User talk:Jclemens

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, independence, primary or secondary[edit]

Hi, Jclemens,

I hold you in very high respect. When we come together, I make an effort to express a different perspective to avoid being labelled as being your acolyte.

Recently at DRV, I now have lost track, I wrote something about interviews being primary, but then mentioned fact checking, but fact checking doesn’t happen during an interview and so it separate that. Do you remember?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thanks for coming here to ask. When this "interviews are primary" thing was hashed out, I wasn't active in policy discussions, I believe, so that happened without my input, and I think that summary doesn't do it justice.

An interview in a major publication will fact check the interviewees statements and often seek concurring or dissenting witnesses. Think NYT, WSJ, etc. where the interviews are long form pieces that broadly intersperse supporting data into the "interview."

Contrast that with a fansite verbatim interview with a celebrity. Pretty much verbatim, back and forth, no fact checking and no real critique.

The former is a very different critter than the latter. We're treating "an interview" as if the latter was the only case of an interview. In fact, the nuanced spectrum between the two needs a lot more thought applied. While it might be obvious that anyone profiled in a major publication's long form interview has enough coverage elsewhere so that notability isn't an issue... there's more to it than that. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]