Talk:Media Lab Europe

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV: Rationale

I have placed the npov tag on this article as an anon user is continously editing this article and whilst this does not, at present, constitute vandalism it is none-the-less clearly written in a point of view style that does not fit within wikipedia standards of writting articles. This article does not represent, at present, the best of the community working togetheir but rather a revert war that has to stop and be discussed.
Djegan 19:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: I do not place the npov tag here as a recognition of the edit summary "authors seek talk but chane pages prior to talk - if page remains as is for 24 hours talk will then occur" which the anon user 83.70.44.230 has placed in the edit history. Anyone that contributes to wikipedia with this type of ultimatum is not welcome. Djegan 19:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response: Don't understand how user Djegan is able to decide what is and what is not welcome. Appears instance of belief of control rather than acceptance of diversity.

1) The fact of your recent change in tone speaks for itself, all are welcome who respect others. 2) I have placed the npov tag for discussion, if i need control their are easier faster ways to get it, this is not how i work; i respect others opinions and will keep my remarks to the point. 3) When we look at the work that has been carried out on this article over a few days we must agree that very little substance has been added by anyone and that rather a narrow range revert war has taken place which has seen little improvement; only a handful of points have changed. Djegan 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    a) if i need control their are easier faster ways to get it

Threatening, bullying and hectoring statement - this seems to be the source of problem hardly indicative of respecting others.

     b) very little substance has been added by anyone only a handful of points have changed.

One possible explanation could be that each of my changes (based on primary sources) has been rejected by virtue of individual perspective or taking secondary sources as gospel.

Before you state what you believe to be true cross reference it to the primary resources. Or it will inevitably be considered by the majority of people who prefer evidence to opinion in an encyclopedia as suspect.

But you never gave any references, you deleted information with references and you wrote with a ranting tone, that's why I reverted your changes, if you give direct references to available supporting material, you preserve existing supported information and you write in a reasonable way, then there would have been no problem.Notjim 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Reply/ It's the same old thing isn't it?

You still can't (wont?) make the distinction between primary sources (official record) and secondary sources (what someone else wrote about).

It's like quoting a creationist newspaper when trying to explain evolution rather than scientific journals - you can't help but come out with the wrong conclusions that way. Quoting secondaries as source is generaly considered poor science and shoud not be done.

I'm not here to teach people to write properly. My goal is to have a properly written article that meets accepted standards.

But you originally gave no references at all!Notjim 12:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon, if you are claiming harassment by me then thats a little misfortunate considering your own preditory and unilateral action. Everyone who respects others is welcome here, no matter how you twist it. Djegan 18:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

this is not a personal attack Djegan 19:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)\\

your own preditory and unilateral action.

How is this neither personal nor an attack?

It is for you to articulate on how this could be a personal attack, merely stating it is not sufficent - been critical of someones actions is not a personal attack. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks which gives a broad overview of what is meant by personal attack and cites specific examples - Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is a good place to start if you think I have been harsh on you, I hope I have not. Djegan 23:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Look, I have no involvement in the fight over media lab, in the content I added to the article I tried to reflect the balance of what I read in the papers and the articles I found on-line. Obviously the arguement about the lab and the fate of the lab are on-going and raw, but to say that the editting history is evidence of some sort of bias is silly. Lets talk here before making any more changes, I thought the article was even even and informative before the anonymous contributer began changing it and if there are problems, I think they need to be discussed. Notjim 9 Apr 2004 (sorry my keyboard is f/p and I have no tilde)

I agree that the anon has an agenda, the article needs to be simplified somewhat but presenting it as if the government or universities are at fault is somewhat disengenous to say the least. I understand your frustration as I have added material to he article only for it to be removed without any reason other than fancy npov claims as are usual when anon users decide to muscle in and push over everyone else. It should be an overview of what the organisation was and its effects and not just a fantasy claim of conspiracy as the anon is attempting to present. Djegan 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon, stop accusing me of some pro-Irish bias, its so annoying, nationality is irrellavant when discussing science and scientists. The work I cited in the article was the only work I could find reference to in the international press, I didn't think about the nationality of the person doing the work. if there are other examples, great, add them with a link to the reference. Stop assuming I have an angle on this, I don't. Notjim 11:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If neccessary than the ip of the user should be blocked or prevent editing to the page until discussed. It is obvious the anon editor has a insight that is bias. It may be appropriate to cut down the size of this article and make size relative to importance of the institution. Djegan 17:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So know you have not got your way you seem to be reduced to recommending censorship. hardly encouraging support for your claimed neutral perspective (e.g. "Stop Assuming I have an angle on this"). The world outside Ireland looks at these things a sight differently. You need to understand and acknowledge that for that is the root of your dissatisfaction.

I might be Irish but who said I live in Ireland??? Additionally your ip clearly traces back to Ireland, a different window on the world to me. What I say above stands, like it or not, you are invited here to articulate and discuss your ideas not to be sarcastic or preditory. Djegan 18:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I can see the problem Anon, you are adding things you believe to be true, that is, you are informing people of what you think is a view, but, the standard is to add things that are supported by reference, the Mind Group work was internationally recognised, that is supported by the link to the BBC site, if any of the other work achieved recognition and there is a reference, please add it. There was poor management and poor morale, that is supported by the internal report obtained through the Freedom of Information act, reproduced on a MIT website and linked to the article. BTW you are making assumptions about my relationship with Ireland that are laughably incorrect.Notjim 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Length

Djegan, I agree that this article needs tidying and editing for style, I don't think it should be cut down, since MLE is closed but is still in the news, this is the one chance to easily find information for the article and so this information should be preserved. It would be hard to believe that article length was proportional to importance unless you are a very enthusiastic manga fan. I do think there should be more about what happened when the lab was working relative to the stuff about the closure.Notjim 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article is too detailed on specifics and rather should be more information about the substance of the lab. Whilst I am not going to insist or implement this it should be given due consideration that the article needs to move in a different direction, quite frankly all this editing has choked the article with references and over specifics which means that it is as difficult to read as ever, it has no flow. Djegan 19:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, broadly I agree.Notjim 19:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Balance

There is widespread dissatisfaction with much of what appears on Wpedia about Ireland. The underlying perspective is 'all the bad things that happen in Ireland are the cause of Foreigners' This article oozes such a perspective which you are seeingly oblivious to.

Generally sources quoted are secondary not primary. Secondary sources are continually referenced here suggesting a deficient understanding of the difference between evidence and opinion leading to concerns as to the quality of writing and independence. Web site and FoI are source documents. Where on source documents is the document quoted assertion about management/morale found? Happy to have that pointed out. Try to resist the urge to extemporise in the search for a desired fact, it will make for better writing.

MLE web site has complete list of references to its work by media. Group chosen in this article has modest impact. Most people in field seem to view the EEG work as derivative (check the number of citations in scientific literature; no of citations = 0)but then they are irish so that doesn't seem to matter......

If you have a particular problem with Irish contributions or articles I suggest that your raise these on the individual talk pages. This article is too obscure for any serious discussion to take place on a greater conspircy you have raised. Djegan 19:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I was trying to be balanced by mentioning something the lab achieved, there was this work, it was in the papers. Is there any other work to mention that was in the papers, was there any high citation articles, etc? I am offended you refer to the quality of the writing, I thought I wrote quite well and as for the irish thing, do you really think notjim is an irish name, i'm a foreigner here.Notjim 19:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoidance of inconvenient facts

I note none of the original authors addressed the questions raised. Simply found them inconvenient. Writing an article with reference only to primary sources yields a dispassionate (but clearly unwelcome) text. Nothing in my edits refers to anything but primary sources yet are constantly deleted because of reference to some wild opinion pieces of fevered Irish press which are taken as gospel.

The route problem here is lack of acceptance of fact and eager obsequy of opinion.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Djegan 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon, can you point us to these primary sources for me, I could only find a few facts with sources

It is here http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/Corporate+Units/Freedom+of+Information/February+2005.htm

and here http://www.medialabeurope.org

The lab got thirty odd million for the Irish government

True

To the first approximation it didn't make any money and wasn't worth anything when it closed

False FoI indicates not for profit form of Lab

It won some prize for electronic art and a few low key contracts

False Low Key indicates prejudicial mindset contracts came from major companies and were 1M+

The mind games group seemed to get discussed in the international press and seems to be taken reasonably seriously (the liminal systems and haptics groups ditto, but I couldn't find a source.)

False all sources reported on MLE web site

There was a change of director

True but this is portrayed as frequent changes again prejudicial

The internal report said that there were internal problems - "inmates running the asylum" "hell" etc

Until you can find report all references are to secondary sources

The Irish government was willing to spend up to 5m a year to keep it going, but with conditions MIT found unacceptable, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly.

False FoI indicate MIT agreement

Negroponte thought the lab was cool

Quotes seem to support this

Media Lab Asia is no longer linked with MIT, there seems to be some dispute as to who dumped whom.

Prejudicial use of dumped again indicative of biased mindset

I added content that tried to reflect this and provided references. If there are other facts, with references, put them down here and then we, together, will try and include them in the article. Here is my full disclosure, I am working as a scientist in Ireland, I had no contact with the media lab but know a few people who did, these people weren't irish but were working for irish universities, usually because they got a job here, they all thought it was pretty cool but kind of a mess. I was sorry when it closed,

I tried to write the most balanced article I could.

The debate seems to indicate you have not succeeded

Notjim 08:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop calling me biased, I am getting sick of it and its kind of ridiculous.Notjim 10:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Easy solution to this is to avoid terms such as 'low-key' for 1M+ contracts, 'dumped', 'frequent changes' (ie once) Look at what you do from someone else's perspective.

Nothing Personal

Nothing here that can fairly be construed as personal attack. Argument, emphasis, interpretation and process of articulating is clearly within remit of critique. Don't think writers are deficient as human beings. I have no specific interest in them as people or personalities. Simply argue the skills and approach deployed by them are in this instance insufficient. Perhaps authors don't understand that obsequy (Funeral rite) and obsequious (smarmy) have widely different meanings? If so apology and withdrawal by them welcome.

Some examples of invoking this claim in Wikipedia seem to be a means of avoiding inconvenient debate.

Note desire to invoke debate and then close it off. If this is the case seems reasonable to resume process of editing article.

Discussion seems at end

Will draft article based on factual sources while acknowledging commentary in media Will address Lab not just closure

Seems Much Improved

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this. The swivel-eyed Irish nationalist perspective seems to have been restrained now and it reads much more like a genuine encyclopedia entry.

All I can say is oh for god sake, it has gradually been brought into alignment of a very particular view, I am guess close to some faction within the lab and less neutral not more so. I wrote much of the original material and to call me a swivel-eyed Irish nationalist is firstly offensive and secondly wierdly wrong. I give up. Notjim 13:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?

The final sentence, 'Consistent with the premise of MIT's OpenCourseWare movement, it seems there may be no substitute for "being there[citation needed]."' makes for a great journalistic ending, but it is fundamentally opinionated and not encyclopedic. I will abstain from making changes to this articles (due to my own involvement with the subject), but I suggest someone remove or replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswelt (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing and wanted to write a remark about that. The statement is not factual, opinionated, subjective and unclear what is actually meant (What does "being there" mean? What substitute for what exactly? etc. I believe the article will not loose anything by losing this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.232.210 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Media Lab Europe. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]