User talk:Belbury/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fisher & Paykel link removal

Hello Belbury,

I can understand your apprehension about linking to a "blog source". However that blog source is the only source I was able to find providing some of the history on Fisher and Paykel, and from my read there wasn't any bias or issue apparent with it.. You can see in the edits I spent a lot of time working on that page and repairing its links about a year ago. If you have a better more authoratative link for the information I'd be pleased to move over to that. I myself spent a few months trying to track down the official "Pioneering Spirit: A History of Fisher and Paykel" a book published by Fisher and Paykel, but theres apparently only 2 copies left in the world, both in New Zealand University libraries and out of my reach. The link I provided is the best source I could find, and until a more reliable source is able to be attributed, I believe it should stay

Cheers

7336jeremy. 7336jeremy (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@7336jeremy It's an anonymous blog source on a commercial website, and from looking around their site it looks like a content farm, there are a lot of anonymous blog entries with AI-generated images, and possibly AI-generated text content.

Looking at the site again in more detail, some of the text definitely has an AI twang to it, such as Join us as we unveil the captivating story of Fisher & Paykel...

You added the source in November last year, and the blog source doesn't seem to be any older than that. I suspect that a chatbot has just been asked to write a history of Fisher & Paykel, and has repeated the content that could already be found in this Wikipedia article. Which is why you were able to use this one source to confirm so many of the article's statements.

I don't think Wikipedia can use this source. It would be better to have the {{citation needed}} templates to encourage editors to look for and add reliable sources. Belbury (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Belbury, I disagree that it should be removed.

"It looks like a content farm"

Its an appliance rental business that seems to largely specialise in FIsher and Paykel appliances? How far around did you look, try reading the first para of their homepage. I would agree that their content is written for commercial purposes given they're a business, but that doesn't make it bad content, or content written by AI, or bad content written by AI. Its content thats been provided by a commercial entity, yes, and so likely has been produced for commercial means. Does that make it incorrect? No. Are most of the other citations on that page from commercial entities - yes.

"some of the text definitely has an AI twang to it, such as Join us as we unveil the captivating story of Fisher & Paykel

Pure speculation as to whether content is AI generated. What qualifications do you have in determining whether content has been AI generated or not? At any rate what difference does it make if the information is factual and correct? An AI twang - sounds like an evidence based approach you're following there. Show me evidence. Run it through an AI language detector at least before you come back with a gut feeling about "twangs".

"You added the source in November last year, and the blog source doesn't seem to be any older than that"

I just checked the citation source and it says "Last updated on January 28th, 2024" Updated isn't published, Im not sure what you're getting at here? Is there a way to see the publication date? I'm guessing when I cited I couldn't find a publication date as there doesn't seem to be any present, it so I reverted to the citation policy of using the access date as the publication date.

"I suspect that a chatbot has just been asked to write a history of Fisher & Paykel, and has repeated the content that could already be found in this Wikipedia article."

Suspicions mean nothing without evidence. You cant just go around accusing people of things because you've got a bad feeling. I'm not even 100% sure what you're saying but I think you're probably accusing me of having taken the content off the Wikipedia page to have an AI chatbot write a timeline of FIsher and Paykels history from the information available on the Wikipedia page, on the Whybuy website, to then cite back to in a circular reference, and then deleting most of the information off the Wikipedia page? I mean sure, but then why is the Fisher and Paykel timeline so much more in depth on the cited link than on the Wikipedia page? Where is the content I would have to delete from the Wikipedia page, because there would be a lot of it? Why isn't it in the edit hisitory?

My edits on that page only consisted of cleaning up links and updating facts, I made no substantive changes to the content, its all in the edit history. The page frankly is a shambles and needs days of work put in by someone. FIsher and Paykel was bought out by Haier - in around 2013 I think - so having things like revenue and operating income don't even make sense anymore because those numbers arent available its a brand of Haier now, no longer a publicly listed company. But I certainly dont have the capabilities to go screwing around with the structure of the page so I have done what I can and left it.

"It would be better to have the {{citation needed}} templates to encourage editors to look for and add reliable sources."

I had a very similar discussion with another editor in my talks (User talk:7336jeremy) about this same article 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco when I wanted to remove a 404 link. It was their view that it was better to leave a citation to a 404 than to remove the citation completely. We ultimately agreed.

In this context, unless you have a better link to replace any or all of the citations with, it should stay until a substitute can be found. It's not a perfect citation but I'd expect you to know that no citation is perfect, there's just better and worse. If you want only peer reviewed sources from well regarded journals we should delete the whole article and most of Wikipedia. 7336jeremy (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@7336jeremy: My take is that https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog is a low quality source that (irrespective of the AI concern) doesn't pass WP:BLOGS: there's no author byline and it's clearly a vendor website content farm - for example, the next blog entry is What Number is The Coldest Setting On a Fridge?. If you disagree with that view and think that it's a valid source for Wikipedia, I can open an WP:RSN discussion to get some wider input on that.

If you agree that it's an unreliable source, I'd disagree with you that such a source is better than nothing. As you and 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco say, a dead link to a previously-functional reliable source is better than nothing, because someone else might be able to use that information to find a working or archived version.

But a live link to a source which may be factually incorrect (whether that's because it was written by an AI, or by a human whose job was to quickly write a lot of SEO blog entries without necessarily fact-checking them) goes against one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia, that all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.

If the only source we have for a claim is an unreliable one, it should be removed and marked as {{citation needed}}. If there's some doubt, as {{unreliable source?}}. But we should never knowingly keep an unreliable source in an article and leave the reader to realise (if they click the link at all) that it's unreliable. Belbury (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I dont think my citation is unreliable in the context of the other sources used by Wikipedia, and in the context of the page its one of the most reliable sources available.. In academia the lowest form of reference is that of a newspaper article or website (including Wikipedia ironically), and generally speaking a reliable source is considered a peer reviewed journal from a reputable publisher. A rare source to see on Wikipedia indeed. You seem to be unfairly picking on this one citation for whatever reason. As to the article - What Number is The Coldest Setting On a Fridge? - doesn't that just support the reality that they're an appliance business writing about appliance related things? If you read that article, its not low quality at all, and a content farm requires the content be low quality. I put the text through an AI text detector and it came back as written by a human. A business generating content in their area of expertise does not a content farm make, and one might expect an appliance rental business specialising in Fisher and Paykel to be one of the few organisations capable of generating reliable content on the matter. A business that in publishing incorrect information, is liable to have its reputaiton damaged. It's notalways in a businesses interest to spew out unedited garbage in the same way 1000 monkeys typing for 1000 years will give you Shakespeare. Your assessment that https://www.whybuy.com.au is a content farm is not supported by the evidence and a completely subjective assessment. You cant tar all commercial entities with the same brush that anything they write is automatically unreliable and part of a content farm. And if that is your position, why are you ok with all of the other citations from similar entities?

One of the citations for the Fisher Paykel article is a paywalled newspaper articles https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204349404578101793819992784 , a reference to the vendor website in a context which barely makes sense https://www.fisherpaykel.com/nz/ or even an obvious affiliate content websites with links to retailers https://www.canstarblue.com.au/appliances/brands/fisher-paykel-dishwashers/ The dead link http://www.delphion.com/fcgi-bin/patsearch that you're ok with leaving - we don't know what that even originally linked to because it's not archived (I've checked), but sure, that should stay apparently? On the same logic, if https://www.whybuy.com.au is taken down, then you'd be ok with the citation staying, but as long as the article and website is up, it should be removed? Have I got that right? Completely inconsistent application of citation standards.

Like I said, if the https://www.whybuy.com.au citation goes, most others deserve to go, not only in this article, but across Wikipedia. I'd be pleased for you to replace the citations with higher quality ones if you can find them, in line with citation standards. I could not, despite a pretty exhaustive search. If you cannot find higher quality citations then it should stay.

Cheers Jeremy 7336jeremy (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@7336jeremy: It doesn't matter how a particular source compares to others in the article, or how it might compare to sources we might find in the future. A source is either reliable and we leave it in, or unreliable and we take it out.

Do you think whybuy.com.au/blog is a reliable source? Belbury (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury, yes I think it is a reliable source. In WP:BLOGS: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

The information is suitable for inclusion, and as far as I can tell someone else has not published it in a higher order independent source. I have done the work.

As I said if a higher quality source is availalble for the same information it should be used, but in the absence of such a source then the Whybuy citation is sufficient. To remove the citation without also removing the cited information may also be plagiarism or breach copyright WP:YTCOPYRIGHT 7336jeremy (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the plagiarism concern, as you say yourself all the text was already there in the article before you added the reference in November making "no substantive changes to the content".

I'll open an RSN discussion. Belbury (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury we can't know that the content on the wikipedia page wasn't taken from the cited source, especially since its the only one I could find. So there is a plagiarism concern.

Additionally with the dead link - You have no way of knowing whether that was a reliable source but there's an apparent presumption it is reliable? In the context of the low quality citations for the rest of the page and on the balance of probability it isn't reliiable. If the Whybuy link were dead with no archive, you'd be in furious agreement with me that the dead link ought to stay on the basis "someone else might be able to use that information to find a working or archived version." You cannot have it both ways.

You just have it in for this one source. Why aren't you making any effort to clean up any of the worse quality citations on the page, just this one? Why not help find a better quality citation? Why do you have a bone to pick?

This is the exact type of thing that makes Wikipedia toxic. People get involved and work to make it better than overzealous editors who don't contribute want to rules lawyer you into oblivion and you give up. The reason the Fisher and Paykel article as a whole is so poor as a whole is because of you and editors like you. Now you want to have a whole group discussion about it with a bunch of other editors who make no changes to anything. What if you just spent some time being productive and looked for a better source? 7336jeremy (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia content pre-dates the registration of the whybuy.com.au website.

I've taken no view on any specific other sources. Belbury (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

@Belbury I understand you want to revert everything that comes from a blocked account. But what if their version were the good ones? Should we not restore them? These sock accounts were blocked for socks and their editions or reversions in this case are not necessarily bad. Yonasse (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yonasse: No, it's that the articles flourless chocolate cake and marron glacé were protected due to edit warring, and I'm reverting them to the state they were in prior to that edit war beginning. If you think that the edit warred version is "the good one" and should be brought back, discuss it on the talk page. Belbury (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that your version of flourless cake was the one previous edit war, even if wrong. But for Marron glacé the version previous edit war was without Itlay. Yonasse (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, it had Italy 79.17.172.126 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		If it weren't for you reminding me about Dubai Mall, I wouldn't have noticed the errors. Thanks and congrats! KjjjKjjj (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)