User talk:50.47.119.246

Gladwell

Please stop attempting to advertise some report that you say is written by Yasha Levine of The eXiled and published by SHAME (red links all). If it can be shown to have impressed other writers, it may be worth mentioning. Unless this happens, it isn't worth mentioning. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when is effective criticism crowdsourced, the result of "impress[ing] other writers"? The link is active and you are welcome to read the article for yourself, posting questions of fact to this page. posted by 50.47.119.246

The matter isn't one of the effectiveness of criticism, or of whether or not it convinces me, it's instead a matter of the significance of the criticism as evidenced in "reliable sources". Magazines and so on are welcome to draw their readers' attention to this criticism. But until they do, the fact that somebody posts criticism, no matter how well researched and presented, on some obscure website does not merit a mention in a Wikipedia article. Please read and digest this policy statement, fast.

From now, I shall assume that you either (a) have read and understood that policy statement or (b) refuse to read it. So do not reintroduce this stuff without first getting agreement to do so at Talk:Malcolm Gladwell. If you go ahead and reintroduce it anyway, you will be prevented from editing.

That said, I am mildly interested. Why is it that above you invite me, or perhaps people in general, "[to post] questions of fact [about the article] to this page"? Why here? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You would do better to be fully interested in the nature of inquiry in a free society; you sternly admonish that, as a matter of policy, Wikipedia obediently follows the crowd. Beyond that laugher, there's also a consistency problem: something "shown to have impressed other writers" vs. "significance." It is clear that "other writers," including yourself, may not have the ability to recognize "significance." Mr. Gladwell has certainly exploited that gap on repeated occasions and made quite a career of it. This modest effort to include documented examples of his duplicity seems to have been met with "So what? We do it, too!" Objection overruled.

If "objection overruled" is merely your internal fantasy or rhetorical flourish, enjoy it. However, you seem to believe your own words. You're merely wasting others' time; either stop or see the article "semi-protected" so that no more time is wasted on it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If this reply is your version of 'We don't need your continued financial support at Wikipedia,' then agreed. But Gladwell's entry will be re-visited because The eXiled runs about 6-12 months ahead of the majors. Congratulations on your mediocrity and laziness.

The eXile eXpose is now posted on Alternet. Don't look now, but it might become "important" or "quotable."

Hello again! Please visit this discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)