User talk:Asukite/Archives/2021/May

I have informed WikiDonors that in 72 hours, I will post the attached on my public blog, where you may comment, but not delete. It mentions Snooganssnoogans and Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck. You have supported their use of Wikipedia for political purposes, damaging public health, as noted in this piece.

Robert Heinlein, the noted author of science fiction, remarked in his book "Have Space Suit, Will Travel" that “library science is the key to all science, just as mathematics is its language. Civilization will rise or fall depending on how well librarians do their jobs".

The sentiment is, of course, entirely true. Civilization can be defined by the knowledge accumulated by hominoids living today, and more importantly, in the past. While we get our essential survival skills from our parents and a few dozen others with whom we have immediate contact, libraries provide access to knowledge of a few dozen billions of hominoids. A big difference, nine orders of magnitude.

That knowledge has very little marginal cost. One person can use it without preventing another from doing so. To the benefit of everyone. However, that knowledge likely was expensive to collect in the first place. Hence the enormous return that comes from small investments in our libraries.

Classically, before the printing press, the information in the library was quite fragile. When the Library at Alexandria was burned, a measurable fraction of civilization was lost. Monks copying manuscripts in monasteries and, more effectively, the printing press, allowed better dispersal of knowledge, increasing the likelihood that it would survive. But one still had to find it.

And so library science emerged to make it easier to access the brains of billions of our forebears. That science is not dispensable, even today. Google and the Internet need not make things better, as an overwhelming amount of information can make the interesting information more difficult to find.

As a fan of Heinlein, I was naturally struck by the emergence of Wikipedia as a “crowd sourced” distiller of information. Indeed, I give a couple hundred dollars every year to the Wikimedia Foundation to support the Wikipedia enterprise.

How did my investment do? Consider this vignette from the past month.

When I am not working with NASA to search for life on Mars, I develop coronavirus tests, including those that can be used at the entrances to public spaces. COVID-19 has been a particular problem for testing, because people having no symptoms at all can infect others. This was not true for SARS, MERS, or any other serious coronavirus disease. Accordingly, testing must be done widely.

The failure of the CDC to get a test rapidly last February created a conundrum for policymakers across the United States. Lockdown, or not? Should sick patients be returned to elder care facilities, or not? How sensitive must a test be for a negative result to clear an individual to enter a public space? As we now know from experience in New York, thousands of lives hung on those decisions.

All around the world, different jurisdictions adopted different policies based (in all cases) on incomplete information. Without minimizing the enormous human cost of the pandemic, last year been a fascinating global experiment in the impact of public health policies on public health outcomes. An important one, also, as another pandemic will surely arise.

So how did various jurisdictions with different policies do? Well, like many Americans, I consulted Wikipedia to find out. I ended up on a Wikipedia page describing the policies of Florida in managing the pandemic.

Wikipedia authoritatively informed me that in July 2020, Florida “became a global epicenter of the virus”.

Well, that was not true in July 2020. That was not true at any other month in 2020. That is not true today.

As of March 2021, the total numbers of cases per 100,000 inhabitants in Florida, California, and New York were 8734, 8805, and 8337, respectively. About the same. The numbers of deaths per 100,000 in Florida, California, and New York were 144, 132, and 163, compared to 154 for the US as a whole. Yes, these numbers have "error bars", but Florida's performance becomes significantly better than the national average after adjusting for median population age. Florida is number two nationally in its proportion of senior citizens (according to Wikipedia).

So how did Wikipedia get it so wrong? Since civilization hangs on this, I spent a Saturday afternoon working through the Wikipedia history tab.

The misinformation was placed onto this repository of civilization at 15:08 on July 26 by someone named Snooganssnoogans. (S)he deleted a piece that was, at the time accurate, and replaced it with his/her piece, which was not.

Further, "Snoog" (shall we call him/her?) was transparently political. Snoog editorialized that the Governor of Florida “boasted”, ignored experts, and made decisions based on the advice of his wife. The source? What we would call today a “political hit piece” from the Washington Post. These "editorials masquerading as news" are, of course, common.

"OK", I said to myself, "so this part of civilization will rise and fall based on someone named Snooganssnoogans." Well, at least (s)he is not named Aurelian.

Having been a large donor to Wikipedia, I contacted the Wikipedia donor help center to ask "What gives?" Wikipedia responded, in effect “no problem”. Through talk pages, Wikipedia assured me, the dispersed gatekeepers of civilization will arrive at a “consensus”. And Wikipedia will eventually carry civilization forward to generations future.

Nice idea, but not with someone named Snooganssnoogans involved. On 26 July Pemilligan tried to fix Wikipedia, "to stop comparisons of the June 28 quote with statistics from weeks later”. Snoog deleted civilization and restored his/her anti-civilization. Pemilligan persisted, noting on 3 September in a fact that “the mortality rate in Florida remains considerably lower than in other states. For example, Florida has seen roughly 53 deaths for every 100,000 residents, compared to over 160 deaths per 100,000 residents in New York.”

But Snoog could not let the civilization stay on Wikipedia. Facts were not consistent with his/her misinformed view that Florida was a "global epicenter" for the virus. Snoog deleted Pemilligan a few hours later. A few more cycles and Pemilligan gave up. Perhaps Pemilligan had a real job.

It is tedious to carry the story farther. Dozens of times, various editors attempted to have Wikipedia be a repository for civilization. Again and again, Snoog deleted civilization and restored anti-civilization. (S)he and someone named Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (where do they get these names?) even managed to de-platform some of the people who were posting civilization.

Civilization gone. A small part, but just as seriously as when the Library at Alexandria burned.

And, yes, it is that important. Like any health care professional, I can go to the peer reviewed literature and get the facts. But public policy is influenced by public opinion, and the public goes to Wikipedia. There, they see a WaPo hit piece presented as fact. That prevents public policy deciders from having fact-based public support. And that, in turn, prevents public policy from preventing disease and saving live.

My colleague at the University of South Florida, Kathleen McCook, who actually is a librarian (and wrote a fine textbook in the field) suggested that this kind of thing happens all of the time.

“No problem” says Wikipedia. A supervisory individual will moderate this.

“Ah”, I said to myself, “Someone who will surely understand that fact and objectivity are important to civilization”.

No such luck. The case was kicked out to someone named Josh Gordon. With no hint of irony, Josh remarked that “expertise doesn't much matter on Wikipedia”.

Indeed.

And so the anti-civilization of Snooganssnoogans and Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck remains on Wikipedia. Even to this day.

I expect that come this November, I will again get a personal message from Jimmy Wales begging me to support Wikipedia. This time, I think I will not do so.

Instead, I think I will make a contribution to a real library, one that can be trusted with the treasures of truth past. And donate it in the name of Robert Heinlein.

Perhaps you should consider doing the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I simply followed the sources and restored the content of the page to represent the facts as they appeared to me. I am in no way affiliated with the users you mentioned, and my knowledge of the situation is limited, as is my role in supporting the aforementioned material - read: I am not a fact finder, simply a compiler of existing information. If you feel I am wrong, that is your right, and I'm in no position to stop you.

You are free to do whatever you want with your money. I frankly don't care about Wikipedia's funding, as I suspect it will continue being funded as long as it remains useful, which it is, as long as we remember not to read it as fact, but rather a path to fact. I learned this in 6th grade, at the exact time Wikipedia was originally becoming popular - do schools not inform people these days that Wikipedia is not absolutely reliable?

That said, good luck with whatever it is you're doing. I will keep trying my best either way.  A S U K I T E  17:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

okay hi, sorry about that thing a edited got it confused with something else bye and thanksQuanzo bean (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

HERE'S THE SOURCE:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/woody-allens-secret-teen-lover-manhattan-muse-speaks-1169782 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.151.196 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Andrew Smith article

I saw the notice on the Twitter account "AussieParlEdits", but the image was cut off at the bottom, so I went to the article to check what the edit was about. While I was dubious at first, I did come across this source that seems to be citable. I just wanted to check with you first since you got to the page before I did. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't check for sources on that one, the "lives a happy life" part just threw a red flag for me. You don't need my permission at all to add sourced claims so go for it!  A S U K I T E  02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that "happy life" bit was why I was dubious and it took a couple of searches to even find that source. Anyways, thank you and I have amended the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cynthia Mosunmola Umoru for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cynthia Mosunmola Umoru, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Mosunmola Umoru until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello! I wanted to say thank you for the assistance and feedback! I've made the changes accordingly. Appreciate it. <3 Eemakagoma (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added the POV template

Hi Asukite,

As suggested by you, I have added the POV template. My article is with the Entertainment field only in which I have worked. I have also added more citations. Kindly go through it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum9999 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

--Magnum9999 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC) According to your suggestion, I have added the POV template for Draft:Ajeet Ghorpade. I have also added more citations for your references. Kindly go through the same. Thank you. Ajeet Ghorpade --Magnum9999 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Magnum9999:I appreciate that you added the POV tag, but you removed it along with the COI tag right after. I've added a comment to the draft to the same effect. Unfortunately I had to decline the draft as it currently is, as it reads too POV at the moment. The article will need to be re-written in a much more neutral fashion before it is suitable, and there is still the issue of your connection to the subject. I have to ask as well, are you being paid to write this article? If so, you are required by WMF policy to declare this.. The draft may need attention from non-involved editors before it can be approved. Apologies for the difficulty. A S U K I T E  17:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ajeet Ghorpade

Dear Sir/Madam. Thank you for taking out time and reviewing my article. can you please assist me. Because all my other friends are also on Wikipedia and they have posted article in the same way. Studying there article, I have written mine too. please, can you assist me.. sorry for the trouble. Ajeetghorpade (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ajeet Ghorpade

Hello Sir, This is my first article and I am writing it for my own. I am sorry I couldn't meet upto your expectations as this is the first time I am writing and that too looking articles on some of my own friends who are on Wikipedia. Ajeetghorpade (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ajeetghorpade:Hello, as per the reply above, I had to decline the article because it reads too promotional at the moment. Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral. A couple of key indicators of POV slant I saw in the article (not exhaustive):

• "provide clients with a wealth of high-level strategy"
• "He has his pulse on the latest technological breakthroughs in the field of events and entertainment worldwide and constantly innovates and experiments with new technologies. "
• "He is passionate about new ideas, creative solutions and the “bring to life” process, as well as maintaining a strong focus on commercializing client vision."

There are also a few claims that don't fit in an encyclopedia, such as "He is fascinated by international thrillers and horrors. It is his aim to create films that are a pinnacle of consistent quality." - this is commentary, which is often impossible to source and not necessarily purely informative. Commentary is generally not acceptable in an encyclopedic context. Generally, Wikipedia sets a very high bar for conflict of interest, especially with articles written about oneself, and anything even slightly promotional that isn't taken directly from a reliable source (and even those in some cases, articles have to avoid overly using quotations) is not allowed. Overall, the article should read more informative, leaning on facts, having no commentary or promotional claims. Ideally, the article would focus on your work strictly as it is reported on by reliable sources. Hope this helps A S U K I T E  17:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Ajeet Ghorpade

Thank you so much Sir for helping me. I will definitely try to accommodate all the things which you have told me and I'll again send it to you sir if you dont mind.. Thank you so much for helping me. Ajeetghorpade (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Asukite. Your recent edit(s) to the page Calixa Lavallée appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A S U K I T E 03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Asukite. I cited a book published by a university press. Perhaps you could say specifically what information you believe to be incorrect. Most of the information that was on the page before I edited was incorrect. (Please note: I just created a new account as I hadn't done any wikipedia editing in quite a while and lost my old log in info. Bct1848) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bct1848 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my revert may have been overzealous. I did some looking around and came upon this source: [1] which claims he attained the rank of lieutenant. I actually didn't mean to revert the other two edits, so I do apologize for that, I was perhaps up patrolling a bit too late. I'll remove the template from your page, as it appears you did cite some sources which I can't check at the moment. Sorry for any inconvenience and happy editing! A S U K I T E  16:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-Rodamrixis/Article for creation

Of course, my page covers a Youtuber that is not that famous, not yet. So finding secondry and reliable sources can be a challenge. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately, in that case the article is unlikely to remain on Wikipedia as all articles (and especially ones about living persons) have to have good sources. As it stands, the only purpose for an article would be for promotion, which Wikipedia does not allow. If any acceptable sources arise, that may change. Hope that helps.  A S U K I T E  05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)