This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I understand your dependence on RS to defend the characterization of Project Veritas (given the controversy involved) as far-right activism. However, I disagree on this characterization, and I would appreciate it if you could take the time to consider my position. My contention is as follows: 1) mass media sources cannot be considered RS when discussing a competing platform/source (see wp:newsorg), and academic sources are not NPOV until proven otherwise (especially when they themselves either provide no justification for characterizations or again rely on news media for definitions); 2) the characterizations are based on flawed definitions (by all definitions, PV is gotcha journalism, not activism); and 3) PV itself has not actively engaged in or called for minimalist government or reactionary social policy, and while it does seem to associate with reactionary groups, it is not truly far-right (which, in opposition to things like totalitarian socialism and Communism, would advocate for minimalist or completely absent government).
I am, of course, discussing my position with you (and I will do so with other editors) in order to resolve a dispute amicably and reach a resolution.
It seems to me that the characterization of PV depends heavily on quotations from news media sources (again, see wp:newsorg), which given wp:rs, is reliable only for statements of fact (e.g. the reported death/injury toll from the scene of a car crash), and not necessarily for characterizations of competing sources/platforms. I should note that even the Virginia Law Review's article cites no supporting evidence to justify the far-right characterization. The Columbia Journalism Review's article bases its characterization of PV on articles from the Washington Post, whose position, per wp:newsorg, calls its RS status into question.
With regards to activism, none of those sources actually called PV activists, but rather outlets or groups, which would lend support to my position that PV is gotcha journalism, not activism.Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
1) mass media sources cannot be considered RS when discussing a competing platform/source (see wp:newsorg) This is an interesting argument that I'm sympathetic with, but unfortunately it is not supported by scholarly sources, which are the basis of how we write wikipedia and unaffected by these competitive interests. Similarly, nonprofit news sources or international sources like NPR, PBS, the Guardian, and WBEZ would not be affected by this. See also scholarly sources:
"According to New York’s Andrew Rice, James O’Keefe, the founder and guiding light of the right-wing sting group Project Veritas, has gone on paid leave and could be ousted as the group’s leader by its board, which is set to meet tomorrow." Columbia Journalism Review
"For instance, she also tweeted a link to the controversial right-wing Project Veritas YouTube video on ‘Democrats rigging the election.’ The Veritas project is known to be linked to the entourage of Trump" Scholarly Journal: Social Sciences
"In total, the network of far-right groups referred to in this study includes over 900 channels, including references to personal accounts of users, organizations, and figures, such as Project Veritas, Breitbart News, and the Canadian far-right provocateur Faith Goldy." Scholarly Journal: Canadian Journal of Communication
"These dog-whistle videos, borderline content, and partisan discourse, produced and shared by groups and accounts such as Project Veritas, Russel Brand, and other less well-known YouTubers play a large part in the vaccination discourse on Gab." Scholarly Journal: Social Media + Society
2) the characterizations are based on flawed definitions (by all definitions, PV is gotcha journalism, not activism);This is unfortunately not how wikipedia works. There is no inherent logic or unified set of math-like rules which govern Wikipedia. We are beholden to what the sources say, per WP:DUE, WP:RSUW, and WP:NPOV. See also: WP:NOTTRUTHFor your #3, see above. We aren't about what the "truth" of the situation is, or what PV "is actually" doing, or whatever. We are about what the sources say it is. We only care to reflect what the published sources and scholarship say about our subjects. And we should not bring in our own opinions into such discussions to avoid the impact of personal bias. With regards to activism, none of those sources actually called PV activistsNot true. See:
"Activist"
"Cassandra Spencer, a Defiance Press publishing manager who previously worked for the conservative activist group Project Veritas, is also set to appear at the rally." Houston Chronicle
"Trump singled out for praise James O’Keefe, the right-wing activist whose Project Veritas organization once tried to plant a false story in The Washington Post." Associated Press
"New York state judge on Friday ordered the New York Times to return internal documents to the conservative activist group Project Veritas, a restriction the newspaper said violates decades of First Amendment protections." Reuters
"The Greenwich Republican ecosystem is such that James O’Keefe, the founder of the conservative activist group Project Veritas, is practically a local celebrity." New York Times
"Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for spreading misinformation, recently published a concealed-camera videoopens in a new tab or window allegedly showing a Pfizer employee describing the company's COVID-19 vaccine research efforts" MedPage Today
"The conservative activist James O'Keefe and his nonprofit Project Veritas have sprung sting operations on many media organizations, including NPR. In 2011, after one such scheme, NPR pushed out our CEO and also our top fundraiser. These operations often involve undercover videos edited in misleading ways." NPR
"The same misleading label can be found via searching for James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, who is positively labelled as “American activist”. Veritas is known for releasing audio and video recordings that contain false information designed to discredit academic, political, and service organisations" Scholarly Journal: M/C – A Journal of Media and Culture
"Groups like Oath Keepers pounced on information provided by Project Veritas—a conservative activist group known for conducting manipulative video stings of progressive organizations—that allegedly documented organized attempts by Democrats to rig the election" Scholarly Book: Oath Keepers by Sam Jackson published by Columbia University Press (p. 26,58)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.
Keep an eye on your revert count at COVID-19 lab leak theory. It doesn't appear in any way that you intend to be edit warring but just be careful making so many changes to such an active page within a 24 hour period because if other editors edits intersperse yours (as they did in the last 24 hours) the reverts add up real fast. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Wait what? No, you've at or over four thats why we're having this discussion. You think you're at 1? What do you think a revert is? Would you be surprised to learn that it includes removing/changing any existing text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Please link and quote the policy you're referencing. Subsequent removals of text not restored by others are, to my knowledge, considered 1 revert. A "revert" is a restoration of a previous version of the text. I'd be curious to see which 4 times I've done this in this 24 hour period. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. Self-reversion is the act of reverting your own edits. Reverting does not always involve the use of the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion." WP:REVERT. Anything which removes existing text is a partial reversion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more editsThis is the important part in my opinion. I have undone or negated the edits of another person only once today. Anything which removes existing text is a partial reversionThis is the part I don't see as actually being in that text. It appears to be your personal interpretation. Also matters that WP:REVERT is not a policy or guideline. The appropriate one would be WP:EW:To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.I have not undone the actions of another editor more than once today, to the best of my knowledge. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact." If you don't want to heed my advice so be it, I won't be hauling you to WP:EWN but someone will if you continue to edit so sloppily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but also: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. I have undone the actions of another editor only once today. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No worries. I've just found that ignoring someone who wants attention is the harshest punishment available to them and engaging with them, even if they're blocked and obviously wrong, is just feeding into what they want. I'll intervene if there's some bad personal attacks, or some disruptive activity, but if they want to hoot and holler, I'm inclined to let them throw their tantrum. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
