Talk:Lisa Daniels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

An individual covered in this article, Lisa Daniels, has edited Wikipedia as LisaDaniels (talk • contribs) and has edited it directly.

Contents 1 Valid 2 vandalizing lisa myers 3 Check out her edits: 4 Just for kicks... 5 Adding the Wikipedia news story on article

[edit] Valid

The concepts she addressed in the piece are entirely valid. There are a number of conceptually flawed operational aspects of Wikipedia. Don't believe me? Go read the edit log for the past 10 minutes. These are the same people who are "adding information". This site needs a user-verified "barnstar" sort of thing where writings on certain topics by actual, demonstrable experts can be copy protected. --LoverOfArt 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you people are happy -- you all just proved the point of Lisa's story hook, line, and sinker. That's real bright people -- "protesting" a story abouve inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles by vandalising said articles. --Rehcsif 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --LoverOfArt 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While that is true, the majority of us edit Wikipedia positively and overall Wikipedia has improved substantially. If that were not the case, this would have reverted to a mess of informational crap by now. Eventually the vandals will get on with their pathetic lives and maybe get a job to take up all the time they waste here. Polypmaster 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why WP policy doesn't require a login to edit. No it wouldn't solve everything, but would stop a lot of drive-by vandalism. But that's not an appropriate topic to discuss here... --Rehcsif 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the large, large majority of Wikipedians contribute positively. However "mostly reliable" isn't sufficient when sourcing fact. Articles of particular renown or articles that are closely watched usually get any vandalism or incorrect information reverted pretty quickly, however, the lions share of Wikipedia topics aren't monitored as such. A vandal who poops on an obscure topic article or a well-intentioned Wikipedian who adds incorrect info will go mostly unnoticed. As a result, such incorrect information is regularly injected into scholastic assignments, albeit unwittingly. I cannot count how many times I have seen abysmally incorrect information added to art topics, or conversely, seen entirely correct information deleted due to pedant, abstract interpretation of wikipedia rules. The wiki concept is brilliant. The www.wikipedia.com model needs work.--LoverOfArt 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, it's the wikipedia.org model, heh Family Guy Guy 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

True, although I find it interesting that her rock star vandalism from March 18 was reverted in less than a minute. — Deckiller 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

She was remiss in not mentioning that in her piece. Matter of fact, it was a lie by omission. In that respect, she is very, very guilty. --LoverOfArt 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article here she does mention more positive things. I would like to see anonymous edits removed. Who knows? It could happen.

To the vandals: vandalize my uncyclopedia article: here --Family Guy Guy 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why Wikipedia won't ban anon editing is because everyone is stuck in the "good 'ol days" — nostalgia. Resistance to change causes a lot of problems in organizations, and this is no exception. — Deckiller 23:46, 22 March 2007

Sad but true :( --LoverOfArt 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(UTC) Believe it or not, anons have contributed significantly, with 31% of edits. Keep in mind that those edits (which are mainly not vandalism, try RC patrol yourself), are usually content edits, not simple repetitive tasks like categorizing or adding stub tags.. Prodego ^talk 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is another reason why we're not banning anon editing. And then there's the fact that people might want to quickly fix an issue without taking the time to create an account (they do not know how simple it really is). Indeed, it's not just nostalgia. — Deckiller 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would wager that if one were to calculate the percentage metrics of this issue (percentage of vandalizations that are perpetrated by anons versus the percentage of legitimate copy edits made by anons) it would wash out substantially in favor of making Wikipedia a user-account based website. --LoverOfArt 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually doesn't. Here. Pick say... 20 edits. You will find a majority of them are not vandalism. Prodego ^talk 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pick 100 vandalizations. You will find that a huge disproportion of them are anon accounts. While user account protecting Wikipedia wouldn't (or would very lightly) impact slight copy edits that might have otherwise been made anon, it WOULD substantially address vandalism. --LoverOfArt 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Intersting. I picked 20 anon edits, and 7-8 were vandalism (several were reverted before me, although I reverted 3-4 and issued a block). — Deckiller 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Make up varies by hour, and we are at the worst time for vandalism. But even then, more positive then negative. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a logical issue. Say that 10% of all toaster ovens made are the color red. 90% of all red toasters cause house fires. Even though 100% of all housefires are not caused by red toasters nor are 100% of toaster started housefires caused by red toasters, one can sufficiently say that red toasters are an inordinate contributer to house fires started by toaster ovens. Same with anon accounts. Say that anon accounts make up 30% of all edits, but 95% of all vandilizations are perpatrated by anon accounts. Even though the aggregate number of anon edits are positive, they are a nearly universal component of those edits that are vandalism. Thus, if one wishes to address valdalism, he/she should start with the most glaring commonality that exists between them. --LoverOfArt 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this nicely demonstrates the insanity of allowing anonymous users to edit Wikipedia articles. Articles not in the spotlight, as Ms. Daniels' was, can be vandalized and sit defaced by graffiti, or factually wrong, for minutes or hours. More-subtle vandalisms such as changing an historical date (or even gross ones such as adding that a subject was suspected in the assassination of JFK) made to the 1,000,000+ Wikipedia articles not in the spotlight may never be noticed and corrected. Allowing edits only by registered users will knock out 90% of the vandalism here, IMO. --CliffC 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, Ms. Daniels' rock star test on her article remained for less than a minute.[1] — Deckiller 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many 'good' edits are currently made by anon users. The real question is, how many of these edits would not have happened if users had to first sign in? My guess is, the lion's-share of these users would have went on to create an account if they had to. But, nobody can say for sure without trying it... --Rehcsif 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that requiring users to sign up would be positive. For those that would like to contribute positively to Wikipedia, signing up is a minor inconvenience that most would not mind. This is especially true since personal info is not necessary when signing up. While this would not aleviate all vandalism by anons, it would definitely eliminate most of the childish "lets mess with Wikipedia" vadalism. This would probably not make a big impact on more malicious vandalism, but it is a simple measure that would contribute significantly to reducing vandalism without stifling positive edits. If it were put to a vote, I would vote for it. Polypmaster 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalizing lisa myers

i think someone is confusing lisa myers for lisa daniels and continues to put lisa myers is the rockstarTtttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Handled. Prodego ^talk 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check out her edits:

[her page]

[lisadaniels contributions]

[lisadaniels talk] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.241.93.17 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I left a test warning on her userpage. Also, I think it should be noted that the edit was reverted within one minute. — Deckiller 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, the edit she apparently made live was done via an anon ip. -- MarcoTolo 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a live report. The edit was done three days ago here: [2]. That one was probably done by someone who was watching. — Deckiller 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<wearing dunce cap with sheepish grin> Riiight. Not much reason to do a story like that live, eh? D'oh. -- MarcoTolo 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Lisa Daniels learned a lot about the value of wikipedia. First, she started as a vandal, making an erroneous claim about herself. Then, she found out that within one minute, her vandalism was remedied. (I wish they would have shown that footage) Then, about 10-15 minutes later, she helped make Wikipedia better by improving her own entry (making herself and her career sound more substantial in the process). It's a shame that she appears to have disabled her LisaDaniels account on Wikipedia; she could have become a valuable contributor.

Seriously though, while the NBC piece does raise some serious issues about Wikipedia, it does a disservice to an enormously useful resource by making some uninformed statements about the website (The story could have used some Wiki-editing). For people watching the NBC News who don't know any better, one would never know that there is a loyal army of people trying to make Wikipedia as useful and accurate as possible. 70.225.172.159 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just for kicks...

I added some info about her "edits" on this site. --Puddles26

Looks like they have been removed, with the policy of avoiding self-references cited as the reason. -- Bovineone 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, as one hopes this 2:38 long story won't be important in the grand scheme of her career. -- Zanimum 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding the Wikipedia news story on article

The following edit is in question by another editor:

Wikipedia News Story
On the March 22, 2007 edition of NBC Nightly News, Daniels showed how anyone can edit Wikipedia by "editing" the first line of this page to read "Lisa Daniels is a rock star." Ironically, this has since been reverted, disproving her point about Wikipedia's lack of validity. "The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify"

What's the point of avoiding self-references? If we had to avoid self-references, why doesn't anyone place a {{speedy}} tag on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales, and the Wikipedia Siegenthaler Biography Controversy, which are all obviously self-references? --E.N.G. 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's called "avoid self-references", not "never use self references". The point is to avoid excessively referencing Wikipedia or Wikipedia related things that non-Wikipedians don't care about. Excuse me for bringing up Essjay, but I do so only because I think it best illustrates this point: prior to last month, Essjay had a very prominent position on Wikipedia. Yet, he didn't have any article. Why? Because no one outside Wikipedia knew who he was or cared. When the New Yorker correction broke, or more specifically when it started being covered by the august likes of the New York Times and the BBC, it became acceptable for the situation to have an article. Similarly for the Siegenthaler controversy, that only became an article after many non-Wikipedia sources began discussing it. In this case, Lisa Daniels did a one-shot story on Wikipedia which, so far, hasn't gotten any press about the story itself. Thus, it is an unacceptable level of self referencing. Natalie 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Natalie. The question we need to ask is whether a neutral, off-wiki biographical article (say, a career retrospective in the New York Times) on Lisa Daniels would mention this news item ? Given that in her long, Emmy award winning career she has possibly covered 100s of stories, and this story has generated not an iota of controversy off-wikipedia, the answer is clearly 'No' IMO. If you believe my surmise to be incorrect, you can prove me wrong by providing a secondary source that lists this news piece as a significant development in Daniel's career. Abecedare 00:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the issue is not only self-referencing, but also undue weight. If, for instance, we create a list of all the stories covered by Daniels (assuming, for arguments sake, that such a list is encyclopedic ), we should overrule the self-referencing maxim and include the wikipedia story in the list. However citing the wikipedia story in isolation, just because it concerns wikipedia, gives it undue weight and that is the motivation behind having the "avoid self referencing" guideline. Abecedare 00:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

what about the usatoday editor? His article is self-referencing. Family Guy Guy 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Siegenthaler incident and this is that the Siegenthaler incident was reported widely by third-party journalism sources. The Lisa Daniels vandalism did not get national coverage, except by her. Jokestress 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A general idea is to think about whether or not people who don't edit Wikipedia will care about an incident. If other news sources cover the story, then the answer to that question is most likely "yes". If other news sources do not cover than story, then the answer is most likely "no". Natalie 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)