Talk:Robert X. Cringely/Archives/2020

Kickstarter Controversy

An unknown user deleted an entire section about Cringely's Kickstarter project, including links to appropriate documentation of the facts presented. Most of the citations point to Cringely's own work and all are verifiable. While the subject is not flattering, it is relevant. I have undone the deletion. --Sinasohn (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. An argument could be made of WP:UNDUE; I think it could be trimmed down quite a bit without simply eliminating it. But neither is the matter all that important. If I become so inclined I might try copyediting it for brevity, but no idea if/when. Anastrophe (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Having investigated further, and after another round of delete/revert occurred, I've trimmed down the section somewhat. I think it's still well beyond WP:UNDUE. Sinasohn, you probably should not be editing this portion of the article due to WP:COI.Anastrophe (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:COI -- I see your point, but I also think that apologists should not whitewash the page. Currently, a significant portion of the comments on Cringely's blog are Mineserver related; it seems that some mention of the issue is warranted. How comprehensive that mention is is probably better left to someone higher up in the Wikipedia food chain than I (or some anonymous user). --Sinasohn (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Which is why I'm trimming it to the essentials. We have to keep it in context of the subject's life and notability, and since I am a completely uninvolved party, I figure I can suss it reasonably well. Obviously you'll just have to trust that I'm uninvolved. I'm familiar with Cringely, have a vague recollection of interview snippets with him in some documentary, but that's the extent of it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose completely moving the Kickstarter content to Minecraft servers. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it never existed, I don't think it would fit there. Anastrophe (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe - I trust your judgement and experience and your update makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinasohn (talk • contribs) 17:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still too much minutia related to the events described - again taken within the broader context of the subject's BLP. However, there's nothing that is defamatory or inaccurate in it, so further trimming/refining would be desireable, but there's zero urgency to doing so. I echo your comments to Anon, whomever they may be - edit summaries are a great way to passive-aggressively make a point, but in the long run it accomplishes nothing - the edit/deletion will be undone, and after discussion, a tenable solution will be found. Believe me, I've been down the snarky edit summary path - it's a losing proposition. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Undid the deletion again. To the unknown deleter: This is not a page about Infoworld; it is about the writer who uses the pseudonym Cringely (one of them) who created a Kickstarter project using that name/brand. The project went awry, to put it mildly. Given that he continues to market and take advantage of the Cringely brand, it is a notable part of his legacy at this point and warrants inclusion. To omit it would be unfairly biased in Cringely's favor. I believe that Anastrophe's edited coverage of the issue is fair. If you sincerely believe that coverage of the Mineserver issue should not be included, I believe that discussion on this Talk page should be the first step. --Sinasohn (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My two cents

Before coming across the latest deletion, which I did not restore, I had never heard of mr. Cringely, Minecraft kickstarters or any “controversy” surrounding that. I merely note the entire section depends on interpretations of primary sources, which, more often than not hardly even mention the subject. I cannot, of course, attribute the existence of [1] to any particular Wikipedia user in this thread, but I must say, the resemblance in name and content matter is extraordinary. If it were the case that one of the participants in this thread is the owner and/or operator of said site, that would entail a fair bit of WP:COI.

Since the section depends on primary sources and the editors interpretations thereof and, by virtue of being under the heading “controversies”, is contentious, WP:BLP prohibits me from reinstating said section. Kleuske (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I just now restored it, before having read the above comments by Kleuske. I'm inclined to revert myself, as the above unambiguously presents the policy-based arguments against inclusion. Anything about a living person has to be impeccable in its sourcing, and matters of WP:UNDUE must be given exceptional deference.

Yep, I'm going to revert myself. We can work on fashioning text for inclusion here on the talk page, once consensus is arrived at. Until then, the material should not be in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah - Kleuske got to it before me. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed the Mineserver entry in the “known for” section as it’s a clear case of WP:UNDU There probably needs to be an entry here for the 2 TV series he made for Channel 4 in the UK. FalconArrow98 (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute the WP:COI, which is why I'm fine leaving the editing of the actual page up to others. I hope it's still kosher for me to comment here, however. For those interested in whether or not this is a notable part of Stephens' biography, you might want to read this summary of the whole mess. I didn't write it; it was written by a non-backer. It seems to me that omitting the issue is far more biased than including it; the same would be true of leaving out the Stanford issue. Lastly, when I added information, it was generally sourced to Cringely's own words. (I really did try to make it unbiased; whether or not I succeeded, the intent was there.) --Sinasohn (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on the talk page is of course fine; however, the link you posted should probably be deleted. Setting aside it's a blog and therefore not reliable, it engages in potentially libelous/slanderous verbiage, and per WP:BLP, it's verboten to post that even on talk page.Anastrophe (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe wp:UNDUE is extremely relevant here and cannot be argued away by an anonymous blog post. There is obviously (to me) a clear agenda by a person here with a definite conflict of interest. I do wonder if the talk page on Wikipedia is really the place for this person to continue this crusade? DaveGalaxy (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted the Kickstarter section once again, Roger please contain yourself it’s been explained to you many times why this in inappropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconArrow98 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Kickstarter re appearing

Roger, you have been told time and time again exactly why the Kickstarter section goes against Wikipedia TOS

Please refrain from adding this again or you will be reported to Wikipedia (again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconArrow98 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert

I understand that there is a discussion on this page about a removal of content (to do with Kickstarter). I revved the removal on Huggle without reading the edit summary properly, to anyone who is confused, I apologize. Giraffer ^munch 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone explain how WP:UNDUE applies to the kickstarter and phd sections

I'm new to the debate here about the disputed sections. I'm just curious if someone who believes that mentioning the kickstarter project and the lie about having a PhD is giving undue weight to minority views?

First of all, they're separate issues, so I think they should be dealt with separately. It may be that one is acceptable for inclusion while the other isn't. Second of all, I've ready through WP:UNDUE and I don't entirely see how either fall under that umbrella.

As for the PhD issue: WP:UNDUE references minority views like flat earth not being included in the main article for the earth. The fact that Cringely claimed to have a PhD and was an acting assistant professor at Stanford isn't disputed by anyone. And the fact that he never got his PhD, and was never any type of professor (but was a teaching assistant), is similarly undisputed. The main reference for the claim is sfgate.com. So it's not a minority view and there's a good secondary source for the claim. Why would there be a problem including it?

For the kickstarter section: The basic claim that the kickstarter was funded successfully, yet he never delivered on the final product and never closed it out as failed doesn't seem to be be a minority view, right? However, there doesn't seem to be a good non-primary source for the claims, so I could understand why that might preclude that section. Onlynone (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight means that you don't give a particular fact or event or incident more attention than it deserves within the totality of the subject. This is particularly important when it comes to BLP's. The "lie" about the PhD is a tiny blip in this person's life; the sfgate story is barely a few paragraphs, and certainly didn't fall into the range of significant notability even for a modestly public person. Likewise the kickstarter project, while it has left a few hundred people upset, also isn't significant in the overall picture of his life. The kickstarter dispute largely fell into the WP:BLPCOI bucket, but by that token, the conflict inflated the significance of the events - to a disinterested reader, the kickstarter affair is not significant to the person's notability. Anastrophe (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)