P-Orridge who has wholly abandoned their birth name, for personal reasons. I normally like to lead articles where the subject has changed their name by including their birth name along with their dates of birth and/or death as is shown there. It settles the matter, provides the reader with the information, and moves onto the article itself.

We have a problem, however, because the subject's birth name is both unknown (to us) and subject to some degree of controversy. We have a subject about whom there is not only speculation as to the birth name, but who's gender at birth is also routinely speculated about, and who has gone to great effort to sever connections with her own past at a certain point, and who has provided little information of substance about herself prior to that severing (which is her right - but it is frustrating for the lay biographers here at WP). Some mention needs to be made of her life prior to "becoming Xeniflores Jardin" ( is her current legal name Xeniflores Jardin or Xeniflores Jardin Hamm?), as she has leveraged heavily on that "mystery", and it plays no small part in her public persona, and therefore her professional success.

Perhaps we could address the "birth name" issue by adding the text "birth name unknown" to the birth date in parentheses section. Also - we shoudl remove the cite on the year of birth - we don't need citations for that sort of thing, and the article needs less cite-clutter". The "Early Life" section needs to address what appears to be (from all of the resources available, including direct statements from the subject) a total and complete change in persona, right down to the name. Eariler variants on her legal name should be addressed there, as well. It is neither suspicios or criminal to have had previous aliases, it is simply unusual. I don't see that material as necessarily POV, but until someone can say "she was born ----" "in 19-- she changed her legal name to ----", it may be the best we can do. Also on a minor note, indicating that she does use the French pronunciation of "Jardin" should replace the Spanish. Glowimperial 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree this biography has interesting challenges. I have been working almost exclusively on challenging biographies likie this for the last several months because each one has unique issues. This one is kind of like Daniel Brandt, who considers the article on him an invasion of privacy. He has also been rather cagey about his biographical details and has not been photographed in many years.

This article is interesting because the author wishes to cultivate an aura of mystery, but it's important that the article not ascribe motivations or make suppositions.

Birthdate: The only published source (LA Times) contradicts itself. I would say, either a footnoted date, or no date at all. No date is probably most neutral, but the note shows that there's a loosey-goosey feel to self-provided published info about her early life.

Name: "Birth name unknown" seems inaccurate. For all we know from the published record, that was her birth name. Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm seems to be the name she has used previously. It doesn't seem necessary to list "Xeniflóres Hamm" "Xeniflóres J. Hamm" and "Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm," when all are variants of the same name.

Thanks for this helpful feedback. Jokestress 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also difficult to write the article without knowing why the author cultivates an "aura of mystery." Does she seek to avoid the "bad people" from her past, as stated in the LA Times article. Or has she developed a persona to further her professional work? Or a combination of the two? Or neither?

There is something about the L.A. Times article that has always seemed suspect to me. It is essentially a puff piece, and I don't think that it was fact checked very well. I'd avoid using it as a reference if we can. Unfortunately it's the largest piece of media where the subject talks about herself, which makes it important.

Birthdate Didn't Xeni discuss her DOB in a citeable BoingBoing post? I seem to remember getting the reference from there.

Name:I know this borders dangerously close to speculation and I don't want this article to become speculative in nature, but from my conversations with the subject (all of which took place on this talk page), I feel very confident in saying that neither the words Xeniflores or Jardin were in any way part of her "birth name" as given to her by her biological parents Monica Rumsey and Glen Hamm. Given her backstory - it would be entirely too coincidental and statistically nigh-impossible for her birth parents to have given her and obscure Guatemalan/French name (which also just happens to sound like "Zen Garden"), only to have her later taken up by a "mysteriously undocumented Guatemalan scholar and artist" who took her under his wing. Although we do need to "cite our sources" here on Wikipedia, listing her birth name as Xeniflores Jardin would be to pile improbable upon improbable to the point of ridiculousness. Have you read through the conversation that I had with the subject earlier regarding her name? I found the her responses to be unsatisfying and vague, and she left the conversation at a point where several well worded questions could have either settled the matter or elicted a revealing unwillingness to answer those questions. Glowimperial 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the citations for her birth day under the heading "Birth year 1972" above. However, she did not mention her age or birth year in the BB cite. I'm sure there are other sources. I ran into the same issue on Paul Barresi last month. He is also very loosey-goosey with early life info and provided some information that was open to interpretation.

Name: I had read your exchange before, and I too very much doubt her birth name was her current name. Still, we have to stick to verifiability. Strictly speaking, that is unverifiable and original research. As it stands, "birth name unknown" kinda cuts both ways POV-wise: it adds to the "mystery" on the positive side, and it suggests some sort of nefarious "deception" on the negative side. Better to err on the side of NPOV and avoid "birth name unknown," it seems. Had she answered your questions, that would still have violated WP:NOR as a self-reference. Jokestress 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? 216.39.146.25 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the entry is fine right now. Covers her career, summarizes the reaction against her, and everything the entry claims is documented. We should just leave it alone and see if anybody who isn't already deeply entrenched on one side or the other wanders in and changes stuff for the better. Ryan Norton 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)