Talk:Xeni Jardin/Archive 3

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 &middot; 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 &middot; 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? --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)