Conservapedia talk:Attribution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Some discussion of anonymous sources would be beneficial to the project. Several abominable abuses were discovered in reviewing the various Torture related articles. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (#19) cites how pervasive gossip is in WP and how Conservapedia seeks to avoid it. We would do good to discuss and formulate our own guideline how they are to be properly attributed.

In historical writing I employ extremely stringent standards, however in current news items some leeway may occassionally be warranted. This however, is where hidden biases creep in, and only an experienced and trained eye might be able to catch it. We have now some good examples to use and discuss how to properly vet and attribute controversial claims -- both to improve those articles, and articulate an overall guideline that would improve the encyclopedia, show a distinct difference between Conservapedia and WP's bias, alleviate needless disputes among editors, and identify trolls and vandals more quickly.

Let's get some serious students of media bias involved in this discussion. It would be a very useful learning experience how to detect media bias, as well as proper research methods in writing articles, and organizational aspects of improving our project. RobS 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think if you look at Rob's protection or torture you'll see what he means

The facts don't agree with his POV interpretation.Flippin 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia #19 states,
Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.... Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
Cite 1 (one) singular "fact" from any material removed from any Torture related article. RobS 12:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm simply referring to that simplistic example with Eminem. You present it as fact, yet deny that it is just your POV. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. I suggest people look at it when considering the veracity of your other edits. Flippin 12:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe I'm in violation of WP:POINT, but the POINT is, the Eminem cite is about the only properly qualified cite from that article, and infact the ABC News article has deeply problematic vulnerabilities, nonetheleast of which is a question of journalistic ethics of both the authors and the editors of ABC News. Yet that cite, and a few others, are already scattered throughout CP. I'm not saying it can't be used, I am saying the ABC News article was used improperly, and the cite I made to it was factual and an improvement over what had been represented out of that cite. RobS 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If you look at Amnesty International's definition, it includes these forms: Other methods of torture and ill-treatment which have been reportedly used by state officials:

  • Violently shaking
  • Tying up the victim in painful positions for prolonged periods
  • Flogging
  • Prolonged exposure to cold or heat
  • Forcibly use of drugs
  • Sterilization without consent
  • Threatening the victim
  • Threatening to hurt friends or relatives of the victim
  • Refusal to provide adequate or proper medical treatment

The ABC article, which you are making so much of, includes these:

  • The Attention Grab
  • The Attention Slap
  • The Belly Slap
  • Long Time Standing
  • The Cold Cell
  • Water Boarding

YOU, decided to include these:

  • Rape and sexual abuse in custody
  • Mock execution or threat of death
  • Prolonged solitary confinement
  • Electric shocks
  • Suspension of the body
  • Suffocation
  • Eminem's "Slim Shady" album [4]

I am saying this ref. to Eminem is ridiculous. You list it among "commonly reported methods include:" and this is not common. That is why I am saying you are pushing your ignorance on people who may not know better. That is hard to describe as anything but propaganda, not just conservative bias. Do you see the difference? What if someone else included "reading the bible" as a common method of torture? Or, say, "playing Billy Graham real loud on a television set night and day?" All youe example does is push your personal agenda on the mistaken belief that it represents a common method of torture. Flippin 13:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, for this discussion, we are seeking an overall guideline, and only using Torture as an example. Now, you say above, "The ABC article, which you are making so much of, includes these..."; the ABC News article in fact says,
.. ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors....All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed... detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said....The CIA sources described a list...
The question now is, this must be attributed to anonymous CIA sources and not simply ABC News. Secondly, I would proposes Brian Ross and Richard Espisito also be held accountable as sources of these claims, because of this, and other controversial material in their article. Thirdly, simply citing to "anonymous CIA sources" presents problems in itself, as a possibly unwarranted and non-credible source. And fouth, ABC News past record of credibility must also be taken into consideration.
So, for the claim "according to ABC News", (a) how would you rephrase that properly, and (b) how can we phrase a guideline to deal with future problematic citations to possibly questionable sources for extremely controversial and inflammatory claims? RobS 13:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I am fine with everything EXCEPT the ref to Eminem. I think that inclusion is what is so wildly distorted. the list in the article as is, is fine otherwise. Could be expanded, but that's premature Flippin 13:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

We have a problem with citing to "anonymous CIA sources"; "anonymous CIA sources" could have their own private political agenda that stands in direct opposition to the peoples democratically elected Executive whom they allegedly serve. And their anonymity is protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- an unusual circumstance for any anonymous source. How do we know that these anonymous sources aren't Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, and Philip Agee, serving their own private political agenda in contradiction to a democratically elected Executive? RobS 14:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Because we have to have faith in the system ubntil it proves otherwise. Flippin 14:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The cases of Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, and Philip Agee have proven otherwise. RobS 14:07, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
So have the cases of WMDs and Scooter, but we still had to follow that info. I'm just saying, drop Eminem, why is that related to this CIA stuff? Flippin 14:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The Eminem part is directly cited to anonymous CIA sources, and it infact is the most plausible form or "torture" of all cited. Accountability is why we have this guideline, Conservapedia:Attribution, and why some of us chose to edit under our real name, and why editing under a real name is now encouraged at several collaborative projects. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act virtually guarantees a Philip Agee or Valerie Plame type "anonymous CIA source" can never be held accountable, and disinformation they place in mainstream media to serve a private political agenda to subvert a democratically elected Executive can never be fully and accurately reviewed. RobS 14:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, but that's a junk you know. The point was Eminem, as presented, is a form of torture. That's dumb. Just because someone said it does not make it valid fodder for this site. Otherwise, you are arguing that to listen to Eminem music is torture. Flippin 14:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So that specific reference may not stand. One reason it was done is because there is some valuable information in the Ross & Espisito ABC News article, which I did not wish to remove completely (as was done with most of the uk cites). I'm still reviewing all the other abuses that occured in this series of articles, trying to salvage what useful and valuable information and cites are there, and do rewrites where if I can. But most importantly we need a guideline on anonymous sources -- this junk was in for a month after the vandal had been blocked. A guideline would have helped catch it much sooner, and some of the cites removed could still be saved. RobS 14:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Fine, but I wasn't working on the guideline. Flippin 14:51, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

The Eminem reference, while factual, will probably be changed. I'm trying to find a way to salvage the Ross & Espisito material in conjunction with other articles. Worse case scenario is we throw it out completely, which I don't think is a good idea. I just have to make sure all the other bogus garbage is removed first, rewrite where possible, then find a way to properly cite the Ross & Espisito material, and perhaps articulate a guideline on anonymous sources out of this experience. So please be patient. RobS 14:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Agreed Flippin 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)