Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Jon, Kate, 8, and the people that write about them


I was going to write a blog about Jon and Kate + 8 but while doing some research on Wikipedia I came across the following conversation by a few of the people posting information on Wikipedia, which I found to be more entertaining. I can't believe how obsessed people are over a reality show. Wait, I can't belive how obsessed people are over the wording of a Wikipedia definition about something that happened to the people from a reality show. What is this world coming to?

Also, I think every topic on Wikipedia has the same type of discussion and debate over what should be included. Who are these people and how do they have the time to sit online all day and write definitions and explanations to things. Search for anything on that site, and then click on the dicsussion tab and you will see, oh you will see.

"[edit] Proposed wording for information on Jon's affair
I would like to delete this line: "The couple has denied these allegations, saying the woman Jon left with was a long-time friend.[8][9] " I can't recall Kate ever claiming the woman was a friend of the family. Though I'm sure Jon may have said it. But the line should be removed because both links do not talk about it. One is down and the other has nothing to do with the couple claiming she is a friend. I'll delete unless there is an argument about it. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Do NOT remove that line. The link that is no longer working is the one that said this. We don't remove information just because the source is defunct (which happens often on internet articles). Instead, we try to find another source that says the same thing. Since it is very clear you have not tried to do so, I will just assume you are trying to put a slant to the section (and, it is clear, the entire article given the other messages you've left). In the meantime, I will begin looking for a new source for that statement. --132 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you need a refresher on assuming good faith? Just a suggestion. I didn't know it was "very clear" I hadn't attempted. Didn't know you were sitting behind me while I was on the computer today. And from what I can remember, (my memory is terrible btw) the only few comments I made was that having a picture of Jon with a woman is not proof of an affair. And just so we are clear, I despise Kate and think she is exploiting the children. I feel so much better explaining myself to you now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.196.104 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I see why you are so upset now. My comments about not needing a PHd to determine if hitting someone is abuse/assault. I apologize. My wording was overly harsh.
I am no wiki expert, but would assume that if the link is bad (one is bad and the other does not talk about the "couple" admitting she is a friend) and we have no other links to verify it, it should be removed. By all means, add it back when you do find the source. That's what wiki is all about and why it changes every split second to reflect the most accurate information. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a little blunt or assuming in my message. It has nothing to do with not assuming good faith and everything to do with the fact that this page gets spammed like nobody's business by dozens of anon editors trying to put their particular slant on things. When you came in, noted a defunct link within a stale topic, didn't bother to find a replacement, suggested full-scale removal instead of rewording or finding a new source, and brought up irrelevant issues in other stale topics, it's pretty much the only logical conclusion to come to.
No, if you find a statement that is sourced, but may be iffy due to the source being defunct or what-have-you, you should add a {{fact}} tag and/or try to find a replacement source. If you add the tag and, after a few days, a new source isn't found, then you remove it, noting in the edit summary that a new source hadn't been found. Since you can't edit the article due to its protection and did neither, but brought it up here and caught my attention, I went to find a replacement. It took me, quite literally, five seconds to find a replacement source. --132 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I still do not see in either of those sources where Kate claims it was a family friend. I see Jon says that (of course) but not Kate. And certainly not as a "couple" denouncing it. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello? Is this thing on? Your sources DO NOT state the affair was denounced as a couple. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I believe there is now a general consensus, with wikiwikid, KASchmidt, myself, VegaDark, Honeymane, and several other editors moving for inclusion, having stated their grounds, in accordance with the common interpretation of the rules, and having listed a number of reliable sources, and with only SCjessey still being flatly against inclusion of the information, with 13 seeming to have objected mainly to wording and citation issues and WP:Crystal, it should come in."

This is only part of it (yes there is more), the whole conversation is posted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jon_&_Kate_Plus_8

3 comments:

  1. I feel better about using wikipedia. I was worried that information was posted without verification of the facts. However, it is clear to me now that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes to ensure the information is both truthful and accurate. I bet it would even hold up in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm actually hoping that the law of evidence will eventually deem only wikipedia articles as admissible evidence. Everything else: eye witness accounts, video, phone records, DNA, everything - INADMISSIBLE!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Hamboney, what's on the agenda for tomororw? I want time to research the topic

    ReplyDelete