Talk:Lyoness/Archives/2013

Talk page edits
I am a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where a dispute has been listed in reference to the discussion on this page which I just removed in accordance with the policy at WP:BLPREMOVE. The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to all parts of Wikipedia, not just articles, and says that negative information may not be posted anywhere here without a high-quality reliable source. That does not allow editors to examine any person's writings and analyze that they are defamatory, but would require a person making that assertion to provide a highly reliable source which expressly and without synthesis proves that claim independently of what the editor may think. For that reason I have removed that material from this page and will be removing it from User talk:LyoNewMedia as well. I'll say a few more words about that blog in a moment, but I want to get this posted first. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have also requested oversight permanent deletion of the edits so that they cannot be viewed through the page histories of these two pages. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

About the blog
The blog mentioned in the removed discussion cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, not because it may be defamatory, but rather because blogs of that nature simply cannot be used in Wikipedia as reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, see WP:SPS, and that is particularly true about controversial information such as this. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Any further discussion of this matter should take place at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Lyoness rather than here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Editing
Dear TransporterMan,

Thank you for the clarification and your efforts to keep the Wikipedia article neutral and based on the Wikipedia guidelines. Just one question appeared in that matter: Does this mean the section that mentions and references the blog can be deleted or will this happen automatically?

Thank you very much for your help and best wishes, LyoNewMedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyoNewMedia (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Answered on your user talk page, but let me add that it won't happen automatically, someone must do it. Please particularly note the part about signing your talk page posts. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick summary of discussion
Most current point of discussion between LyoNewMedia and myself is whether the references to the Kriminalpolizei references are valid and should persist. The discussion has taken place on our respective talk pages, with mediation efforts made by Technopat.

LyoNewMedia feels that the disappearance of the main article and Lyoness' response, published by the same magazine, from the online article database of this magazine constitutes a major verifiability issue for the readers of the Lyoness Wikipedia article. I agree that it's unfortunate that the articles are no longer featured in the appropriate place online, yet that print sources are (at least) just as reliable as online sources, and that it nothing being featured on the internet, doesn't necessarily diminish the value of an article as a Wikipedia reference.

According to Technopat, the guidelines support my point of view and there is no immediate reason to remove the references. Uploading scans of the article, or referring to one of the places in which it's still featured on the internet would unfortunately clash with international copyright laws, as well as Wikipedia guidelines.

Lyoness expert (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding Technopats point of view
Just to add something to Lyoness expert's summary, here is the input Technopat had to this discussion, which he posted on the talk page of Lyoness expert. He brings up some interesting points that give some food for thought

Start quote - "Greetings Lyoness expert. Thanks for your note. As I pointed out to LyoNewMedia, the issue is particularly complex, and I'm afraid there's not much I can do to shed much light on it beyond what you (both) already know. And certainly not in just a few words. As I mentioned, it's a sort of loophole regarding verifiability, and in which the principle of assuming good faith (fine when dealing with non-contentious content) combines with the recurring problem of Link rot. Again, as I pointed out, I'm often unable to add content regarding issues I have firsthand knowledge of simply because I can't provide a verifiable source at that moment. Frustrating, but "them's the rules". My own rule of thumb, which is by no means a policy here at Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable_sources#Definition_of_published "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Definition of published)]) is that if I add content which is contentious, the reference must be verifiable on Internet. If that reference later becomes a dead link, which is surprisingly frequent, there are tools, including Using the Wayback Machine, which may solve the problem. A similar problem occurs when, for example, an archive such as that of The Times changes from providing free access to requiring subscription.

Much of your current discussion seems to revolve around "negative information", and I have devoted much time and energy over the years to make sure that such information is not removed from articles, provided that the references are directly verifiable, that is, accessible on-line (preferably using more than one URL, precisely to pre-empt link rot). The problem is when such information is no longer immediately verifiable, in which case, out it goes –and I insist, this is my own approach– at least until consensus has been reached on the talk page to restore it. This has the added advantage that, by involving other editors who know something about the issue, there's a greater probability of finding alternative sources.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jimmy Wales' comment here: [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." (Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006) It may seem a bit outdated now, and current standards are much more flexible, but I sincerely believe that, for Wikipedia's sake, its spirit must be maintained." - End Quote.

--LyoNewMedia (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)