The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IS group[edit]

IS group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

The article is original research and according to the article's creator, a member of the group, (see article's talk page) there are no verifiable sources independent of the group to indicate notability. ragesoss 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, no WP:RS by author's admission; violates WP:COI. Akihabara 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Needs RS. delldot | talk 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Background. As the original author of the IS group entry, I would like to provide some background information on how and why this entry was made. I am new to Wikipedia editing, and the IS group entry was my first contribution. I was inspired to add this entry by The Reality Club entry and modeled my entry after that one. At that point in time, I was blissfully unaware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since that time, I have learned a lot, but still have much to learn. Seeing the short Reality Club entry inspired me because, as a scientist, and scientific administrator, I am very interested in the history of science, particularly the informal aspects of science (such as what happens behind the scenes -- see, for example, the excellent book Tuxedo Park). As an administrator (former Division Director at NSF and former chair of OSTP committees and present chair of an NAS board) who has done federal service, I have grown much more aware of how science policy can be shaped in ways that are not always apparent and not always reported in standard venues. I am also aware of the importance of ethnography, ethnomethodology, and oral history in documenting events, including events related to the history of science. Because of The Reality Club entry, I had thought at the time that Wikipedia was interested in such articles, as long as they were notable and verifiable in some way. Thus, the IS group entry was started on Nov. 22, 2006. On Nov. 23, 2006, a Wikipedia editor named weregerbil raised concerns about notability and verifiability. I took these concerns very seriously and did what I thought was appropriate at the time to establish both the notability and verifiability of the entry, spending a lot of time and adding what I thought was appropriate information. I indicated that I was both the author of the entry and a co-founder of the group, but I do not recall at the time weregerbil raising any COI concerns. Please also note that, contrary to what some have said above, as author of the article I have NOT admitted that there are no reliable or verifiable sources, I have only stated that "...I am unaware of any verifiable PUBLISHED sources ..." Instead, I based both the notability and the verifiability on the reputation of the members of the group and on the notability (and verifiability) of the research that has been influenced by this group. The reliability and verifiability and notability of these individuals is easy for any independent individual to establish if they know how to do a literature search or use a library. I certainly think that I have gone to considerably greater lengths than what has been done for entries such as The Reality Club (by the way, I commend having "The Reality Club" entry on Wikipedia, and feel that it should remain). More recently, on Jan. 11, 2007, the Wikipedia COI policy was been pointed out to me by ragesoss. I wish someone had done so earlier and apologize for not familiarizing myself with it on my own. However, I still think that the IS group entry has value, is notable, can be verified (though perhaps not in printed sources), is not original research, and should remain on Wikipedia. I strongly feel that it makes a valuable (though very small) contribution to the history of informal science. Progress in science is not always made only by publication, but often by the social links that foster collaboration and influence theoretical directions. In addition, often the best way to hear about an event is through oral history, as long as this oral history can be verified in some way (which is often by corroboration of known individuals). A more nuanced approach to verifiability is needed than apparently presently exists in Wikipedia. To not ponder this issue and, hopefully, improve policy related to it means that Wikipedia may become overly reliant on certain kinds of publication and runs the risk of being driven by the desires of the dominant media which increasingly are being controlled by fewer interests. Because of the COI policy, I will refrain from editing the IS group entry in the future. However, I am hoping that those who really care about informal aspects of the history of science, oral history, and ethnography will make a better case than I can for why hearing from the horse's mouth of those who have participated in events can sometimes constitute a valid form of verifiability and can both help Wikipedia become a stronger, and more accurate, encyclopedia and can also make for a richer and more exciting history of science. Thanks for bearing with this flame and thanks to the Wikipedia editors, weregerbil and ragesoss, who have urged me to consider these matters more carefully. Ddp224 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, I used the term "verifiable" here in the Wikipedia sense (per Wikipedia:Verifiability), which is by definition a published source. Wikipedia is not the place for unpublished work (which is by Wikipedia's definition, as opposed to common usage, original research). But there are other possible venues. If seeking out a more formal publication venue, like a journal in your field(s), would be too onerous, try wikinfo, a wiki encyclopedia with different editorial policies.--ragesoss 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ragesoss -- Thanks for the clarification. I am just trying to explore and understand better some of the Wikipedia concepts and guidelines. As should be crystal clear at this point, this particular entry is not critical to either Wikipedia, the history of science, or the survival of the larger world. However, there are larger principles here that are, at least to me, fascinating, and potentially of some importance, including how they relate to how behind-the-scenes information can be gotten into the public record in some "reliable" (not, apparently, in the Wikipedia sense) way, and the possibilities they raise for nurturing innovative approaches for documenting the informal history of science. Your mention, above, of "verifiable sources" led me to WP:V and WP:RS, and resulted in my being even more unclear about a few things. Is official information, such as press releases, news, information, etc., published on academic and commercial websites, such as Yale and Microsoft, considered to meet the test in certain circumstances for what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources? Is such website information considered to have appeared in what Wikipedia would view as an appropriate "published source"? One reason that I ask is that there has been, for some time, an IS group description on the Haskins site (http://www.haskins.yale.edu/ISgroup.html). This is a corporate, not personal, website that has a full-time, paid website manager, and that also requires that material that appears on the site have editorial oversight and be vetted and approved by a website editorial committee, and finally approved by the President of our Laboratories and, thus, gets multiple views and scrutiny before it appears. Of course, there still may be COI issues with such a source. (Please also note that Haskins is not formally affiliated with the IS group (listing it as an informal affiliation) and takes no responsibility for its actions or the actions of its members.) On WP:RS a number of issues seem related to sourcing and verifiability on this type of informal article. Putting verifiability aside for the moment, the material in this entry seems to be non-controversial and is more just a historical listing of when certain things took place, why they happened, their possible importance, and who was involved. Controversial conclusions are not being reached and, if they are, should be removed if they cannot be verified. Finally, the issue of "Self-published sources" did seem relevant. In WK:RS it says, in that section, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-know professional journalist, has produced self-published material, they may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Again, I don't want to push this too far, but many of the IS participants (it is not a formal group, and does not have membership), including me, meet these tests and have numerous publications in respected, credible, third-party publications, including professional journals, books, etc., to establish their credibility and reputation. Should such factors be taken into account when establishing verifiability and reliability? Apparently, Wikipedia thinks that they should, at least to a certain extent or in certain situations. Clearly, such approaches for establishing verifiability and reliability are not the preferred approach, but often this may be all that is possible. This situation does not seem to be the same kind case as an earlier example that you mentioned to me, in which a bunch of high-school kids create a fake entry as a lark. Most of those involved with IS are credible, known researchers, academics, physicians, etc., and their credibility can be verified. By the way, your comments are worth a lot to me. I am learning a great deal from this process and appreciate the time that you are willing to spend on this. Ddp224 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS. However, I believe the section on self-published work by professionals is intended to only apply in limited circumstance; in this case, I think the intended interpretation would be that, because you and/or the author of the website are not experts on informal science, it would not apply here. The bigger underlying issue is Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia's notability requirements are, in my view, flawed in some ways (and rather byzantine). But the self-publishing exception to WP:RS would absolutely not apply when the self-published source would be necessary just to establish the notability of the IS group. If there was an independent source establishing the notability of the IS group, then the group's website would probably be accepted as a valid source for filling out the article. --ragesoss 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I am not entirely clear which websites are being referred to in your most recent message, above. There are 2 websites in question. The Haskins site is a professional, corporate website, that gets its content from academics of known reputation and from paid science writers, who are familiar with both formal and informal science. The IS group website (http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/is/), which is not affiliated with Haskins, is a self-published site, maintained by Simon Levy. The responsibility for this site is his. Simon is an academic of established reputation (http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/) who also has experience in formal and informal science. Starting in 1992, Simon was the editor of Exponent (http://www.extropy.org/history.htm) and other Extropy Institute newsletters, which published material related to formal and informal science. Simon has also been a presenter at meetings that include both the formal and less formal aspects of science (e.g. http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/presenters.shtml). Regarding your comment, above that " ... you and/or the author of the website are not experts on informal science," I, reluctantly, would point out the following about myself. As noted above (and as can be found by all on my website and on other websites), I was formerly the Division Director for Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences at the National Science Foundation. In that role, I had responsibility for 10 fields: Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology, Physical Anthropology, Geography and Regional Science, Environmental Social and Behavioral Sciences, Child Development, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental Psychology, Social Psychology, and Linguistics. Part of my responsibilities included reading, reviewing, and signing off on each and every award or decline made on each grant proposal from all academic universities in the US in each of those areas (this, by the way, was a lot of work, which is why I no longer am doing it). I was also the first chair of the most recent NSF priority area, Human and Social Dynamics, and served on the Science and Technology Centers operating committee, responsible for giving out among the largest of awards at the NSF. In these areas, I would often deal with issues related to informal science, and with issues related to informal science education. I would also work with those in the NSF Informal Science Education programs. I deal with such matters on the National Academies Board that I chair, and have dealt with such issues on the OSTP Committees that I have chaired or worked on in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Finally, I have also lectured in this area. One example is a recent presentation at Dartmouth College ("Turning Fears into Public Policy: Grey Goo and Government." Invited talk, SEAC (Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum) 8th Annual International Conference, 2006, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, Nov. 16-18, 2006.). Other examples can be found on my CV on the Haskins website and would, I assume, be considered to be both verifiable and reliable. Much of my recent career has been related to the intersection between science and public policy and falls clearly in the domain of what is considered to be expertise in informal science. Others who have been affiliated with the IS group have expertise in informal science. For example, one of the participants, a physician, academic, and scientist, is currently a Slate columnist and NPR pundit, where he writes about speaks about health, medicine, and the informal aspects of science related to these matters. But, enough on this. I would like to close this overly long missive by raising my concern that there seems to be a small degree of "bait and switch" (or perhaps just dealing with a moving target) in the criticism of this particular Wikipedia entry. I start by apologizing again for the COI matters, which were not clear to me until recently. In Nov. 2006, the main concerns of weregerbil were with notability -- thus, considerable time was spent attempting to establish this notability. More recently, the concerns moved over mostly to reliable sources and verifiability, which have been discussed at length, above. In your most recent comment, you seem to indicate, again, that the crucial underlying issue is notability. As noted in previous discussions, and assuming for sake of argument that reliability and verifiability and COI are not the major problems, one aspect of my viewpoint on this is that notability, in this case, relates to the fact that this informal group has brought leading (at least in their fields) scientists (and other individuals) together and, to at least a small degree, helped to shape their research and scientific efforts in important ways, both by exposing them to the materials being read and discussed and often by no more than the simple act of intellectual interchange cemented by social contact, a little good beer, some crap to eat, and a fun movie to watch. If that ain't informal science, I don't know what is. In addition reliable information appears on at least 2 websites (one commercial, the other self-published, but by a known, verifiable, reliable source) to establish the existence of this group and provide a short description of its activities. Sorry, as usual, for going on so long and hoping that this has been of some interest and use to you. Ddp224 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my explanation seemed like a bait and switch. The issues of verifiability, reliable sources, and notability are closely intertwined. In a nutshell, the issue is that there are no sources about the IS group independent of the group; the Haskins website in nominally independent, but obviously the informal connection is significant. The convention on Wikipedia is to exclude such material based on the Notability guideline, at least until an independent published source exists. The establishment of notability is dependent on verifiability through reliable sources, but establishing notability has the additional burden that the sources must be independent. COI is (or at least supposed to be) treated more as a user behavior issue than a content issue; the decision of whether to keep or delete content is, in theory, independent of COI issues regarding who created the article.--ragesoss 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to imply that your particular response was a bait and switch. Rather, I was attempting to express my frustration with the overall process, which continues to seem like a moving target to me. I have asked specific questions when interacting with Wikipedia editors (such as my attempt to find out whether or not information on websites can be considered, in certain cases, to be "published sources" and, if so, what those cases would be), but have not always received specific answers (or, perhaps, I have not understood the answers). For example, I am still confused about your answer to one of my earlier questions about one of your statements (The statement of yours that I was inquiring about was: "If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS".). In this statement, are you referring to (a) the Haskins website, or (b) the IS group webpage? Since the IS group entry was made in Nov. 2006, I have been trying to deal honestly and carefully with criticisms and/or concerns when they have been raised. I am aware the many of the issues are intertwined. I am also aware that newcomers such as myself can find these complexities to be inhibiting. However, I have tried to persist and attempt to untwine some of the intertwined strands. I have tried to carefully deal with each issue as it has been raised, by either providing sourced information in the entry (and other entries I have worked on in the past), or by providing detailed background on discussion pages, or by requesting clarification from Wikipedia editors. However, in the responses that I have received, a slightly different concern seems always to be raised by Wikipedia editors. These have seemed not to be always because topics are intertwined, but sometimes because the editors are looking for other reasons to dismiss the entry. On another matter, Haskins Laboratories is absolutely independent of the IS group. Although there is a historical connection, Haskins has NO connection with the IS group, not even an informal one. The Haskins website is a source independent of the IS group (certainly more independent than The Reality Club entry, which inspired the IS group entry, is of the Edge.org sourcing). Reference to the IS group on the Haskins website is treated as we would treat professional organizations or other entities that are of interest to our employees or website visitors, or whose activities seem relevant. For example, consider some of the professional societies that I belong to or other Haskins people belong to, such as AAAS, IEEE, the American Psychological Association, AVISA (Audiovisual Speech Association), the Linguistic Society of America, ISEP (the International Society of Ecological Psychology), etc. I assume that many Haskins people are members of these societies, are possibly officers of some of these, or other, societies, may have played a role in founding some of these societies, etc. The same would be true throughout academia. The Haskins site may link to such entities, and Haskins may even be supportive, in a general way, of their activities. However, organizations such as Haskins (and other such academic organizations, such as colleges, universities, etc.), are usually considered to be independent of these professional organizations, even if faculty members are members (or even officers) of the professional organizations. The individual faculty member, of course, would not be considered to be independent of the organization. Referencing and/or discussing such organizations on a website does not violate the independence of these organizations. These kinds of connections are standard and do not seem to be significant. The Haskins connection to the IS group is, in some ways, significantly weaker than some of these connections. There are no membership connections, no financial connections, and there is even a disclaimer on the Haskins website ("The IS group is not formally affiliated with Haskins Laboratories. Haskins Laboratories takes no responsibility or credit for the activities of the IS group, but encourages activities that foster multidisciplinarity and rigorous exploration of the frontiers science, particularly when done with a spirit of fun and enjoyment.") Information about the IS group appears on the Haskins website because Haskins is supportive of multidisciplinarity and because the early history of the IS group involved Haskins connections and, finally, because when people inquire about the IS group because of individual employee connections to the group, past or present, it was felt that it was important to point people elsewhere because the IS group is not formally affiliated with Haskins and so that people interested in the IS group would not bug people at Haskins, because Haskins IS INDEPENDENT OF THE IS GROUP. In a similar way, we refer to Haskins Laboratories at Pace University. Many years ago there used to be a connection between the two organizations and even though they have similar names, there is no longer a connection between these two organizations -- they are completely independent, both formally and informally, even though there once was a strong connection between the two. I have continued to persist with the discussion of the IS group Wikipedia entry because I feel that the information provided in the entry is valuable, providing a small, but significant, contribution to the history of informal science. Although aspects of the entry are not ideal as they interact with important Wikipedia policies, such as COI, notability, verifiability, etc., I feel that these concerns are outweighed by the fact that the sources that back up the verification of this entry, coupled with the notability of these sources and the entry, the independent published source, and the significance of such difficult to find information, would encourage retaining this entry. I have looked at the entry again and found it to be non-controversial, fairly benign, but potentially useful to those interested in exploring connections between scientists and the evolution of scientific ideas. However, I would appreciate hearing back from anyone who has read the entry to find out if they feel that there is any particular information that they think should be removed (aside from removing the whole thing). I would also like to hear from a Wikipedia editor about how this entry differs from The Reality Club entry, which I also feel should be retained. Hearing about the differences between these two entries might help me to better understand the subtleties of Wikipedia policy that I appear to continue to be missing. I certainly understand the importance of having information in Wikipedia this is verifiable. Although not ideal, I continue to feel that this entry is verifiable and that its notability has been established. Ddp224 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite probably The Reality Club should be deleted too. We have lots of articles at any given time which really should go, but which no-one has gotten around to deleting yet; therefore the existence of one article is no defense for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was not to use the existence of one article to defend another, but instead to beg and plead that a Wikipedia editor (or someone else) help me understand the differences between the two entries, if any, by using them as a basis of comparison. If there are differences, that is okay, it would just help me understand Wikipedia policy if these differences were explained. If there are no differences, that is also okay. I personally do not feel that The Reality Club entry should be removed. To me it is verifiable, notable, and adds important information to Wikipedia that is useful for understanding the history of informal science. The entry seems to be non-controversial and reasons for removing it seem to be technical quibbling and an over-attention to formality that, in this case, does not seem to be beneficial to the quality of Wikipedia or anything else. Ddp224 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Club is a sub-par entry right now, but there seem to be many independent references to it; Google Scholar turns up several in journal articles not by members of the club. It would probably survive a deletion nomination. I'm surprised to hear that you were inspired by that entry, though. It contains almost no information.--ragesoss 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired not by the quality of the entry, which is poor, but by the fact that the entry was there at all. Again, influenced by things like reading the book Tuxedo Park, I have come, over time, and after government and federal service, to realize that much goes on behind the scenes and in informal groups. Science policy, including at hidden levels, can often have strong influences on what becomes the science enterprise. Much of this is hidden from the public and hidden from the history of science. I believe that it is time for this to end. It is particularly difficult to get at this information without hearing directly from the participants. Waiting for books or magazine articles to be written can often result in critical information being lost. Often, the best thing to do is find the critical players and see how you can get the information out of them. Thus, I was pleased to see this tiny entry because I am delighted to begin to hear about things that I would not normally hear about. Having started several groups, I am particularly interested in informal groups, particularly when they go on to have some influence. I was particularly pleased that Wikipedia provided a vehicle for publishing such information. Of course, this was before I started to find out about the rules and restrictions of Wikipedia. It is true, of course, that the particular entry is fairly weak. Hopefully, someone who knows about the topic and the history of the club will strengthen the entry, but, unfortunately, from Wikipedia perspective this will probably be a conflict of interest. Common sense would seem to dictate that there has to be a better way to provide options for allowing such information to get in, as long as some sort of verifiability path can be established, but, of course, we have been through all of this before. Thanks again. Ddp224 06:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the article is interesting, by the letter of the rules I don't see how it can be kept without reliable sources (WP:RS). Since Wikipedia tries to echo whatever reliable information is generally documented out in the world, when a topic comes to us that is not generally documented, our normal instinct is to keep it out. It may well be that this topic deserves more coverage than it has received, but it's not up to us to be the first vehicle for such coverage. EdJohnston 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

break point[edit]

Ok, you bring up a lot; I'll do the best I can, and try to get a few other editors to weigh in.

• On moving targets: You've experienced something that is, to some extent, endemic in the lived experience of Wikipedia. Wikipedians generally learn the system more by participation than by following the codified rules, and in a lot of ways deletion is a stochastic process. There are philosophical disagreements (see m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies) about what is and is not acceptable content, and different editors develop different ideas about what it is important to keep out or allow in. Sometimes motivations for trying to get something deleted are orthogonal to reasons stated and policies invoked.
• On my statement ("If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS"): Some of the information in IS group (e.g., about half of the "Activities" section) is found on neither website; to the extent that you (in your capacity as as an editor) are the source for the information rather than the websites, it violates No Original Research because editors cannot be reliable sources. I used the singular "website" because the IS group website itself has no relevant information. If the article was limited to material published on the websites, then it might pass WP:RS. However, the notability problem remains since demonstration of notability has to invoke "multiple, non-trivial published works" independent of the article's subject. (As an aside, I think the "multiple" aspect is excessive, but that's the way things currently work.)
  • Not to be too much of a pain on this point, but the above illustrates what I mean by moving target. After several months of working on Wikipedia, this is the first time that "multiple" or "non-trivial" has been brought up. I am, of course, familiar with these criteria and I don't deny either their existence of importance, but just wish to express my extreme frustration that there always appears to be something new that is used by editors to make their case. If these concepts were so important (and they are), I would have hoped that they would have been mentioned earlier. This would be of great help to newcomers like myself. Please note that even after all of this time, I am still not clear on what is allowable, as opposed to preferred, and how much flexibility there is related to verifiability, notability, autobiography, COI, multiple sources, etc., particularly as it related to the non-controversial nature of entries and their ability to be corroborated in other ways. I remain unsure if Wikipedia editors are being overly formal in their interpretations in this case, and if there isn't more for flexibility with entries of this sort. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for only a brief time, but have been a reader/user of Wikipedia for much longer. My sense, on entries that I have some expertise with, is that the reality is less formal than this instance, without the quality being reduced. Of course, there is variability in entries and the rules help to ensure quality. Hopefully these rules will not have the unintended consequence of reducing quality. I think that there are other checks and balances, such as common sense and expertise, that might profitably enter into the equation. These appear to be taken into account by Wikipedia, in certain instances, but it is not clear how far they extend. Ddp224 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• On the independence of the IS group and Haskins Laboratories: Given that the IS group was founded by members of Haskins Laboratories, and you (one of the founders) are the primary contributor to both articles, it seems obvious that while formally independent (after all, the IS group isn't even formally connected to its participants), they are not independent enough to avoid the appearance of a close connection. The Haskins page about the IS group is unsigned, but I assumed (perhaps rashly) that it was written by a participant in the group. (While COI with respect to editing activity is not relevant to content decisions, COI or the appearance of it regarding an article's sources is relevant.) In a nutshell, it looks like no one not associated with the IS group has published anything about it even on the internet. Maybe my impression was wrong; if the Haskins info is truly independent of the IS group, then the article would probably not be something I would spontaneously choose to delete. (However, lacking multiple independent sources, it would still failed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.)

--ragesoss 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree that there is a close connection between the IS group and its founders, including me. Haskins Laboratories does not have "members" nor does it have any kind of connection to the IS group. It is a world-renowned research laboratory that has been around since 1935 and has helped to shape the history of science in various fields and continues to make discoveries at the cutting edge. It has employees, volunteers, and friends and is, in general, a pretty informal place. The original founders of the IS group have had affiliations with Haskins in the past and some continue to have such affiliations, but some of the individuals have also had affiliations with Yale and the University of Connecticut and, again, I contend that there is no close connection between Yale University or the University of Connecticut and the IS group. The process of adding content to the Haskins website varies. Source material is usually provided to professional science writers (contractors independent of Haskins), who then synthesize this material into a final product. This material is then subject to review by a website editorial committee, further edited by a webmanager (who is not me or anyone associated with IS), and approved by an administrator (who is not me or anyone else associated with IS). Websource content would, of course, usually be dependent on interviews and/or conversations with primary sources. Much material is from oral histories obtained before participants either left or died. Other material is from interviews with professional journalists. Other material is from newspaper articles and press releases. Haskins is not associated with the IS group and has published minimal information about it, but it has acknowledged on its website the historical connection to the IS group formation and has also published a strong disclaimer about any existing connections between the two entities. Conflicts of interest, which I am very familiar with from federal policy and regulation, and also from a corporate standpoint, etc., is usually mitigated by a number of events, including the passage of time. Thus, judges who have a COI with former colleagues from, let's say, their former law firm, usually recuse themselves for a period of about 2 years, depending upon the nature of the relationship. After this, the COI usually no longer exists. There is, of course, variability in this, depending upon the circumstances. Thanks again for your input on these matters. Ddp224 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our requirements here are not formal, but substantive. We require three things, which overlap: verifiability, neutrality, and non-originality; we have, as a consensus-based organization, developed many ways to say these same things. In principle, any article must consist of sourced statements, phrased in a neutral manner, derived from sources which any reader can confirm, independent of the author's personal knowledge. (Do we fully meet these standards everywhere? most places? No, of course not.)
        • (a) I would consider a requirement such as multiple-sources to be both substantive and formal, if there are no exceptions (or clearly defined limited exceptions) to the requirement. Requirements imply, to me at least, formalities. If possible, please define "formal" and "substantive" and clarify the differences for me. (b) Part of what I am trying to understand relates to your last point ("Do we fully meet these standards ..."). I, of course, would also haved liked to have met the standards, but have also been trying to understand the degree of flexibility that is allowed (in principle or practice) and how it rates to the mundaneness of the entry. I am not interested in this out of desire to exploit the system in any way, but because of what I see as a potential benefit for getting more informal than usual information into Wikipedia, as long as it can be verified in some sensible way. Thanks! Ddp224 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For these reasons and others, we strongly recommend that editors, like yourself, eschew autobiography. (I know one editor who has an article about himself, which unquestionably meets our requirements. His only edit to it added his birthday.) This article is a larger autobiography, and has the same problems. I hope you will come back, and make contributions about things less important to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated. Putting autobiography aside for just a moment, I continue to believe that portions of the IS group entry consist of appropriately sourced statements, are phrased in a neutral manner, and are derived from sources which any reader can confirm. Some of the information that appears in this entry was added not because I originally thought that it should be there, but because after starting the entry and hearing from a Wikipedia editor (weregerbil) about notability, I attempted to provide what I thought (at that time) was appropriate information to establish both notability and sourcing. Since being informed of COI and autobiographical concerns (that I was previously unaware of), I have refrained from modifying the entry in any way, because it would appear to me to be inappropriate to do so. Thus, material in the entry that does not meet these tests has not been removed. Other material seems to meet some of the Wikipedia criteria to varying degrees. But, as has been noted, there are issues of multiple sourcing, etc., that weaken this entry. As a newcomer, I have been very intentionally trying to learn about the rules and flexibility of Wikipedia, not to push the limits, but to explore how informal material is handled. This article was not intended as autobiography, but a simple attempt to report verifiable, historical events that I thought were of some interest and importance to those who use Wikipedia as an importance refrence. Perhaps I misled myself by starting the IS group entry after looking at The Reality Club entry and believing that the latter was a standard, appropriate Wikipedia entry, but that I could do a better job than was done in that case. My experience with Wikipedia has not been bitter, but it has sometimes been very frustrating and time consuming. At times I found the editors insulting (see interactions with weregerbil), inappropriately inaccurate (such as ragesoss comment about the lack of expertise on my part and the part of others with informal science), off the point, and, to my mind, not very competent regarding clearly and simply explaining the Wikipedia policies to newcomers. I realize that this is a volunteer effort on the part of the editors, and appreciate their effort. Nevertheless, I don't feel that direct questions that I asked were answered clearly, nor were Wikipedia policies explained in a timely fashion. For those reasons, coupled with my density on some of these issues and my desire to more fully understand Wikipedia's flexibility on informal issues, this process has stretched out. I certainly would consider adding appropriate information to Wikipedia, but doubt that I would bother spending times on things that aren't important to me. Thanks again. Ddp224 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brevity is the soul of something or other... Robertissimo 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Discussion becomes the basis for the recommendation of deletion. Apparently, I continue to misunderstand both the practices of Wikipedia and the soul of its community. I had thought that this section was for conversation and debate regarding proposed delection of an article, and perhaps also for providing assistance and guidance for newcomers like me regarding appropriate Wikipedia practices, and did not realize that brevity, which is clearly not my strong suit, was desired. Sorry. By the way, the full quote is: "Brevity is the soul of wit," from Hamlet. In addition to brevity, a little more wit would be nice. Ddp224 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.