User talk:MarkFilipak

Welcome!

Hello, MarkFilipak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

June 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to WP: Help Desk, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. ''Please do not remove content from the Help Desk simply because it has been answered. '' Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Bluray etc
Hi Mark

The questions you were raising here are the wrong questions, in the wrong place.

I understand that you are an engineer and have some expertise in the subject matter of DVD and Bluray protocols and that you find content in Wikipedia about those protocols to be inaccurate. Some responses...
 * Great! We love experts. But from what you wrote at WT:V it seems that you are not so expert in how Wikipedia works. This is not uncommon - Wikipedia is a bit strange. Please do read the essay WP:EXPERT, which you may find useful. Let me walk you through some of the key polices and guidelines that govern content:
 * WP:OR - no original research is allowed in Wikipedia -instead...
 * WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them)
 * WP:RS this is the guideline that defines what a "reliable source" is
 * WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view on X is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT in the article about X.
 * WP:NOTMANUAL - as was mentioned at WP:V, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical manual. See also WP:TECHNICAL.

I am not sure exactly what your objection to the content in the current Wikipedia articles is.

When you find bad content, the best thing to do is to just fix it by replacing it with good content, rather than complaining about the bad content.

But here are ways to challenge bad content. You need to challenge it based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines - you cannot just claim it is wrong. Questions to ask about content you don't find to be good:
 * Is there no citation provided? If there is no source, then the content can be challenged per WP:OR and/or WP:VERIFY.
 * If you are pretty sure the content is just made up/original research, you can delete it, with an edit note "deleted per WP:OR". If someone disagrees, you open a discussion on the related Talk page, and ask who ever disagrees, what the source is for the content. (If you were right, they will not be able to provide one). When editors disagree about whether something is OR, there is a noticeboard where you can get other editors to weigh in. It is here: WP:ORN.
 * If you think the content might be based on ~some source~ that just wasn't cited, you can, instead of just deleting it, add a "citation needed" tag "undefined" where a citation should be. Once that tag has been there for a while, you can delete the content (and the tag).
 * If a citation is provided - is the source reliable? This is a question you answer by first reading and understanding the source, reading and understanding WP:RS, and seeing whether the source complies with WP:RS for the content it is meant to support.  People disagree about whether a source is reliable to support some given content.  We have a noticeboard where you can community input on the content and source - it is here: WP:RSN.

Those are the main possibilities that play out. I hope that makes sense. But the kinds of questions you were asking, and the place you were asking them, was the wrong place. You might also want to try the helpdesk. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

dialogue
Note Mark responded within my original long comment. I re-posted my original comment above, intact, and below I have gone back through and signed each piece of my now-broken up comment so things make more sense. Let's continue the discussion below....Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mark

The questions you were raising here are the wrong questions, in the wrong place. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article states that Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. My point is that there are many articles that are unverifiable. No one is doing anything about them. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The quality of Wikipedia is as good as the quality of the editors who give time to it, who understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Expertise in the subject matter and expertise in Wikipedia-writing, is a rare combination. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are an engineer and have some expertise in the subject matter of DVD and Bluray protocols and that you find content in Wikipedia about those protocols to be inaccurate. Some responses... First, Great! We love experts. But from what you wrote at WT:V it seems that you are not so expert in how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is opaic. How Wikipedia works is: It works by fits and starts. It works or doesn't work according to no particular pattern. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. When I say "how Wikipedia works" I mean that like "how a combustion engine works" - the pistons and fuel injectors and camshaft etc. You might try to start your car and nothing happens, but if you don't know how an engine works, you are helpless. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not uncommon - Wikipedia is a bit strange. Please do read the essay WP:EXPERT, which you may find useful. Let me walk you through some of the key polices and guidelines that govern content: Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those guidelines are not enforced. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that you understand the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:OR - no original research is allowed in Wikipedia -instead...
 * WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them)
 * WP:RS this is the guideline that defines what a "reliable source" is
 * WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view on X is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT in the article about X.
 * WP:NOTMANUAL - as was mentioned at WP:V, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical manual. See also WP:TECHNICAL.  Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what your objection to the content in the current Wikipedia articles is. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's wrong. ...Not just wrong, it's prejudicially misleading. It's negative knowledge. It's FOX NEWS. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me, on what basis you are saying that it is wrong. I tried to provide you an algorithm below with what to analyze the content in light of how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

When you find bad content, the best thing to do is to just fix it by replacing it with good content, rather than complaining about the bad content. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the DVD or Blu-ray specification. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

But here are ways to challenge bad content. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there are not.--MarkFilipak (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * yes there are. You just don't know about them and you seem unwilling to learn.  I described them below, and you for some reason ignored that part of my email Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to challenge it based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines - you cannot just claim it is wrong. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines are inadequate.--MarkFilipak (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the policies and guidelines are only as useful, as the editors who understand them and implement them. If you care about Wikipedia, you will take the time to learn about them. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I care enough to be a regular monthly dollar contributor. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions to ask about content you don't find to be good:
 * Is there no citation provided? If there is no source, then the content can be challenged per WP:OR and/or WP:VERIFY.
 * I can know something is wrong, but not have the Blu-ray specification to prove it (or to cite). What do I do then? --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go find a piece of content you are objecting to, copy it, and paste it down below, and tell me the article it came from. I will walk you through how to analyze it under the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are pretty sure the content is just made up/original research, you can delete it, with an edit note "deleted per WP:OR". If someone disagrees, you open a discussion on the related Talk page, and ask who ever disagrees, what the source is for the content. (If you were right, they will not be able to provide one). When editors disagree about whether something is OR, there is a noticeboard where you can get other editors to weigh in. It is here: WP:ORN.
 * If you think the content might be based on ~some source~ that just wasn't cited, you can, instead of just deleting it, add a "citation needed" tag "undefined" where a citation should be. Once that tag has been there for a while, you can delete the content (and the tag).
 * If a citation is provided - is the source reliable? This is a question you answer by first reading and understanding the source, reading and understanding WP:RS, and seeing whether the source complies with WP:RS for the content it is meant to support.  People disagree about whether a source is reliable to support some given content.  We have a noticeboard where you can community input on the content and source - it is here: WP:RSN.

Those are the main possibilities that play out. I hope that makes sense. But the kinds of questions you were asking, and the place you were asking them, was the wrong place. You might also want to try the helpdesk. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you please apply the algorithm above to some specific piece of content you are objecting to, and tell me what you produce? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is ridiculous. I don't even know to whom I'm corresponding. I don't have time for this nonsense. --MarkFilipak (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is part of what I mean. Anonymity is deep in the guts of Wikipedia. You have no right to know who I am. Who I am absolutely doesn't matter.  You do not understand anything about how Wikipedia works.  If you want to learn, there are plenty of people who will  be happy to teach you. But if all you want to do is stomp your feet and complain, I have better things to do with my time - there is work to do here.  So I am finished here.  If you have any actual questions about how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask me. I will not respond to  more whinging from you, however. I will just not respond. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

example
if you want to learn now Wikipedia works, please paste a specific piece of content you object to (something short that makes a claim about one fact) below, and tell me what article it comes from. I will walk you through how we analyze things and work on them in Wikipedia per the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2016
 News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
 * News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters


 * Special report: Olympics readership depended on language


 * In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage


 * WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia


 * Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between


 * Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit


 * Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them


 * Recent research: One study encounters critique of its ethics from Wikipedians; another critiques the ethics employed by Wikipedia


 * Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)