Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

User:JzG

    This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.
    This user is registered on the Identification noticeboard.
    Page semi-protected
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Wikipedia editor
    Wikipedia's globe iconThis is aWikipediauser page.
    This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other thanWikipedia, you are viewing amirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other thanWikipedia. The original page is located athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG.

    This editor is a
    Senior Vanguard Editor
    and is entitled to display this
    Duranium Editor Star with
    theNeutroniumSuperstarhologram.
    This user is one of the400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
    21.7This user has21.7centijimbos.
    This user is a
    Rouge admin    .
    iconThis user has been editing Wikipedia for more than15 years (21 years, 5 months, and 25 days).
    Icon This user has been on Wikipedia for21 years, 5 months, and 25 days.
    Admin statistics
    ActionCount
    Edits146479
    Edits+Deleted156355
    Pages deleted16865
    Revisions deleted537
    Logs/Events deleted5
    Pages restored320
    Pages protected1669
    Pages unprotected45
    Protections modified120
    Users blocked2639
    Users reblocked118
    Users unblocked115
    User rights modified18
    Users created5
    Abuse filters modified92

    The values and distinctions you are trying to stress are so far outside my Overton window that they're not just out the Overton door and down the Overton block--they're 40 miles away on the interstate from the town of Overton. --Mike Godwin[1]

    You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

    — -Robert A. Heinlein

    Obligatory disclaimer
    I work forDell Technologies but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

    About me

    JzG reacting to yet another drama

    I am old, British, married to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I was an amateur baritone prior to developing debilitatingtinnitus. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. Being British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutelydo not have an accent, since I went to athousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups.

    On politicsSeeUser:JzG/Politics for a statement of my views.

    Spam

    {{duses}} produces an insource search and a Linksearch search. The former is flaky in my experience but does have the benefit of focusing on mainspace.{{Link summary}} is the canonical search but produces a lot of extraneous items such as links on other wikis that are not always useful when managing non-spam bad sources.{{deprecated publisher}} and{{deprecated journal}} help with fake journals.

    Filter

    Includes many bogus sites includiong Royal Ark.

    The elephant

    XYZ

    Almost all links to this domain are spam. Pass 1: Remove or whitelist existing refs to .xyz (244 links found in mainspace as of 220-16-10).

    Advocacy

    Predatory open access publishing

    These publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.

    Also generally shite:

    ijddr.in Links Spamcheck - has published scraped Wikipedia content

    Vanity press

    An on-demand print house, masquerading as an academic publisher:

    Spam

    Web hosts

    Citation spamming andVanispamcruftisement

    Multiple additions of citations to the same author from predatory and other journals, by multiple editors with no history other than adding that material (i.e. probable citation spamming):

    • David W. Solomons

    Shitty sources

    TheMedia Bias Chart is widely referenced in reliable sources. It appears to be accepted as broadly correct.

    It has two axes: partisanship and reliability. In Wikipedia terms, the following seems to be true:

    • Hyper-partisan sources are not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. This includes the likes of The Intercept, Mother Jones, HuffPos, Slate, National Review, Reason, Weekly Standard. These sources are always open to challenge and should be removed if challenged and only reintroduced if there is consensus.
    • Unreliable sources are unreliable, and also usually highly partisan. Only theNational Inquirer seems to publish bollocks pretty much regardless of its political angle.

    As a principle I would have zero problem with the following:

    • Sources in the green box (AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ, WaPo, FT etc. are generally considered reliable for factual statements because they clearly distinguish them from editorial. They are generally acceptable for editorial when attributed with a few qualified exceptions such as the WSJ's inexplicable promotion of climate change denialism, which qualifies for exclusion underWP:FRINGE.
    • Sources in the yellow box are generally reliable for reports of fact but require care and attribution for statements of opinion. The position on the axes matters. CNN is more reliable than the Washington Times or HuffPo (equal quality but less bias), Slate is more reliable than Washington Examiner (equal bias but better quality). There is internal variability. Rachel Maddow is pretty scrupulous about fact-checking, but much of MSNBC is just unsourced opinion and should not be cited.
    • Sources in the orange box - "extreme / unfair interpretations" - should not be used unless there is a compelling reason and consensus on Talk among editors of multiple ideological viewpoints.
    • Sources in the red box - "nonsense, damaging to public discourse" - should be blacklisted. That ismassively controversial right now, because it includes a handful of liberal sites that most liberal editors know not to use (Palmer Report, Wonkette, Bipartisan report, Occupy Democrats) and virtuallyall the conservative outlets popular with MAGA types, including InfoWars, WND, Blaze, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller.

    Note that Alternet is in the same box as the NY Post, Daily Mail and Daily Wire here. I agree with that. Neither are appropriate sources and both could be blacklisted: nothing of value would be lost. In fact I would also include Daily Kos, Second Nexus, OAN and Fox News. It's highly unlikely that any of these would be the sole source for any genuinely significant fact.

    Also sites with no evidence ofWP:RS:

    Bag o'shite

    Red box sources

    Egregious fake news and other "fuck no" violations

    2,292 links prior to September 2018 (UTC)
    58 links, sources in 2 articles including self-source as of 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    2 links, valid in 2 articles as of 13:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    910 links as of 08:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

    Think-tankery

    We should never source anything directly to a think-tank, their function ispolicy-based evidence making and is the absolute antithesis of everything Wikipedia stands for.

    Fake universities

    Unofficially official and personal pages

    Woo

    Random junk sources

    Gunwanking

    Royalcruft

    Wikis & fancruft

    Plain old-fashioned spam

    Possible medispam

    Abortion activism

    Russian propaganda

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JzG&oldid=1327916387"
    Categories:
    Hidden categories:
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2026 Movatter.jp