Group 3 Dispute Results

From Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control Course Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

===Adamic Language=== (abandoned)

  • I think would be an interesting dispute to get involved in--active and juicy. I'll post a comment on the talk page. If you guys think another topic would be better just post it here or by email and I'll participate later tonight (11pm-ish?). I totally forgot about this until now and promised by boyfriend I'd go salsa dancing-- sorry! Jendawson 17:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • i think the dispute is fine, my only concern is that all 5 of us have to comment individually according to the assignment, which makes for an unsightly/ungainly dispute resolution process. I think we should probably coordinate our responses so that we have some hope of resolution. Jumpingdeeps 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • Looks like a good dispute to me, too, but I'll keep an eye out for others. Re: coordinating responses, I agree that it would probably be more effective if we all chime in with the same view (provided we all agree on that view). I also don't think we need to wait on other responses before posting our own, since it seems they are seeking input from any interested editors. Amehra 19:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • Jen -- thanks for finding a good dispute. I spent about an hour earlier today looking for something interesting, and got hopelessly lost in all the acronyms & policy. Unfortunately, I have plans with my wife tonight and won't be around much, but will take a closer read and post some comments tomorrow morning. Incidentally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if we comment individually; however, if the group feels that we should formulate a single position, I'm game as well. Rlumpau 21:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)
    • Hm, I don't so much mean by coordinating that we need to formulate a single position as much as vet a few ideas/understand the controversy among ourselves so that we're helpful in resolving the dispute. Jumpingdeeps 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
      • I'll be on gchat for the next few hours - feel free to join a group discussion there (as Jumpingdeeps suggests). sí 21:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
        • I think that we might have missed the vibrancy wave of this dispute. The discussion seemed to be most bitter earlier, when editors were arguing over the presence of information about Mormon ritual invoking the Adamic phrase "pay lay ale." While testy at times, it seems to have been somewhat resolved - a "vote" was taken, separate section for "pay lay ale" favored, and a couple people agreed to come up with something. Whether "In Mormonism" should be broken out seems to be something relatively new, and I don't think there are sufficient voices on the yes-it-should-be-broken-out side to warrant our involvement. (The only comment I see about the issue is by Snocrates, who feels as though the present inclusion is fine.) Please let me know if I'm way off. Or if other non-HLS editors respond to Jen's comment in the near future, that would certainly be relevant. sí 22:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • do you guys know if "undue weight" is a wiki term of art? i noticed Jen used it earlier, rather appropriately, in the Adamic discussion? Jumpingdeeps 22:43, 6 January 2008 (EST)


  • Savith, Deepa, and myself have come up with an alternative dispute to pursue, about trimming a portion of quoted text in the Wall Street Journal article. This seems to us to be somewhat more straightforward (in terms of figuring out the points at issue) and thus perhaps better for our group to tackle. Thoughts? Amehra 22:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
    • The dispute Arjun mentioned is about the inclusion of a five paragraph quotation critical of Murdoch (and specifically his supposed tendency to lie about not interfering with his possessions). sí 22:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)
    • Our preliminary sense of the issue is that Nbauman feels particularly strongly that the quoted text of the WSJ article will best convey to a reader Murdoch's attitude towards editorial independence whilst several other wikipedians (whether conversant with the WSJ or not) weigh in that the quoted text is either not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, too much information on one event in the life of the WSJ, or simply poor writing to quote so. Jumpingdeeps 23:06, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Proposed Solutions

  • Savith thinks that a well constructed phrase such as "an alleged dismissive attitude toward editorial independence" could clench the deal. I agree that "sacking" is a bit weak. Jumpingdeeps 23:16, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • I think that its also important to get across that conveying the right attitude is more detail than what this wiki on the WSJ needs. At most we may want to mention the existence of the allegations and the existence of the article. The rest is probably excessive for the purposes of an encyclopedia. I also agree with Cool Hand Luke's undue weight concerns. Jumpingdeeps 23:16, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • However a WSJ article that alleges Murdoch's callous attitude towards journals on the eve of its takeover by him, given their reputation for "credibility" has several layers to it, and perhaps we do the reader a disservice in editing the nuances out. Perhaps we could attempt to capture the irony somehow. Jumpingdeeps 23:23, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • What about the following introductory comment on the talk page:
A group of law students (including myself) have been observing this discussion as part of a Cyberlaw course at Harvard, and we would like to help propose a solution acceptable to all.
  • We could either stop here and wait for someone (like Nbauman) to respond, or go on and state some of our thoughts: that the quote is too long, that we need to accurately convey Murdoch's attitude in the quote, and (as Deepa noted) that the WSJ publishing this article is noteworthy. Do you think we should also cite the Cyberlaw course wiki? sí 23:32, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • I agree with having the above introductory comment, but I think we should come up with the exact proposed language to replace the quote before initially posting anything. Amehra 23:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • Why can't we just link to the article itself? I can view the full article without having to subscribe. Or is it some Harvard-specific deal with the WSJ that I'm not aware of? Rlumpau 09:36, 7 January 2008 (EST)
    • I'm getting full access to the article at home, too. (Perhaps it was subscription-only when it was new?) Linking to the article should be fine. sí 10:31, 7 January 2008 (EST)
    • me too, good find Rlumpau. Any thoughts on whether we do an external link or 2-3 sentences describing the article with a footnote?Jumpingdeeps 10:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)
      • I like the language on the talk page, which already has the link. Rlumpau 12:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)
However, a June 5 Journal news story had quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past.[1] James Ottoway Jr. said Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations."
  • I went ahead and posted to the Talk page with my suggestion. See diff. Rlumpau 13:32, 7 January 2008 (EST)
    • ok I think i'm going to add something to the effect that I agree with Tom Sidaway that there is a general consensus emerging towards trimming. Also i'm going to mention that we're with this HLS project in the interest of full disclosure. As for Nbauman's objections, they are moot now since the article is available to all and Rlumpau's suggestion sufficiently conveys Murdoch's attitude.Jumpingdeeps 13:51, 7 January 2008 (EST)
    • It seems Nbauman is having some trouble understanding what we are trying to say. I've posted to the talk page, trying to say I agree with him but reiterating that we should cut down the quote to say pretty much what Renat suggested. Hopefully, he's not just ignoring our comments and waiting on Tony Sidaway's response instead. Amehra 18:46, 7 January 2008 (EST)
      • I'll follow up on Arjun's comment by reiterating Renat's proposed solution with a few changes (including "firing" instead of "sacking"). sí 18:50, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I dove into the discussion late to throw my support behind Renat's suggested revisions as modified by Jen. The last proposal (by Martikurtz) added back information about Ottaway and Evans that added nothing of substance to the anecdote. I agree with all that the consensus is toward brevity and clarity. Looks like the discussion is moving in a good direction and close to resolution. Kudos to Renat and others.--Jahlers 00:05, 9 January 2008 (EST)

so group 1 also has this dispute....

  • Deepa just pointed out that group 1 also has this dispute. There's not anything wrong with that necessarily but if anyone wants to switch to something new one idea is Islam and domestic violence (an article I started that is almost always edit-warring over one thing or another). We just got through a dispute over "beating" vs. "hitting" and now it's whether something about Muhammad beating Aisha can be inserted when the only secondary source talking about it is the founder of Jihad Watch. Might be exciting! :) Jendawson 13:49, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found