Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-16/Chinese Room

Where is the dispute?
The Chinese Room, Talk:Chinese_room.

This was the Talk thread created during the original discussion, in May 2009.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Reading_glasses
 * User:Dlabtot
 * User:Paradoctor

What is the dispute?
In early 2009, Reading_glasses (that's me) added a Cultural References section to the article on the philosophy concept of the Chinese Room. This accommodated a feature film which was named after, inspired by and containing a discussion of that concept. In May 09, Dlabtot removed the section without discussion. Reading_glasses initiated a discussion in which Dlabtot explained several objections (described below) and rejected further attempts to satisfy his objections. The section remained absent. In April 2010, Reading_glasses felt that more of Dlabtot's requirements had been fulfilled, and added the section again. Dlabtot removed it.

Dlabtot's basic objections:


 * 1) The film is not "notable" - in Dlabtot's sense, meaning famous or culturally important.
 * 2) The film was not widely available enough.
 * 3) 'Reliable sources' are necessary as sources about the film's content.

My responses:


 * 1) In discussion, we pointed out that notability in Wikipedia is a measure of relevance to the article at hand, not general cultural importance. This was not disputed.
 * 2) The film has played for the public, including in New York City, and the DVD is now being distributed internationally on Amazon.com and can be shared freely under its Creative Commons license.
 * 3) A primary source itself, if available, should be a sufficient source about its own content. Otherwise we get an infinite regression - every source needs another source to report on its content, and so on.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to get past the tone of the discussion. Dlabtot gives no indication that he will be receptive to discussion, and repeatedly uses unnecessary pejorative and provocative language. It is also difficult to engage with some sets of contradictory statements he makes.

How do you think we can help?
I would like to know how to move forward with this. As far as I can tell, all objections are satisfied, but it seems that the Cultural References section will be immediately removed if it is added again.

Discussion
Regarding item 3, I suggest having a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources - in my opinion, a request for a secondary source is entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I checked those out. They pretty much concern sources of fact, which purport to represent reality, and need therefore to be evaluated as true/false or reliable/unreliable. I don't know what you might call a narrative film - a work of culture, a work of art, etc. - but it's a different animal. Something that isn't about anything but itself. The closest I could find to anything relevant was the section on Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which seems clear: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: None of the numbered concerns are really applicable (except maybe #1 in some loose sense), again because this is not a source about anything but itself. Reading glasses (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I'd also like to point to just a few examples of the widespread inclusion of just this kind of cultural references:

Omega_Point

Hedgehog%27s_dilemma

These are useful examples because they both show a concept being carried into broader culture through artistic works, which is what I'm hoping will be documented in the Chinese Room article.

These sections can be found in far too many articles for me to include here. Often the connection between the article's subject and the referencing material is as tenuous as a single line of dialogue or a song lyric, and the materials include video games and single episodes of TV shows.

Also, there are many examples of the content of a primary source being reported without an additional citation:

Death_in_venice

Mystic_River_(novel)

Mystic_River_(film)

My point is that it seems to me the Chinese Room article is being held to a standard that either doesn't exist or isn't widely enforced (and a standard I can't find to be an official part of Wikipedia). To be consistent with the Chinese Room article, these other articles would all have to be severely edited down. Am I right? Reading glasses (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor's input
The thought experiment is the central motif and plot device in the film, thus in principle appropriate to mention in the article. I don't think WP:V is a real issue here, considering the name of the film and this screenshot in particular. Should it be made an issue, I think that the director of the film, who was very friendly and accomodating, will glady make a public statement clarifying the connection.

WP:DUE does not apply, since the film was never intended to contribute to the scientific discourse, which was so far the article's sole center of attention.

Since the issue of WP:N was mistakenly raised, I'd like to note that this is one of the very first feature-length films ever released under a Creative Commons licence, and probably is notable in some category in its own right due to this.

It seems we've arrived at the question of whether a Cultural reception section is appropriate in an encyclopedic article. Paradoctor (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot's input
We are talking about an encyclopedia article about a thought experiment. Apparently there exists an unknown film that was unable to garner any reviews in reliable sources, and that film has the same name as this thought experiment. I just don't see how mentioning this film will add to someone's understanding of the thought experiment. But, regardless, absent reliable sources for the film, the whole discussion is moot. Dlabtot (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the characterizations of my viewpoints are neither accurate nor helpful. I suggest each editor should state their own viewpoint and allow others to do the same. Dlabtot (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would again encourage interested editors to create the Chinese Room (film) article. If such an article could withstand a nomination for deletion, there would be no dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "I just don't see how mentioning this film will add to someone's understanding of the thought experiment.": That's asking the wrong question. As stated before, the film is not part of the scientific discourse. The fact that this film exists adds to the knowledge about the reception of the topic outside of scientific discourse. Paradoctor (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not a question, it is a statement of my opinion. I disagree with your assertions and premises, and would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Many unremarkable things exist. The fact that something exists is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be included in Wikipedia.  Dlabtot (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If this film were part of 'pop culture', it might be worth mentioning. But it's not. For a film to be part of pop culture it has to been seen and reviewed. We don't indiscriminately include information because 'it exists'.  Wikipedia does not publish material not already published by reliable sources. Just find some independent reliable sources about the film, and we won't have to repeat this tedious discussion again, in which everything that can be said, has already been said, ad nauseum. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a statement by the director we can get published. Would that suffice? (Blueboar's opinion) Paradoctor (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is published in an independent reliable source, yes. As has already been discussed. I'm taking this 'mediation' page off my watchlist, since there seems to be no mediation going on.  It is simply a repetition of the prior discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Independent" is not an appropriate requirement, see WP:SELFPUB. Paradoctor (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I notified Dlabtot of the above message. Paradoctor (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd skip the spurious 'notifications' and warnings. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that wraps up this case. I'll ask Rulf to publish his statement, we'll see how the story continues. Paradoctor (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight's input
Given we seem to agree there are primary sources, but not secondary sources, I don't think creating a separate article is a good idea. All that would happen is that it would be either deleted or merged. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the listing of a film on the schedule of a film festival is not a primary source for that film. It doesn't even really rise to the level of 'trivial coverage'. It is simply ephemera. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And as an undistributed film, it's not even really published and couldn't be used as a primary source about itself. Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested creating the article is that it would be necessary to find sources in order to do so. Since my point about needing sources seems to be falling on deaf ears otherwise. Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a look for in policy and guidelines, and the closest I've found is WP:NNC. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the reason this argument seems to go in circles is that Dlabtot has not acknowledged the comprehensive answers to his concerns, including those from WP policy. We see in WP:NNC that "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." We see in WP:SELFPUB that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." (Dlabtot's response to that is "as an undistributed film, it's not even really published and couldn't be used as a primary source about itself" which simply contradicts this policy.) We see numerous other instances of this kind of inclusion - to which, like everything else, he has no response.


 * I did not want to get into the long discussion about Dlabtot's personal and unsustained analyses of the indie film world, but it becomes unavoidable. He assumes that print reviews (those he can find in his extensive research) are the measure of a film's merit. He assumes that the filmmakers sought reviews but couldn't get any. He implies, based on nothing, that the film has not been seen. He dismisses film festivals, which select films from a larger body of submissions and are the primary outlet of indie films, as any source of validity or even a factual record. One could spend days just dismantling these (uncited) positions, but I don't see it helping.


 * The results here have shown that Dlabtot has rejected the process of discussion entirely: He doesn't want his arguments reproduced, but he doesn't expand on them. He has walked away from the process:  "I'm taking this 'mediation' page off my watchlist, since there seems to be no mediation going on" and does not want to be included:  "I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd skip the spurious 'notifications'".  I believe at this point that there is no reason to continue barring the content, but he has left the process, so I will simply take it to the next level of resolution, unless anyone can give me a good reason not to. Reading glasses (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your characterizations of me and my actions are entirely false, and since Mediation is explicitly not about user conduct, but rather about content, they are also entirely inappropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Reading glasses, I agree with much of your comments. Perhaps the next stage should be a Request for Comment. PhilKnight (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok PhilKnight, thanks for your time spent on this. Reading glasses (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that medation is not what is sought here - as such, I have marked this as closed. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)