Jump to content

Talk:Jörg Colberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awards

[edit]

Can we find sources for these claims?

  • 2006: American Photo named him one of their Photography Innovators.
  • 2011: Life picked Conscientious for a photo blog award.
(asks User:Lopifalko).
Why yes of course we can! -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. They don't make it easy to access. There is also useful praise there for American Suburb X, Photo District News, Burn (magazine)... Lopifalko (talk)
[edit]

In these edits, a United States Placerville AT&T Mobility IP deleted dead links. There were two:

Surprisingly, the former is indeed dead. Unsurprisingly, the latter lives on, for example here at archive.org.

Here's the start of what the relevant guideline says:

Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Follow these steps when you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content:

Hoary (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Most links on this page do not meet Wikipedias standards for third party sources. Third-party source

Bio's written by the subject and posted on a webpage subject is collaborating with is not a reliable Third party source. Almost all citations on the page are different versions of the same bio statement. Non of them have a defined author or meet wikipedias standards.

Please find reliable sources to verify claims. Assumption is Hoary may be subject of article since they originally wrote most of unsourced material. Unbiased information is important. 107.77.214.52 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some fascinating issues, a United States Placerville AT&T Mobility IP. Let's take them one at a time. Here's the one that I raised first: deletion of links. Have you read and digested the guideline to which I pointed you, or would you rather that I forgot that I brought up the matter? (NB This little discussion started off, and still is, under the heading "Deleting dead links".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully digested - thanks for pointing.107.77.214.52 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(in)adequacy of sources

[edit]

a United States Placerville AT&T Mobility IP writes above that:

Bio's written by the subject and posted on a webpage subject is collaborating with is not a reliable Third party source.

The meaning isn't entirely clear to me, but I think that it is:

Biographical information that is apparently written by the biographee and posted on a web of a website that the subject is collaborating with is not a reliable Third party source.

a United States Placerville AT&T Mobility IP points us, or me, to an essay. Let's go straight to the relevant policy page. Here in WP:V, we read:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: [various conditions]

In this edit, the IP removes references that do not pretend to be other than to Colberg's blog and that are explicitly about his blog.

In this edit, the same IP removes a reference to Colberg's specification of his birth date, and demands a more reliable citation.

What was wrong (not in terms of some editor's personal preferences, but in terms of Wikipedia's policy) with any of this sourcing? -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the entire policy.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; to
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.:


The statements were not about “activities” Colberg engaged in – they were opinions about the writing on the blog. The source did not substantiate the claim. Plus, the entire section was based on these poor citations, which violates number 5 of what you called “[various conditions]”

Maybe, I misunderstand the policies, but I was referencing this policy - Here in WP:V, we read:

”Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.”:

Surely, we can find reliable sources that talk about Colberg’s blog, and the writing, or should that be a separate article since this article is about Colberg, and not his blog?

The second edit you reference was a dead link, but you noted that is your first post. APlacerville (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A statement about Colberg's date of birth is not about his activities. It's about him. And it's in an article about him. It's not "unduly self-serving"; indeed, I don't understand how it's self-serving at all. What you quote would warn editors away from using Colberg's blog as a source for putatively factual information about some other person, from using somebody else's blog as a source for putatively factual information about Colberg, and from using either somebody else's or Colberg's blog for claims for Colberg's prowess as astrophysicist or photography critic, etc. Have you perhaps misread what you quote? -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged the date of birth was a dead link. Above my statements are about the writing on the blog, which links to his blog do not substantiate. You clearly ignore the points I make, and respond to what you like. Whatever validates your argument. Your reputation proceeds you. You twist and turn arguments and policies to suite your purpose. APlacerville (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to discuss the links that you removed in this edit of yours, or do you have something else in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. How does a link to an archived blog substantiate this writing by you.

Colberg dates the start of his interest in photography to 1999. His blog, Conscientious, started on 9 July 2002. Early posts were short text messages (similar to what could later be accomplished via Twitter). The first substantive message was praise for the photography of Steve Pyke

How does a Citation to an archived blog identify the start of his interest in photography? Where are you pulling this from? It is an opinion that the first substantive message was about Steve Pyke. Linking back to Colberg's blog does not validate the claim. Your opinion on the matter is not a valid third party source.

The bigger question is why is the article mostly about the blog and not his achievements in the field of photography. Your edits were unsourced, and contained personal information about Colberg's interests. . Links to the same repetitive bio on different sites are clearly replications of Colbergs self authored narrative. Surely, if Colberg is a notable figure in the photography world some photography magazine or other publication has published an article about his contributions. Please just point us to the sources those sources. APlacerville (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoary" unmasked as Colberg?

[edit]

Above, a United States Placerville AT&T Mobility IP drops a bombshell:

Assumption is Hoary may be subject of article since they originally wrote most of unsourced material.

Of course, I say that I am not Colberg. But if I were Colberg, then of course I'd say I wasn't him. And therefore my denial counts for nothing.

I am (I mean, Hoary is) an administrator. (Check this for yourself, here.) For an administrator to surreptitiously add material -- arguably, laudatory material -- to an article about himself ... this is appalling. You should immediately report the matter to either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Don't post to both, but do post a brief note on the other, linking to where you did raise this matter. (NB you'll need to be persuasive. This will require evidence.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I do like your style. You have a flair for the dramatic.

I guess my assumption, whether I believe it or not, was a “Bombshell.” Plus, referring to me by my location and Internet provider, instead of my IP address. Very intimidating.

You have a reputation of deleting content that is not sourced properly, and putting pages up for deletion. You boast about it on your talk page, but for some reason you wrote a lot of Colberg’s article a few days after it was created ignoring things you would normally delete as promotional, or not sourced properly.

It is just curious why you would not hold yourself to the same standards for this article. Plus, you added personal information about Colberg, and detailed information about the writing on his blog, but are unable to source the information. It just seemed like you have an intimate knowledge about the subject. I am sure you are just an expert on this subject.

In this edit, you include a long quote in a reference with a link to Colberg’s blog. This feels very promotional, and not keeping up with your strict standards as an administrator.

In this edit, you add a lot of information about Colberg’s interest in photography, and the type of writing on his blog with references to an archived version of Colberg’s blog. The references do not substantiate the claims.

In this edit, You add a note linking to a list of conversations on Colberg’s old blog, and direct readers to his current website. Again, this feels very promotional.

In this edit, you add an award, which is not actually an award, and use a source from a different publication, which has no defined author.

All of these, seem questionable, and possibly things you would question and delete from other pages.

Overall, the article seemed to be more about promoting Colberg’s blog than about Colberg himself. Plus, you wrote most of the promotional material. So, it makes sense you are defending it now.

It seems the article should focus on Colberg, and not his blog.

I am not sure how an educator, and blogger has the notability to warrant a page especially when there seems to be no third party sources about him. If he has made significant contributions to the field of photography there would certainly be articles written about him, and his activities? Lets try to build the page out with reliable sources, and prove it should stay. So far, I have not found any good sources, but I am sure you will be able to. Or should it be deleted?

Thanks for all your help and information. APlacerville (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life.com on Colberg's blog

[edit]

I have slightly reformatted your comment. I hope that you don't mind. If you do, then feel free to revert.

You raise a lot of points, but I don't have much time right now. Let's look at the specifics, one by one. (For now, just one.) You say:

In this edit, you include a long quote in a reference with a link to Colberg’s blog. This feels very promotional, and not keeping up with your strict standards as an administrator.

You surprise me. I do indeed include a longish quote. The quote is from life.com. The quote is about Colberg's blog. Unsurprisingly for a comment in one web page that's about a website, the comment includes a link. I did not remove the link; should I have done so?

When I clicked on the link to life.com, I saw nothing about Colberg. I knew that the material was there, because I had clear memories of reading it before it was deleted from life.com. I looked within the source, and here's what I read there:

"Perhaps it&#39;s the earnest -- and rather cryptic -- name. Maybe it&#39;s the formal, intense headshot of the blog's creator, Joerg Colberg, that suggests a seriously intellectual undertaking. And indeed, <a href=\"/web/20120106140230/http://www.jmcolberg.com\/weblog\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Conscientious<\/b><\/a> is seriously intellectual; luckily, though, Colberg&#39;s is a refreshing, bracing intellect, one fueled by a genuine curiosity about -- and love of -- photography. This is one of the longest-running photo blogs out there, and since its founding in 2002 has offered countless profiles of photographers and their work: Aaron Ruell&#39;s marvelous environmental portraits and Alex te Napel&#39;s moving and unsettling \"Faces of Alzheimer&#39;s\" portraits, to name just two. And the blog is packed: Readers will also find in-depth interviews, news and commentary on exhibitions, and book reviews, as well as Colberg's rigorous and wide-ranging musings on matters large (one post: \"What makes great photography?\") and small. There's not an ounce of fluff here, which is why Conscientious is rightly seen and lauded as one of the very few essential photography destinations on the Web. | <A HREF=\"/web/20120106140230/http://www.jmcolberg.com\/weblog\" TARGET=\"_blank\"><b>Visit Conscientious<\/b>

(My guess is that this was originally rendered visible and uncluttered via Javascript or similar gimmickry, and that the archiving process zapped the latter.)

This paragraph is indeed highly laudatory. But it doesn't merely say that Colberg's blog is "cool", or that the sun shines out of his ass: it gives reasons (with which, of course, others are free to disagree) for saying that it's good. Thus it seems substantive and worthwhile content. Is it instead neither? Is my inclusion of it a breach of WP's prohibition of bias? Am I perversely or ideologically ignoring commentary from reliable sources about the shallowness or worthlessness of Colberg's writings? (If so, please start by pointing me toward this commentary.) Is it more helpful (i) to look for the material, remove the markup and other junk from it, and present it in the article; (ii) to point readers to the archive.org link with instructions on how to find the commentary within it; or (iii) to give readers the archive.org link and let them figure out for themselves that there is commentary on Colberg and all they have to do is view the source and search within it for the string "Colberg"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you added is promotional, and adding several links to Coldberg's blog along with unsourced material are what make the articles content mostly about the blog. There seems to be a COI, and you will dance around and make excuses for all your writing on this page. Yet, you can not point to a source for most of your writing. Why give this article a pass? Why not hold it to the same rigor of other articles you edit. Just provide the third party sources for the information. An editor will never have a voice against a biased administrator like yourself. The conversation should be opened to the greater community. I will put the page up for deletion, and others can help decide about your work, and the notability of the subject. APlacerville (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
APlacerville doesn't answer the question, instead commenting on other (non-) issues and promising to take the article to AfD. APlacerville thereafter really did take it to AfD, which failed. I propose to readd the material from life.com. Does anyone object? -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jörg Colberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like a résumé?

[edit]

0mbramaifu, thank you for your edits to this article, but how is this article like a résumé? -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information that is not noteworthy

[edit]

Should information on Colberg's photobook publishing company Meier & Müller be included in this article as it appears the "publishing company" only ever published two books and is no longer operational? This bit of trivia does not seem noteworthy enough to be included here, and, if it is, should the content be edited to reflect the scale and current status of the publishing company to avoid overstatement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0mbramaifu (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable point. I've made an edit to the sentence. Is it OK now? -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit works towards solving the issue of overstating the importance, or lack thereof, of this biographical tidbit. I still wonder if the sheer inclusion of this rather unremarkable fact is an overstatement in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0mbramaifu (talk • contribs) 03:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jörg_Colberg&oldid=1206177744"