Talk:Andrew Leonard

Ordering of selected works section

I was thinking reverse chronological order, and that authormask field certainly is nifty, but it's not dynamic, which may introduce a lot of maintenance. Maybe I'm just being anal and they can go in there in random order. Anyone else have a thought?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

chronological seems to be the standard for bibliographies. If you just keep the earliest with authormask you only need to update it if you add an earlier one, so maint burden is minor IMHO. Also note that all of his (many) salon articles are listed in the salon homepage for him, so we don't need to list all of them here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronological order (earliest first) per MOS:WORKS. GregorB (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quick!

Now that Andrew Leonard (the individual) has mentioned Andrew Leonard (the Wikipedia article) in Salon, does that make Andrew Leonard (the Wikipedia article) notable? Stranger things have happened. 28bytes (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We need one more source, preferably independent. Probably by tomorrow, I'm guessing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing issue

8 of the 12 sources are articles written by the subject. This really needs to be fixed, especially since it advocates OR on what he writes about, which clearly would require interpretation of the articles. We could obviously include every subject any news writer has written about in their Wikipedia pages, but we don't. We use secondary sources for that, because they are the ones that need to be doing the interpreting, the description and explanation for what someone writes about. We're not allowed to do that here. Silverseren^C 09:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying, it's that the fact that "8 of the 12 sources" are by the subject "advocates OR." Is this correct? I just don't actually understand your comment so I find it hard to respond. You're saying that a fact about the proportion of primary sources is, the fact itself, advocating OR? Please clarify.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, what i'm saying is that most of those primary sources are being used in the article to describe themselves, to explain what they are about, which is interpretation of the sources, which we are not allowed to do. Secondary sources have to do it for us. Not to mention that they're being used to add puffery to the article and make it seem longer than it should be. Silverseren^C 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well at least that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's the concern, and mine as well. It's a lot of articles, so they need to be synthesized; also, it's too high of a proportion of self-written articles. It's an issue similar to that of an autobiography. I would say that once that's done, the class should be upgraded to C. The bar has been set; the article needs to not be a hall of mirrors.  :-o — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think I understand what you all are getting at, I have to say that I disagree. To paraphrase an argument recently used by a seasoned editor of my wikquaintance, the bar for article creation is quite a bit higher than the bar for inclusion of material in articles. There are, in my opinion, sufficient secondary sources in this article to show that the subject satisfies WP:AUTHOR. If you don't agree, you know what to do about it. Once that notability guideline is met there's no reason not to use primary sources to support uncontroversial material. If you think that any of the facts being supported by primary sources are controversial, that's a completely different issue. Perhaps, if that's a concern, you could list such facts and explain how they're controversial in order to facilitate discussion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that by using those specific primary sources to describe those specific articles that he wrote, you are saying those are the most important things he has written. And while we do have editorial discretion to some extent, this is really something that needs to come from secondary sources. They are the ones that need to tell up what he writes about, what he focuses on, and what is important to note about what he writes by what the secondary sources are covering of him.

By the way, are there more secondary sources of him? Because at this point, I am indeed questioning WP:AUTHOR. All there is currently in the article is one review of his book, a brief mention of him coining a term in a book, and another brief mention in an article. That's really thin sourcing right now. Silverseren^C 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That helps assuage my concerns, thanks, Alf. And, yeah, you do have to be the one to do the work for those, you're the one with the Newsbank subscription. :P Silverseren^C 22:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A library card is a wonderful thing...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Open note to Andrew Leonard re: hall of mirrors

You're obviously reading your article, and I hope you're reading the talk page too - if so, will you consider creating an account and coming here to join us to help create a better article? Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, suggestions on improvements, links to sources, etc on the talk page are very much welcomed. In addition, you should feel free to edit the biography yourself in the case of an obvious error; in addition, something untrue/defaming can be removed immediately by you, and then you can follow up on the talk page. The most open thing to do would be to either register with your real name and declare on your userpage that you are *this* Andrew Leonard, or if you've signed up under a pseudonym, post here and declare your COI - that way editors can watch any edits you make a bit more closely, but having fully disclosed you will be in compliance with COI policy if you happen to make a minor edit. I just don't want you to have to post a blog to Salon every time you have an issue with your biography here - come talk to us here, the water's warm.

I do hope we can collaborate with you to make this a better article. I also hope that you'll bring your considerable knowledge to contribute as an editor to other subjects, if you really feel like dropping down into the rabbit hole that is wikipedia.

I think what is most needed now, and where you can specifically help, is to find more secondary sources talking about *you* - I think one issue is that you've written so many articles, and have been quoted so many times, that it is a little harder using google to find sources which cover your work or your biography in more detail, and that say things like "Leonard is one of Salon's top technology journalists" or "Leonard's article on X led to Y" ... etc. - such secondary sources will help us understand what to prioritize and focus on in your biography. Also, of course, any other background material you have, things you've done that googling hasn't found yet, awards or other recognition you've been given for your work or for specific articles, and so on, all are welcome, as long as they can be sourced somehow (even if those sources aren't online)

You commented in your Salon article that certain "works" had been 'randomly' chosen, and others not. This is a broader point of debate right now - how complete should bibliographies be - and there doesn't seem to be an overall standard. I do fear if we added every article you wrote since 1994, that would overwhelm the article, so if you have any specific thoughts on how to make a selection of which of your writings to feature in the 'selected works' section, I for one am all ears, as you obviously know the impact your various work has had more than us and could provide advice therefore.

Finally, while the creation of your article obviously did have something to do with your recent reporting, it was really IMHO an oversight that an article about you wasn't created before - in other words, your notability does not come only from the recent reporting on the Qworty mess. I personally linked in about 5 or 6 other articles where you were already mentioned by name, and there are now around 20 incoming links from other extant wikipedia articles - incoming links is a good proxy for notability, and I think there are enough sources otherwise to meet the notability standard. This happens on wikipedia all the time - someone who is notable, but there is no article about them yet, so someone comes along and creates it. Wikipedia is never finished.

Also, I don't foresee any sharpening-of-knives or revenge editing - I know many of those watching/editing this page and they are sage editors with their heads on their shoulders, so you will be given a fair treatment. I also don't think anyone will nominate this for deletion, and if they do, it will survive - I think there are sufficient sources to allow that. So, welcome to Wikipedia, um, forever (notability is permanent), and sorry we can't provide more fireworks. :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone! This is Andrew Leonard, using my time-tested pirate-king-of-Taiwan pseudonym. Apologies if I horribly screw up the formatting here. This is my first effort, and my ignorance is massive.

Obi-Wan Kenobi -- I appreciate your gracious invitation to participate. I will do my best to contribute, especially with respect to correcting errors, but I have some reservations.

The first, and most important, is that I'm not convinced that I deserve a Wikipedia page according to the current standards of notability as I understand them. My personal feeling is that there is enough room on the Internet for everyone to have their own Wikipedia page, and everyone, if their story is told well enough, deserves one. But that's beside the point. The sourcing you are asking for, describing me as someone who is superlative, is thin on the ground. I can and will find things, but in my own opinion, they will be marginal. At the age of 30, my father was editor of the New York Times Book Review. At the age of 30, I was writing freelance movie reviews for the San Francisco Bay Guardian. There is little doubt in my mind as to who deserves Wiki-ification.

And that's perfectly OK. I didn't start this page, and I have zero intention of trying to defend its existence. I am, more than anything else, fascinated with the process, and the culture at work. And I would truly love to be a part of the larger project, if I have the time to do so. But I also feel like, in my guise as a reporter, I'm already a part of it.

As to errors and corrections. The current status of this page, as of 8:48 p.m. on a Saturday night in California, is, frankly, incredibly flattering. But there is one issue -- my book, the "Free Software Project," is described "as-yet-unfinished." I believe in my Salon article I described it as "never-finished." Maybe I should have said "never-will-be-finished."

Here's the story: At the height of the dot-com and free software/open source boom (if we take VA Linux's IPO as a marker) Salon decided to indulge me in an effort to duplicate the open-source process as a book-writing process. I would write a chapter, the community would point out the errors, I would learn from them, and fix the copy, and go forward. Kind of proto-Wikipedia, if you like, except with a central authority, analogous to the role Linus Torvalds played with the Linux kernel. At the time it seemed like a great idea. When Red Hat announced they would buy advertising, Salon's stock price surged! But then the dot-com crash happened, the bottom dropped out of the online advertising market, and Salon could no longer subsidize me to write a chapter a month for something that generated no revenue.

That was 13 years ago. The book that got started then will never be finished. It is not a notability justification. I stand by my contention that the chapters that did get published rank among my best work, but, whatever. My failure to finish that book was a huge career disappointment.

More later, but I've got a 100 mile bike ride to do tomorrow, and I need some rest. Koxinga21 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koxinga21 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. I've removed the references to a forthcoming book. Andreas JN466 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking good

The article looks much better now. And there's only the one primary source left. I don't have a problem with its use on the "six years" thing, though I don't think it's really necessary there. We don't need to reference everything unless there's a reason to challenge that and we already have a secondary source for the financial analyst part. As for the primary source's other use, do we really need to mention that he has a book he hasn't published yet? We can just add info in on the book once it IS published with the secondary sources that will surely exist at that time. Silverseren^C 22:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Books that notable authors are working on are interesting, I would say. The longer it takes them to finish the more interesting they get. Just my opinion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

However, in terms of Wikipedia, doesn't that require secondary sources to make it interesting? Duke Nukem Forever's long existence as vaporware was only interesting because of the extensive coverage that it received during that time period. If we're using a primary source to reference it, then there is no backing for it being "interesting". Or relevant, for that matter. Once it's published, then that's a different story. Silverseren^C 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that you already have the released chapter sections included in the selected works anyways. Silverseren^C 23:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's intrinsically interesting. It only needs secondary sources if there's a question of notability or if the information is controversial. I think that we can agree that it's not controversial, so the only question secondary sources might answer is whether or not it's notable. Notability is not a criterion for the inclusion of material in articles, but only for the existence of articles. The Duke Nukem Forever thing is quite different for precisely that reason. This is why the existence of secondary sources is irrelevant. Anyway, I think it's interesting enough to include, you don't. Let's see what others have to say.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm frankly on the fence. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should discuss things that have happened, not things that are going to happen. Our friend Robert Clark Young has a book in the works (actually, two), but I've held back on putting them in - even if excerpts have been published - as I haven't seen any reporting on it. Alf, you're right that this is not about "notability", e.g. and it is clearly _true_, the question is, should we report on this pending book if no-one else has? I think someone probably has, in any case, esp given excerpts have been "published", so we just need a review of those excerpts, that will close the loop. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This part of CRYSTAL seems to say that this article is precisely the place for this information: Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The header says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF)." The bottom line is, we don't need to wikilawyer about this, I think there is plenty of material about this person, and things he has already written, and hopefully more on reaction/impact of those things he has written, than to have a whole sentence covering a future book, but one thing that would change my mind is if a secondary source covered this future book in more detail.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that'd change everyone's mind, but we work with what we have. The part of CRYSTAL you quote is obviously about articles rather than content, and so comes back to notability, which you've already agreed isn't the issue. Meanwhile, why don't we give it a day or two and see what others think. I think experience shows that neither you nor I are likely to change the other's mind.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote in the press banner

Silver Seren doesn't like the quote in the press banner and claims that we don't put quotes in press banners. I feel that (a) we do put quotes in press banners, otherwise why do press banners accept a quote field, and (b) this is a good quote to put in. From an edit summary yesterday I take it that User:Delicious carbuncle agrees with me on that. Also Seren says that this quote is "cherry-picked." I wonder what that could possibly mean in this context. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ok with quotes. but this one seems a bit *long*. The header at the talk page is already long enough with all of the other cruft, so I think that long of an excerpt is too much. Trim it to two lines or so, and let the reader read the whole article, instead of trying pull all the meatiest parts here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

They are cherry-picked because you chose the parts of him criticizing editing of this article. Why do you even want those quotes to be included? Silverseren^C 23:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the quotes as criticizing anything. In what way do you think they're critical? I want them included because they're interesting. Do you at least concede that we do in fact put quotes in press banners?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No, because i've never seen quotes used in press banners. If they were articles where there was only a sentence or two mentioning the article in question, then it would make some sense to include a quote for that specific part. But this news article is entirely about this article, so any picked quotes out of it doesn't have appropriate context. And how is "People I do not know, disguised by their Wikipedia pseudonyms, are constructing a textual version of my identity. Hey! I’m a writer — isn’t that my job?! Shouldn’t I be at least involved?" not criticizing? It seems to me that you're including these specific quotes because they're both criticizing and are an attempt to back up the use of this self-referential source in the article. Silverseren^C 00:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that any quotes that were used out of this article would necessarily be cherry-picked? That seems hard to fathom. And how is it that the subject of the source article can create a situation where any quotes picked out of it are lacking context? Are there other such magical context-erasing subjects? And really, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't see how that quote is critical. I take it you're implying that the quote is insinuating something negative? What might that be? I really just don't see it. It strikes me as quite good-humored. I'm not trying to back up the use of the source in the article by including the quotes here. That would be silly. The use of the source in the article is entirely a separate matter. I don't see why you would attribute that motive to me, anyway. I've certainly never made an argument like the one you describe.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, please leave out any quotes. This is never done, and especially due to the nature of the article (mocking, sarcastic, baiting, gaming the system, manipulating Wikipedia content, etc.) we need to stay away from quoting it at all, pretty much under any circumstance. If we quote it, we become part of a manipulative game. His other articles aren't a game, but this one is. Just use it as a ref and leave it at that. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What's never done? Adding quotes? That can't be right. The "quote" field was explicitly added to the template in 2010. You can see the discussion here. Why would there be a field for it if it's never done? Also, I really disagree with your characterization of the article. I don't think it's mocking at all. It strikes me as quite affectionate. It's interesting how differently people can read things, isn't it? And as for the rest of your argument, I don't agree and I certainly don't think it's based in policy. Maybe I'm wrong, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just for the sake of accuracy, the quote field is used sometimes – perhaps in 10 per cent of cases. (The field was apparently added in 2010, at users' request.) I did a quick search and found examples of press template uses that include a quote at Talk:Sailor Moon and Talk:Jeremy Paxman. In both of these instances, the quotes are critical of Wikipedia, and I think that this is one typical case for which the quote field in the template was envisioned. I don't believe this is a bad thing for Wikipedia to do: having those criticisms on those pages actually makes Wikipedia look good in readers' eyes, because it signals that Wikipedia is open to criticism, and that such criticism is taken seriously. Andreas JN466 01:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The points made above four years ago re excessive reliance on sourcing related to the subject are correct, and I've tried to fix. But the subject, opining above, is actually correct concerning whether there should be an article on him. I'm on the fence, inclined to nominate for deletion. He is a journalist, has written one book and otherwise the sourcing independent of him is skimpy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)