Dave Needs Help To Stay On WIKI - A General Call For Help

[ez24]

This is a take off on this topic

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/i%27m-on-wikipedia/?topicseen

Because even though Dave is on Wiki someone wants him off (read the top of the page) and this is not clear from above topic unless you read all the posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Jones

Last week there seemed to be a place for comments and recently for a few hours the warning went away.  But someone has made it his goal to get Dave removed and the warning is back and I do not see a place to comment.

Someday I would like to see the Wiki page become an index of some sorts.

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

One thing I see:  there is a link to Fluke and there someone writes "Australian blogger".  Now if someone has some clout with Fluke maybe Dave's name could be mentioned in the article.

http://en-us.fluke.com/community/fluke-news-plus/how-robust-is-your-handheld-meter.html

(about 2/3 down the page)

thanks

[nctnico]

Wikipedia = truth by democratic process 
To be honest I don't see why Dave should have his own Wikipedia page. There are so many people with a blog and a Youtube channel.

[Asmyldof]

The obnoxiously manipulative ads a few years back (??, at least 1.5 year, but it feels like more) already made me stop donating and I have not really had an interest in getting a user account.

What can I do that people may feel is useful?
(assume no deeper knowledge about wikipedia than "used to get money from me" and "has a page on David L. Jones, for now" - Really never even used it that much as a reference, tbh)

[ez24]

I thought the Wiki could make a good index.  If you search on Wiki for eevblog it redirects to Dave's page.  That is how I found it, I was looking up "eevblog" not Dave.

I suggest that those who do not like the current page - keep in mind that it probably would develop into something better

An idea -->  maybe it would be better if "Eevblog" was the main hit and if someone searched Dave they would end up on "Eevblog" page  ?

[RickBrant]

What is needed to keep Dave on Wikipedia is significant coverage of Dave in what WP considers "reliable", not self-published sources.

To discuss the issue you could go to the talk page for Dave's article.

The two interviews (one in Circuit Cellar, the other in the "...at Work" book) have been challenged, accused of being primary sources. You can read my response to that in the deletion discussion (now archived), but my response has not been accepted by the deletionists (of course it hasn't). The closing admin was apparently not convinced by either side, leaving it at "no consensus".

I'm very busy this week (with mostly fun stuff, but still, busy) and haven't had a lot of time to continue the fight. If someone could add references to the article for Dave's second interview in CC (the 25th anniversary issue), and to the talk he was invited to give that was mentioned in the other thread, that would help. Just go ahead and do the simplest refs - I'll clean 'em up.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Because even though Dave is on Wiki someone wants him off (read the top of the page) and this is not clear from above topic unless you read all the posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Jones

Last week there seemed to be a place for comments and recently for a few hours the warning went away.  But someone has made it his goal to get Dave removed and the warning is back and I do not see a place to comment.

Someday I would like to see the Wiki page become an index of some sorts.

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

You realise that Wikipedia has policies* (e.g. WP:MEAT) that frown on this sort of thing?

Be very careful; what looks like simple enthusiasm to improve a page can easily be used against it in a keep/delete 'vote' (inverted commas because in Wikipedia a vote is rarely a vote - and even if it is, some votes are more equal than others... (see also WP:DEMOCRACY)).

(* Wikipedia has policies to cover everything, and they're not particularly shy about adding more. For people that haven't experienced Wikipedia's back-rooms, that should tell you all you need to know about the place...)

[John Coloccia]

I like EEVBlog...that's why I'm here.  I think the core issue with being "notable", and why other sources are requested, is what does the Wiki page add that isn't already here? Someone mentioned an index.  How many links to the same videos do we need?  Wikipedia isn't meant to a convenient place for people to organize their own favorite websites.  It's a place to go were people can get interesting information on people/things that aren't already convenient collected.

So with that said, if you want to keep a Dave Wiki page, start finding Dave/EEVblog things that aren't just rehashed EEVblog things.  For example, I believe he's also some sort of personal trainer, no?  Anything notable going on there?  Didn't he publish some sort of internet dating book?  Those are the kinds of things you need to be looking for, IMHO.

[Marco]

Dunno if it's significant enough, but there's a small call out in the book Beaglebone for Secret Agents.

"Dave Jones EEVBlog is an entertaining and informative video blog that covers many areas of electronics and should be of interest to hobbyists in electronics ..."

[marshallh]

Let the wikipedians decide. Is there a compelling reason for someone to have a wiki page?
Sticking your business in the dark, murky backwaters of the Wikipedia subculture is only going to ruin any positive outlook on life you ever had.

[Marco]

To be honest I don't see why Dave should have his own Wikipedia page. There are so many people with a blog and a Youtube channel.

If they have as much impact on the the rest of the blogs and as often noticed by industry I'd say they deserve one too.

Hell, I think Photoinduction deserves a Wikipedia page (although I doubt he'd like one).

[EEVblog]

The closing admin was apparently not convinced by either side, leaving it at "no consensus".

Ah, so the deletion request by Dream Focus has been effectively knocked back?
I see no mention of the pending deletion notice on the main page. BUt given that there is still a warning it's open to anyone coming back and starting the whole saga again?

[EEVblog]

I like EEVBlog...that's why I'm here.  I think the core issue with being "notable", and why other sources are requested, is what does the Wiki page add that isn't already here? Someone mentioned an index.  How many links to the same videos do we need?  Wikipedia isn't meant to a convenient place for people to organize their own favorite websites.  It's a place to go were people can get interesting information on people/things that aren't already convenient collected.

A list of episodes is best left to the EEVblog website (or neglected EEVblog wiki). BTW the EEVblog website will get an overhaul shortly, more to come on that.
What I think personal Wikipedia pages are good for is finding out more about the person you are interested in. Info that is technically out there, but would otherwise be hard to find.
e.g. someone might have said something in interview once that reveals an interesting fact about them.
I guess some people might be interested in who I am after watching my videos, and that's probably what the page would be good for.
In my case it's next to impossible to watch all my videos to get every snippet of personal information or controversial thing I said or done etc, but a crowd sourced wikipedia page makes it possible for people to add that stuff as they find them.

So with that said, if you want to keep a Dave Wiki page, start finding Dave/EEVblog things that aren't just rehashed EEVblog things.  For example, I believe he's also some sort of personal trainer, no?  Anything notable going on there?

Nope. Yes, I'm a qualified fitness trainer, but nothing ever came of that.

  Didn't he publish some sort of internet dating book?

Yes. And when I released it online for free, it became AFAIK the most widely read internet dating book with hundreds of thousands of downloads. I lost count after it went crazy (legally) on the torrent sites.
But probably hard to get factual data on this stuff that's not from the horses mouth, i.e. me.

[pickle9000]

And did the book work? Can you prove it? Is there a child involved?

[Richard Crowley]

User:Ronz is the Wikipedia editor who is proposing removing the page.
His main objection appears to be "non-notability",  to wit...

BIO not met with interviews alone - his blog seems more notable than him
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Jones&action=history

and...

Please note that blogs and whitepapers are not considered reliable sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronz

It is interesting to note how people here make such subjective arguments about keeping Dave's WP page, while many (most?) citations of Wikipedia are roundly scorned as "crowd-sourced" and "non-authoritative".  Seems hypocritical to me.

[Delta]

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

Heh heh.

Viagra?

[Sigmoid]

Wikipedia = truth by democratic process 

Nah. It's truth by citation.
It does look like a deathmatch of lawyers at times, but overall the result isn't half bad.

The whole philosophy of WP is that it's a tertiary source. It's an encyclopedia that collects data about things that have already been written (in reviewed and edited publications). It leaves the question of whether a thing or person is notable enough to other, more traditionally edited papers and books.

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

[Monkeh]

So is there anyone that can help keep Dave's wiki up?  I will do what I can to help.

Heh heh.

Viagra?

[Richard Crowley]

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

Indeed. The very existence of this thread is enough to kill the page.  The best thing Dave could do is delete this entire thread and discourage any subsequent discussion of WP.

[Mechanical Menace]

The best thing Dave could do is delete this entire thread and discourage any subsequent discussion of WP.

I personally think Dave's current stance of "I don't really care what a bunch of Wikipaedophiles think of me" is the best thing he could do.

[Marco]

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

It's understandable, but it's also petty and inexcusable.

[c4757p]

And yea, this sort of zeal ("come on you guys, we gotta protect this page about {whatever}!") is frowned upon in WP circles, and understandably so. There is some kind of prejudice against anyone who might be perceived as a "fan" of something, and "fan pages" on WP, also understandably so.

It's understandable, but it's also petty and inexcusable.

Bullshit. Fans are by definition not impartial.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

Wikipedia = truth by democratic process 

Nah. It's truth by citation.
It does look like a deathmatch of lawyers at times, but overall the result isn't half bad.

No, it's not even that. At best, it gradually approaches a consensus of dedicated Wikipedians by citation. The whole structure & set of processes are designed towards achieving that specific outcome.

And it tends to result in many secondary & teriary problems that are inherent to that particular process e.g. that the group of dedicated Wikipedians is somewhat biased towards self-selected people with more time and inclination to 'play the game' than editorial ability to appraise sources, which in turn leads to (amongst other things) a tendency to appraise sources based on Wikipedia's citation criteria over & above the accuracy & applicability of their content.

I personally think Dave's current stance of "I don't really care what a bunch of Wikipaedophiles think of me" is the best thing he could do.

Me too.

[Psi]

Here's some links that may/maynot be useful to add to the wiki page



Dave April fools video is listed on tektronics official website
http://www.tek.com/blog/tektronix-dave-jones-weigh-april-fools-pranks

adafruit mentions eevblog and dave in the description of a extech meter
http://www.adafruit.com/products/308

His book on internet dating
http://www.amazon.com/The-Internet-Dating-David-Jones-ebook/dp/B004MDLVAO

some random website i found
http://tronixstuff.com/2011/07/14/learn-to-solder-with-david-l-jones

[EEVblog]

Looks like this Ronz person just deleted most of the Wiki article!
What's the point? If a Wiki article exists it might as well have as much info as possible on the person 

[Falcon69]

User:Ronz is the Wikipedia editor who is proposing removing the page.
His main objection appears to be "non-notability",  to wit...

BIO not met with interviews alone - his blog seems more notable than him
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Jones&action=history

and...

Please note that blogs and whitepapers are not considered reliable sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronz

It is interesting to note how people here make such subjective arguments about keeping Dave's WP page, while many (most?) citations of Wikipedia are roundly scorned as "crowd-sourced" and "non-authoritative".  Seems hypocritical to me.

I find that last quote very very funny.  Because in college, every single one of my professors has told me that if I use anything from Wiki as a resource for any assignment I turn, I could fail the assignment.  Every single one of my college professors considered anything on Wiki as an unreliable source.

I now consider anything I read on Wiki as utter nonsense or for reference only, often doing other research to back up what was read or seen on Wiki.  Lately, I haven't even gone to the site, as it's just double work since I look up info elsewhere to verify what is written on Wiki.

In fact, one of my professors even logged into (put the screen up on the big board for whole class to see what she was doing) Wiki, went to a certain article, deleted some stuff, and added her own falsifying stuff that was clearly false.  Funny thing is, it stayed that way for several days. So, Info on Wiki can be modified at any time, and the less smart of us would never know the difference. Very bad resource indeed. I actual find blogs and whitepapers to be a better resource than Wiki in and of itself.