Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-02/Time capsule

Where is the dispute?
article: Time capsule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_capsule discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_capsule

Who is involved?
Chem teacher (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Chem teacher

Syzygy (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
Dear Editors,

In your article “Time Capsule” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_capsule, I added a reference and link to The Ozymandias Project which is an idea for a deep time capsule which would preserve the major works of art, science, and music for hundreds of thousands of years. It specifically addresses issues raised in the text of the Wikipedia article, such as media that will resist erosion,  and the problem of decipherment at a later time. The link to the project:

http://www.aetherambler.net/Ozymns.htm

The link has been removed (several times) by Syzergy for  reason of not meeting notability requirements,  even though the idea was favorably commented on by Carl Sagan,  the Museum of Natural History and even considered for implementation by the Smithsonian. The preceding, seems to me, to constitute sufficient notability to be liked in an article on time capsules.

The history of this (still civil) dispute is on the discussion page of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Time_capsule

The reasons why I think it should meet notability requirements (and why Syzergy does not), are detailed there with the last exchange at the end.

Directly, my supporting material is at:

http://www.aetherambler.net/forward3.htm

The long Now foundation (a project of Stewart Brand of the Whole earth Catalog Linked to the Ozymandias project through:

http://archive.longnow.org/www.longnow.org/01999-02005/timelinks/links.html

Please mediate this ongoing dispute, Syzergy has indicated (on the discussion page) his willingness to do so.

Thanks Chem Teacher

What would you like to change about this?
I want the link not deleted again


 * Or, let's put it more neutral, we'd like to invite third party opinions on the matter of Ozymandias' notability. ;-) I don't have personal stakes in it, and I'll be happy to yield if there appears a consensus in Ozymandias' favour. As Chem Teacher mentioned, it's not an argument on a personal level. --Syzygy (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
See if your opinion on notability persuades either of us.

Mediator notes

 * Original comment made, one of the editors has not edited since December 2, 2010.

Administrative notes
LTC b2412 Troops Talk MedCab Talk? 10:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the mediation got bogged down... What do you think, Chemteacher, should we appeal to higher powers? -- Syzygy (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Chem teacher (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Yes lets send this page to the regular mediation group, this mediator is not active. I think we can just send this page as is.Chem teacher (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
As the 'main antagonist' in this case, I don't want to comment on the potential or actual merits of the Ozymandias project.

I have removed links to it several times on the grounds of a lack of notability. I couldn't find any third-party references to Ozymandias, neither has Chem Teacher provided any, except for excerpts from letters from Sagan and the Smithsonian which can't exactly be called enthusiastic unsolicited support.

I'm also a bit uneasy about Chem Teacher apparently being connected with the Ozymandias, which seems to be a case of unlucky pro domo endorsement. --Syzygy (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The main issue here is whether or not a specific time capsule should be included in the article, which largely depends on the notability of the capsule. I've attempted to find reliable third party sources that prove the notability of said time capsule, but I'm having trouble with that. The only pages I come up with are those directly related to the subject (primary sources).


 * User:Chem teacher, would you be able to provide references that establish the notability of the subject? The Time capsule article isn't suppose to be a collection of every time capsule in existence, but rather, it may mention time capsules that are notable and set themselves apart - which is proven by third party sources.


 * Also, if either editor is involved with the project, please consider reading Conflict of interest. Netalarm talk 02:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Chem teacher (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC) To Moderator:

The main third party which has referred to the Ozymandias project is the Long Now Foundation which is one of the major institutions contemplating the far future, and has many other projects and a lecture series ongoing. Their site is:

http://www.longnow.org/

and their link to my project through:

http://archive.longnow.org/www.longnow.org/01999-02005/timelinks/links.html

Here are several other third party web sites which link to it. and are not just copies of the wikipedia article:

http://digg.com/news/science/The_Ozymandias_Project_Everlasting_time_capsule_idea

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/archive/index.php/t-3986.html

http://www.2100-100aa.net/

However, the main supporting materials for notability are the letters from various museums and Carl Sagan, in response to the original proposal, (which did not even have web sites at the time of the proposal), but whose authenticity can be established. http://www.aetherambler.net/forward3.htm

I don’t think it is the intention of wikipedia to limit notability to the domain of web site references alone.

As far as Syzygy’s comment that he is uneasy with my “apparent” connection to the project... Of course I am “connected” In fact, I am the author of the project, as was more than obvious, from exchanges that Syzyrgy had with me in the discussion pages, of which I give the following excerpt:

Chem teacher (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)I am receiving comments from readers about how to best do this: one cleaver one calls for the use of a periodic table to serve ''as one universally recognizable basis for a start. I will include This and other'' suggestions in a future addendum.

''Syzygy (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Hey teacher! My argument that the project is'' ''slow in progressing wasn't meant to invalidate the enterprise as such. The cathedrals'' ''weren't built in one day exactly either. But the question is whether the project is'' notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia.

Obviously I was not trying to hide that I was the author! I didn’t realize that a formal statement was necessary. (For details of my background and some other idiosyncratic ideas, see the home page of the Ozymandias project : www.aetherambler.net ).

However, just because I have a vested interest hardly means the project is not relevant, it is directly and specifically relevant to many of the issues brought up in the article such as durability of information. decodeability of dead languages, and above all, what should be saved. It’s notability, I think, is established best by directly reading the museum’s responses.

As far as the conflict of interest policies of Wikipedia, I don’t think that this disqualifies the project  as an entry.

I would suggest that a large potion, perhaps even the majority, of Wikipedia articles are written by parties that are not in fact purely “neutral” many historical characters are put in by historians who have their own particular slant on the figure, many descriptions of the politics of a given period or country are placed by people with a position, in fact, that’s why most editors contribute..if they were truly neutral they wouldn’t put in the effort to be heard. This is the nature of Wikipedia and both its strength and its weakness, but there’s no sense pretending its something else.

Sure, commercial interests should not use Wikipedia as free advertising, but the Ozymandias project is definitely not a commercial interest (trust me on this), and there is even no provision for donating  money at all.

The reader response has been sustained, with many readers writing their suggestions for the project, or detailing their own related ideas, which fulfills the purpose of Wikipedia as a nexus of ideas and discussion.

Thanks for your attention, Chem teacher (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)