Talk:Joseph Konopka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph Konopka article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Language

Seems a bit POV. This guy is obviously a nutter, but there is a very definate slant to the way the words are put together that tend to imply things that are not actually said. Proxy User (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way? What is being implied that is not said? Everything presented here is an established fact backed up with multiple reliable sources. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources? Little snippets from weekly giveaway newspapers? Please. Proxy User (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the New York Times are not "weekly giveaway newspapers" and the articles cited are not "little snippets". I'm still not too sure what exactly you're getting at. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page is protected

I have fully protected the article from any editing until the two of you settle your differences here on the talk page. Since there are only two of you who have edited this article I would think you could come to some agreement on the issues before you. I am sure you would agree that this protection is far better than blocks for edit warring. Please use this time to productively improve and enhance the article. JodyB talk 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if a newspaper said Joseph Konopka was also a brain surgeon, Wikipedia would parrot that even if it where not true? The most that can be said for Joseph Konopka is that he was a Systems Admin. And really, what is a "computer expert" anyway? Is that really an appropriate thing to say for Joseph Konopka? It's so nebulous as to be meaningless. On the other hand, it CAN be said that Joseph Konopka was a Systems Admin.
CLEARLY by Wikipedia's OWN DEFINITION, Joseph Konopka was not a "computer expert", he was a System Administrator. There IS a difference. If Wikipedia to be FACTUAL or is it to be some editor's romantic interpretation of reality? If Wikipedia is not built on FACTS than it is WORTHLESS. Proxy User (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you can locate a reliable source that describes his position as a "system administrator", then by all means add it to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And "verifiability" is satisfied by what a SINGLE reporter for a SINGLE newspaper says in a SINGLE very short story? That's a VERY LOW BAR. We can not say Joseph Konopka was a "computer expert", only that he was a System Administrator. That is what is FACTUALLY varifiable.
Now, suppose today I write a story for my well-established Web site (that is not a blog, but who cares anyway) that says Joseph Konopka was in truth saving his pennies for a trip to the ISS with the Russians. Can we then include that in the article? After all, it appeared in a story at a Web site. It's no less valid than saying Joseph Konopka is / was a "computer expert". What IS true is that Joseph Konopka was at one time a System Administrator. Proxy User (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source that states he is a system admin, then provide it - at that point it will be factually verifiable. Doing so will quickly support the article change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's already in the article. But being a Systems Admin is not the same as being a Computer expert. It's disappointing that you all are not the slightest interested in accuracy. Proxy User (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia policies. I've already provided you links to the verifiability policy and the reliable source guideline. You should also review the civility policy.
My sole interest is to ensure that varifiable content is provided. Rather than debating, a Google search providing a link to support the change would quickly resolve this. I went ahead and did a search, there are several reliable sources that state that he was a systems administrator. If you used one of those as your source, the change you've been trying to make could be remade with no issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To further explain the request for a source - you made the argument that a single source claiming that he was a "computer expert" was a low bar - and instead tried inserting a statement that he's a "systems administrator" with zero sources provided. The single source may have been a low bar, but it was more sources than what you were providing as an alternative. By providing an alternate source, the issue goes away. Please, before re-making the "systems admin" change, do a search and use one of the available sources that do exist and insert one of those when you are able to again edit this page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what I've been trying to explain. The source that refers to Konopka as a "computer expert" ALSO says that he worked as a Systems Administrator. Both of those are already in the article, in different places, since both are verifiable, per the reliable source. Proxy User wants to remove "computer expert" and put in "system administrator" there, so it would be in two places. However, if he thinks it's okay to have System Administrator in there, then he must be in agreement that the provided reliable source is perfectly sufficient. So why insist on removing something that we have provided a verifiable reliable source for? And FYI, "computer expert" currently redirects to an article about computer scientists, which is not correct. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the three sources currently attached, and I didn't see where they mentioned "systems admin", and only one of them (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) appears to have used the term "computer expert".
However, that moniker appears to be something the newspaper applied to describe him - I can only speculate, but my guess would be the author wanted a term easilly acceptable by non-technical readers so that he didn't need to explain the job function of a "systems administrator". It does not appear to be a description that was applied to Joseph Konopka by his employer, nor the courts, nor even by himself. So I fully support Proxy User's efforts to remove the mention of the in-exact term "computer expert", but only once a reliable source is provided that better identifies his true job title at the time. The available court summaries of the case appear the best sources for this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's weird, I swear it was there when I wrote the article... or at least I thought it was. Here's a reliable source [1] I guess go ahead and take out "computer expert" and replace it with "former computer systems administrator" with the citation. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The page protection is dropped. Thank you all for working this out on the talk page. -JodyB talk 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change discussed above, using the identified reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)