Talk:Warren Boroson

Warren Boroson, alarmingly I think you have got the wrong impression of wikipedia. You contributions are welcome but as users have said they need to meet various criteria to be included. Also you have recieved a critical response from a user on your first edit and have assumed that tha manner in which he conducted himself is the same for the administrators. Wikipedia is a large and very varied community and you will realise this if you integrate into it rather than leave at the first sign of trouble. Also, in staying here you would learn more about the process which creates these articles.

JHJPDJKDKHI! 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Age
Lists him as 63 on 6 May 1998, making it slightly more likely he was born in 1936 rather than 1935. Jokestress 01:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Contribs as anon IP 205.188.117.71
Mr. Boroson wrote in the column cited at the top of the page that he had tried to add some relatively obscure information to the Barry Goldwater article on 1 January 2006. Unfortunately, his additions lacked citations and therefore violated Wikipedia's verifiability and original research policies. An editor removed them and asked for citations.

Mr. Boroson was deeply offended that his uncited and unverified information was not included:
 * "Some jerk contemptuously replied, in print, that Wiki would not publish my note, demanding to know: Where's the evidence? He never contacted me directly, as he should have; he just high-handedly dismissed my note, going on and on like a nutcase about: Where's the evidence?"

Someone should have pointed him to WP:NOR and WP:CITE.

Please note that not all contributions from that IP are likely to be from Mr. Boroson, who is apparently an AOLer. Jokestress 03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That can't be him. If he hates the site he would not have made that many contributions. JHJPDJKDKHI! 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the sentence above your response. Jokestress 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia
I have moved the following section from the main page, as it is not an important aspect of his career and Wikipedia should avoid self reference. It is good to see that some of Wikipedia's critics have open minds.

Comments on Wikipedia
Boroson's has criticized Wikipedia in the Daily Record, stating:


 * "It's not just that Wikipedia makes lots of mistakes. The writing is awfully long-winded, clumsy and boring. Obvious questions aren't answered. There are grammatical howlers galore. Clearly, people who can't write and who can't edit and who can't do research are running things. What next? Barbers will do brain surgery?"

A few weeks prior to that article, he wrote in his blog:


 * "Anyway, irresponsibility is pervading the media--spread by amateurs, often anonymously. The Wikipedia is an example. People argue about whether this "people's" encyclopedia is accurate or not. I just find that it's amateurish. Poorly written, poorly edited. And my only experience with Wikipedia has underscored the incompetence of the people who work there."

He later posted a follow up:
 * "I have received a ton of e-mails about my denunciation of Wikipedia.... Clifford from London scored a palpable hit. I criticized Wikipedia for not providing enough information on mutual funds, but he pointed out that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a far worse offender in this regard.... Having done more reading, I concede that I went too far. There are good articles in Wikipedia." Boronson then proceeded to name a selection of obscure articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.55.223 (talk • contribs)


 * Agreed- this is a good fix, I think. Jokestress 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Backdoor category?
Having the "Wikipedia critic" on the talk page seems to be a back door. Can we add the cat to the article itself? -- 75.26.4.46 04:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No because there is no material on his criticism of Wikipedia in the article. It was moved to this page because it is too trivial in relation to his career to merit a place there. The guy is a 70 year old polemicist, and the number of targets he has lambasted probably runs into four figures, so highlighting Wikipedia is vanity. Note that this is not about suppressing access to his comments; as he is possibly the only known Wikipedia critic to have repented it is rather the opposite. 62.31.55.223 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)