Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Billy Byars Jr.

Speedy deletion?
Is there any reason this article wasn't speedily deleted as the bio of a non-notable person? It's completely unsourced and there are no assertions of notability in the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated over and over again, the article is almost completely sourced. All of the books, magazines and newspaper articles have been listed. You obviously did not read the article and/or the discussion. Please make at least a small effort to be honest. Ballog 04:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog


 * Have you seen the version pre-stubbing? One Night In Hackney 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, this was stubbed per WP:BLP concerns, but the previous version has sources and assertions, thus no speedy.--Isotope23 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did see the pre-stubbed version, but if none of those sources can come into the stubbed version, then it's a speedy candidate - and if they can come into it, then they need to go in. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger
Very interesting comments by Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia's founders:

The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.)

I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense. '''Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best).''' This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation. This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain. To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. As it is, there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project (though there are some, of course) than there could and should be.

I could not have said it better myself. Ballog 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Balloog


 * Maybe you should visit Citizendium, a similar project to Wikipedia that does have rules about referral to experts. However, please don't copy large blocks of text onto talk pages, it just chokes them up, please link to them instead. Thanks, Malla  nox  22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Comment: It has become apparent that many editors like to fallback on their interpretation of Wiki’s definition of “Original Research” to boaster their arguments. I have to say that anyone who has been involved with scholarly research or “fact checking” for major publishers would find Wiki’s definition and policy absolutely bizarre. It would take too long to dissect Wiki’s strange and convoluted section on what it terms “Original Research”, but it really needs to looked at and corrected. Any professional “fact checker” or “editor” would attest to the professionally accepted policy that the more original the research the more reliable and accurate it is. Wiki flips this long accepted policy on it’s head and actually encourages the use of professionally unacceptable sources. In parts of it’s section on “Original Research” it uses the term to describe actions that have nothing to do with the word “research” or “original”. Ballog 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog
 * I don't know if it is an interpretation, the policy is fairly clear and has wide acceptance here. I can understand if you disagree with it, but it is one of the fundamental, non-negotiable policies here and you probably will not find a lot of support for changing it.--Isotope23 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that people here have no intention of objectively listening to arguments that are supported by facts and logic. They have absolutely no intention of changing their opinion. One can't write an article about Alger Hiss without also writing a great deal about Whittaker Chambers. And yes, that might even require not only a paragraph, but many paragraphs about Chambers. Thousands of other examples such as this can be given. While there may be minor problems with this article, ninety five percent of it should be restored. I know it and everyone else writing here (who actually took the time to read the article) knows it. Wiki was never meant to be a collection of easy cut and paste links to unprofessional Internet "sources". Anyone with a mouse can create that type of work.

Ballog 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog