Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Time capsule

Mediation discussion

Initial thoughts

Well, hello, intrepid (and very patient) editors!

This is Nicholas Turnbull, your mediator. Let's get this discussion underway.

• The first thing to remember is that either of you can opt out of this mediation at any time you choose to do so, and the mediation will stop at any point that either of you no longer think it's useful, productive and/or desirable for you to continue. It's totally fine.
• The second thing to remember is that I am at your service as a mediator, but I am bound to neutrality and cannot offer opinions on the dispute at hand. In particular, I cannot offer an opinion regarding article content.
• The third thing is that we'll go through this for as long as it takes, so long as we're getting somewhere.

So, alright, I've had a good read through the Mediation Cabal case page. It's a shame the mediator dumped you and I can't see much of a structured mediation discussion there.

In essence, Chemteacher would like to include The Ozymandias Project (be it text and/or an external link) in the Time capsule article, and Syzygy does not agree with this action. The dispute question is therefore a narrow one, consisting of three parts:

1. Is The Ozymandias Project, a project involved in creating a very long-term historical time capsule, a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia?
2. Is The Ozymandias Project encyclopaedically relevant for inclusion in the Time capsule article?
3. Can Chemteacher insert this content given that Chemteacher is personally connected to The Ozymandias Project? (I don't think that Chemteacher will mind me saying this, as Chemteacher mentioned the connection during the initial mediation request. Please let me know if this is incorrect.)

For the disputed external link to the Ozymandias Web site to be included in the Time capsule Wikipedia article, I am sure that both of you could see that it would need to satisfy all three of these criteria: that it must be notable, that it must be relevant, and it must be permitted for the editor to add it to the article. You'd also have to both agree that all three of these were satisfied.

The policy that deals with links to other sites from Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia:External links (WP:EL) says in "What can normally be linked":

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Since the article is not about The Ozymandias Project itself, 1) doesn't help us. 2) is obviously irrelevant, since it isn't a book or musical score (though The Time Capsule Symphony, I think, would make a wonderful composition.) So, we are left with Number 3) which is, indeed, our subject of interest:

...Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues...

This leaves, therefore, the question that I want to put to you both for your initial mediation discussion:-

Question: Does the Ozymandias Project Web site contain neutral and accurate material relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject of time capsules, as per WP:EL?

Note that "neutral", in this case, means the site must be neutral about the subject of time capsules in the sense of WP:NPOV (i.e. presenting factual information on the subject that is encyclopaedically useful).

So, it's over to the two of you marvellous people to say what you think of this question in the Discussion section below. Once you've both replied, we'll go from there. Onwards and upwards! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Chem teacher (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Hi, NicholasTurnbull

To address your questions:

First neutrality: Well... having made it extremely clear that I am in fact the originator of the idea for the Ozymandias project (and have no qualms about being addressed as such), I think that this does not mean that the inclusion of the reference on the Time capsule page would in any sense violate neutrality. It certainly is neutral in the sense that it is not making a case for or against time capsules in general, or diminishing the material about them on the existing page. It is also neutral in the sense that the linked page to the Ozymandias project does not go to a commercial venture but just to the idea for a future project, (which has not at this time received any money and has no provision for doing so on the page) Any funding for such an ambitious project would have to come from major institutions or governments anyway .

Hi Nicholas, and thanks for taking over the mediation work!

My main complaint about including Ozymandias is a lack of notability, and the neutrality issue is linked to that, IMHO: Of course, we all tend to assign a higher importance to our own projects than to those of other people. (After all, this is why we chose to spend our time for this, rather than that.) There is a natural "gauge shift" toward our own ideas as opposed to the objective assessment of some unconcerned "bystander". Hence, I would be more impressed if some neutral third-party suggested Ozymandias for inclusion, rather than its author. (At the same time I don't think involvement of the author in the WP links is a knock-out criterion per se.) -- Syzygy (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Now relevance: This is the easy part, of course the idea (in the second part of the Ozymandias project page) for a time capsule that would preserve our culture intact for hundreds of thousands of years is relevant to a Wikipedia article on time capsules! It is actually qualifies as one of the few new ideas about time capsules to be proposed since people started making them in Babylonia

I beg to differ here. The way I last read the OZ page, it summarizes what a time capsule should be, but gives rather little input on how to achieve those goals. -- Syzygy (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Chem teacher (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)I beg to rediffer with Syzygy's above problem; here is an excerpt from the Ozymandias web page: http://www.aetherambler.net/Ozymns.htm

To address the physical site problem here is one possibility:

Dig a really deep hole in very hard rock go down say 1000 feet. Place your project in a hollow at the bottom. Now back fill the hole with the diggings up till about 200 feet of the surface then pour molten iron in for 100 feet or so to make a plug no non-technological people can get past. Fill the remaining 100 feet with dirt cover with soil and landscape it to look like the surroundings.

It will soon disappear from human ken. If accidently found, it will be impenetrable.

However, when and if technological civilization re-arises, it will stand out like a sore thumb. Any geomagnetic mapping satellite (one of the first kind we sent up) will go off scale when it passes a piece of purified iron that large.

Here is another excerpt: Then take an extremely durable material like ceramic (the Sumerians used clay tablets), or quartz or granite. Drill, chop or shape the material to encode the digital sequence. Take the slab and drill micro holes in it, with a hole representing zero, and any space between the holes representing one:

00 000 0 0 0 00 00 0 A high power laser could make the holes microscopically small to achieve high information density. Quartz would probably be best because being crystalline it would undergo the least shift in shape over time. Now fill the holes with black glass such as obsidian. This is so a future laser reader skimming the holes will register the pattern of light and dark as ones and zeros. The glass can be engendered to have the same thermal expansion as quartz so that there will be no stresses introduced (and therefore no wear) from heating and cooling. You now have a material that encodes the information and isn't going anywhere. Such a slab, left in a stable geologic formation might keep the information intact for a million years or more.

The above is detailed information on how to go about the project but the most important directions on how to go about it are in the long section on leaving stone slabs with illustrative cartoons to breach the language barrier. I think this is very specific Chem teacher (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Any good encyclopedia article should incorporate new ideas on the subject whether they have been realized yet or not, otherwise they are incomplete. As an analogy: If Wikipedia was carrying an article on underwater tunnels before the English channel “chunnel” was built, but when it was just being proposed, wouldn’t the idea for the chunnel belong in the article? I surely think so.

Again, I disagree. It's not about ideas. It's about what exists. The chunnel would only merit inclusion the minute at least concrete planning was underway, with ideas for the implementation, funding, etc. As long as the chunnel isn't beyond the stage of "Wouldn't it be cool if we could go by car to England?", it's IMHO no more notable than a garage band which may or may not turn out to be the next decade's Nirwana, but hasn't as yet released a single song.

Chem teacher (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)has Szygy not noticed that Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of things that don't exist yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_colony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_singularity

Anybody notice any mars colonies existent? has artifical inteligence exceeded human? should we eliminate the following section from the article on europa?

Potential for extraterrestrial life Europa has emerged as one of the top Solar System locations in terms of potential habitability and possibly, hosting extraterrestrial life.[64]Life could exist in its under-ice ocean, perhaps subsisting in an environment similar to Earth's deep-ocean..... [66][67] ....So far, there is no evidence that life exists on Europa, but the likely presence of liquid water has spurred calls to send a probe here.[68]

Clearly Wikipedia not only references things that don't yet exist , but has articles on themChem teacher (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Teacher, if you quote me, please do so in context: I was talking about (things where) at least concrete planning was underway, with ideas for the implementation, funding, etc.. This can reasonably be said of Moon or Mars colonies. Life on Europa is a speculation about things which might exist. If it was clear that there is no life on Europa, do you still think there should be an article under the heading of "Life on Europa" in the WP...? -- Syzygy (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability is what OZ most lacks, the way I see it. The links given by Chemteacher are old letters from respectable people which don't even wholly embrace or endorse the OZ project, plus a number of vague web addresses. Google searches don't turn up much more. No third person has spoken up on WP to support the inclusion -- this would to me be a real sign of notability, but it hasn't happened. -- Syzygy (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Chem teacher (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)there is nothing "vague" about: http://archive.longnow.org/www.longnow.org/01999-02005/timelinks/links.html it is one of the main sites which deals with long term thinking and projects. as as more recent contacts... I was invited to speak at The human document project conference (exerpt from invitation e mail):

re. 1 Document for 1 Million Years - "Human Document Project" workshop, June 30-July 2, 2010 - Saarbrucken Germany www.humandocument.org <http://www.humandocument.org>

Dear David,

I would like to bring a group of excellent people ("think tanks") from different fields together to discuss / brainstorm / kick-off activities around the topic "Human Document Project". Primary goal is to document human culture / science / art / everyday life for an intelligent being in 1 million years (or 1 billion?). Please have a look and think about it... Sincerely, amz -- Andreas Manz, PhD, FRSC, Prof.Dr.

External Senior Fellow FRIAS - Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies School of Soft Matter Research Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany manz@kist-europe.de

As far as getting "a single third party" to recommend inclusion, I could get anyone of dozens of people who have written to me about the project to become editors of Wikipedia and ask for inclusion, but if I solicited them to do so, I felt that this would be cheating so I haven't. I get a few thousand visits a month on the Ozymandias web page so the idea doesn't seem to be as dead and gone as Syzygy believes. Chem teacher (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, up to now, none of these thousands of visitors has considered Ozymandias worthy of inclusion into WP. The argument cuts both ways. ;-)

BTW, the Longnow link only refers to an archived version of the pages. The current Longnow site doesn't seem to carry a link to Ozymandias anymore (or I'm too daft to use the search function...) -- Syzygy (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the notability issue that Syzygy is concerned with I think everything relevant to deciding that has bee said on the talk page of the time capsule article and on the cabal mediation page listed

Thanks Chem teacher (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me again stress that I don't mean to judge the true merits of the OZ project -- actually I think it's an interesting project certainly worth pursuing. But I don't see in which way it fulfills the notability criteria for WP inclusion: I've recently begun the design stage for my very own open software project. Will it revolutionize the way we use computers? -- Maybe. Is it worthy of inclusion in the WP? -- Certainly not, at least not now, before there's a single release, or a single person out there who actually downloaded anything. -- Syzygy (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ozymandias: notable or not notable?

Many thanks for your responses, Syzygy and Chem teacher. From what I can see, you are both very well-meaning in your approach to the discussion and I applaud your civility with each other. It strikes me however that the two of you are talking from perhaps two different interpretations of what is meant by "notability", or what rather is included in Wikipedia articles. The Mediation Committee cannot advise on article content as per its policies; regretfully, therefore, I cannot offer anything but a neutral appraisal of both of your perspectives. I can, however, help you to reach an agreement with each other. As I see it, we have the following two perspectives:

• Chem teacher: Ozymandias is a notable subject for inclusion in Time capsule, because it is an example of a novel project seeking to create a time capsule that potentially has future scientific and sociological importance. It is notable because it has been endorsed externally by noted academics. Therefore, the link should be included.
• Syzygy: Ozymandias is an interesting project worth pursuing, but it does not yet fulfil the notability criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. The project is not presently an active time capsule development effort and as such, the Ozymandias page does not yet describe an example of a time capsule in current fruition. Therefore, the link should not be included.

I cannot make a recommendation or judgement on the specific content issues involved here — and this is not at all a reflection on whether or not the link is notable — I would like to point out to Chem teacher that Wikipedia does not include content on the basis of either 1) third-party recommendation for inclusion (even if from respected academics in the field (see WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:V); or 2) inclusion of future events and/or projects that have not yet attained notability in the academic field at large (see WP:N, WP:CBALL). Again I stress that I am saying this not with prejudice to the notability or merit of inclusion of the Ozymandias project, but simply that discussion in these terms is unhelpful as it is not really related to the actual problem that we are trying to solve. We are in fact trying to solve the quite narrow question, reduced further from the above:

Should a link to the Ozymandias project be included as per existing Wikipedia community standards and policies?

So, therefore, I have a class assignment for both of you, to read the following policies:

• Wikipedia:External links
• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

and comment as to whether Wikipedia community norms (as opposed to your personal opinions, which are described above) support the inclusion of the link. In addition, would you consider taking this to a community noticeboard for peer review by other Wikipedia editors as a mutually-agreed way of proceeding? (I'm just throwing this idea out there; I am not at all suggesting that you abandon the mediation.) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What I suggest in addition is that you read and discuss the policies above as I wrote. Then once you've discussed your interpretations of them together here and if you still are not yet able to agree on whether the link should be included or not, how about making a new section on the Time capsule talk page and putting a request for comments tag on it? You'd ask the specific question whether the link was worthy of inclusion under WP:EL, as opposed to asking for commentary on the dispute. You'd frame the question neutrally and both sign it, e.g. "We would like to hear people's opinions on whether the Ozymandias Project link at [URL] is notable for inclusion in the Time capsule article." If you were happy to accept prevailing consensus from other editors as to whether the link can be included, we could agree on this before you do so. I reckon that in a certain regard this is a matter more for Wikipedia content standards than personal opinion and, therefore, Wikipedia consensus will be your best guide. Perhaps that might be a course of action worth exploring? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas, good suggestions. I'm poring over the WP policies you suggested; alas they seem to be a bit vague as far as external links are concerned -- "Keep them to a minimum", but it's not completely clear to me what the content criteria for links as opposed to articles in their own right would be.

While I'm working on it, a suggestion as a compromise: Teacher, have you considered submitting Ozymandias to DMOZ? IMHO OZ would be nicely suited for DMOZ. I also found out that lately someone has started a WP page with a List of time capsules, which even has a section on "Projected" capsules. I'm not 100% easy with the concept of that page either, but if there is a consensus that it should exist, how would you feel about including OZ there? At the very least, you would no longer be pestered by me... ;-) -- Syzygy (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Chem teacher (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)I think this last suggestion is actually workable, The Ozymandias project is indeed a projected time capsule so it belongs on the list page without question. ( I think it belongs on the original page too, but don't want to spend sub-eternity debating back and forth on it). Syzygy If you can agree not to eliminate the link to the "list of time capsules page" on the original time capsule page, then I will place my link on there instead, and we can both take a break from this debate and figuratively go on vacation. Thanks Nicholas Turnbull for your detailed consideration and thoughtful work on this, it was not wasted effort, and is much appreciated. Sincerely Yours in the dispersal of knowledge19:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good call. I would say, of course, that addition of the link would still be subject to editorial judgement from other editors and I can't make any sort of call either way as to whether this is appropriate in my role as a neutral mediator. This does seem like a great solution to the dispute, however. Syzygy, what do you think about this? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. Like I said, the list is not my favourite WP page, but its existance doesn't hurt my pain threshold, so I will not interfere. I'm glad we could straighten this out without bad blood arising... Still, Chemteacher, I recommend you give DMOZ a look in addition. They don't have anything like notability requirements, and I registered my own website there, and it seems to receive a good amount of traffic through that channel. (I like the DMOZ concept and think it should be much more popular, as it would nicely complement WP as a link repository.)

Lots of thanks, Nicholas! That's a darn good moderation approach of yours, and though I think we somehow shortcut it ;-), it made me give the WP rules a closer look... May I recommend you for future cases? --Syzygy (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I'm glad we were able to bring this to an acceptable resolution. If you could both read the formal closure below and, if you agree with it, sign it, I'd be most grateful. As for recommendation for future cases, it is very kind of you, though MedCom cases are not preferentially assigned to particular mediators as Committee members self-select their own cases to take on; we don't permit parties to request specific mediators, as there are potential neutrality issues. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal closure

• Summary

A dispute occurred between Syzygy (talk · contribs) and Chem teacher (talk · contribs) as to whether an external link was encyclopaedically notable for inclusion in the Time capsule article. This link was to The Ozymandias Project, an initiative that Chem teacher is personally connected to; Chem teacher believed the link to the project should be included, whereas Syzygy believed that it should not. During the formal mediation, the mediator, NicholasTurnbull, structured the discussion along lines of mutual reference to Wikipedia policies versus the parties' personal opinion on the link itself. No ultimate consensus was achieved between the two parties as to whether the link is notable as per WP:V and WP:EL. However, the parties have agreed that an alternate article, List of time capsules (where speculative projects of a similar nature are referenced and the link appears to be contextually appropriate) would be a more suitable venue for the link. The parties are reminded that the inclusion of the link is still governed by Wikipedia policy, and the Mediation Committee cannot justify or exclude Wikipedia content; no endorsement of the link by the Committee has been made.

• Agreement

We agree that the mediation summary above is correct, and that the dispute has been resolved to our satisfaction through the compromise discussed. We agree to follow the terms of the compromise. The mediation may now be concluded. (Sign below next to your name.)

1. Chem teacher: Assuming agreement to close based on above statement. If this is incorrect, the case may be reopened. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Chem teacher (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Yes I agree with the above summery. I will adapt this resolution (subject to possible future change if the Ozymandias Project has a change in its "notability" status. Once again thanks To Mr. Turnbull for your patient and thoughtful work. Syzyrgy your suggestion is practical (for the nonce). Chem teacher (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Syzygy: -- Syzygy (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For the Mediation Committee, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo, looks like we have a touchdown! :-) -- Syzygy (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)