Wikipedia article for Psychédélices

[espire]

Originally Posted by Cooney

Seriously though, people think Fifty/Sixty is speculation? If it's not on Psychédélices, where exactly do people think it is going? It is her singing, it's a new song, and if you believe the scare-mongers cries of her removing it because of some invented public reaction, I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

Fifty / Sixty is speculation. More specifically, it's personal research. We really have no proof that Alizée sang that song, and that it was not somebody else with a similar voice. It doesn't matter how many of us say it, it's not a fact until an official source such as RCA or Alizée says so.

Alizée's article on Wikipedia had a similar problem like this regarding the female night elf dance in World of Warcraft; though it is quite obvious that the dances are one and the same, without official confirmation, that is only personal research, and shouldn't really be there. This may seem like a silly rule, but the line of what is a fact and what isn't has to be drawn somewhere.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by espire

This may seem like a silly rule, but the line of what is a fact and what isn't has to be drawn somewhere.

First of all, we do have "proof" beyond just how it sounds For one, the three fans who meet Alizée say they heard it from her before the leak. But why should that line be someone "official" telling us anyway? What makes them so special? They could be lying through their teeth for sales, like with Millie Vanillie or something!

I think personal research is just as valid when it's sufficiently thorough and incontrovertible. I mean, I'm sure 50/60 could be run through some voice pattern analysis that would prove it even by court standards, but do we need to? Nothing can make it absolutely true, and there's a point where you've just got to go with the obvious.

Here's another example. What about the tinkerbell tattoo on Alizée's back? The evidence of that is like with 50/60. It's never been announced officially or pictured, but there are eye witnesses, and I even asked at the shop were it was done. Hey, maybe we're all lying or mistaken, but that's a silly stance to take. I think it's safe to call it a fact.

[espire]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

First of all, we do have "proof" beyond just how it sounds For one, the three fans who meet Alizée say they heard it from her before the leak. But why should that line be someone "official" telling us anyway? What makes them so special? They could be lying through their teeth for sales, like with Millie Vanillie or something!

I think personal research is just as valid when it's sufficiently thorough and incontrovertible. I mean, I'm sure 50/60 could be run through some voice pattern analysis that would prove it even by court standards, but do we need to? Nothing can make it absolutely true, and there's a point where you've just got to go with the obvious.

Here's another example. What about the tinkerbell tattoo on Alizée's back? The evidence of that is like with 50/60. It's never been announced officially or pictured, but there are eye witnesses, and I even asked at the shop were it was done. Hey, maybe we're all lying or mistaken, but that's a silly stance to take. I think it's safe to call it a fact.

The problem is not personal research itself, but the fact that personal research always leads to personal opinion. Maybe you and I are able to know when something is sensible, but others are not, so Wikipedia's rules draw the line right before personal research, even if it is sufficiently thorough.

At the same time, Fifty / Sixty being sung by Alizée and her tattoo are both still speculation and nothing more. Those three fans may have proof of meeting Alizée, but they don't have proof that they heard the song from her. The manager of the tattoo parlour might have told you (I trust you, but facts are based on deduction) that Alizée got a tinkerbell tattoo there, but I doubt that they have real proof of it.

As I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's drawn where a fact is a fact. Not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, hors de tout doute. It is very rare that a fact like that comes from anywhere but the official source. Wikipedia is a very volatile encyclopedia, and restrictions like these are what keeps the volatility for the better, not for the worse.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by espire

As I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's drawn where a fact is a fact. Not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, hors de tout doute.

Really? Wikipedia should be completely empty then.

[espire]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

Really? Wikipedia should be completely empty then.

Excuse my exaggeration there, by "beyond all doubt" I meant "beyond the level of doubt that Wikipedia will not accept."

[Ben]

I understand, but still think the level you're calling for would turn Wiki into little more than an index of press releases. You say they don't allow "personal research", yet the term I'm seeing there is "original research", specifically unpublished and/or without citable sources. That's a difference. All research is personal on some level, but I definitely wouldn't call 50/60's "original" given it's primary sources and coverage in the mainstream media and journalism. Don't forget Jean Fauque. I'd say we could even add Idealizée if we were only more sure about the spelling!

[espire]

Originally Posted by Snatcher42

I understand, but still think the level you're calling for would turn Wiki into little more than an index of press releases. You say they don't allow "personal research", yet the term I'm seeing there is "original research", specifically unpublished and/or without citable sources. That's a difference. All research is personal on some level, but I definitely wouldn't call 50/60's "original" given it's primary sources and coverage in the mainstream media and journalism. Don't forget Jean Fauque. I'd say we could even add Idealizée if we were only more sure about the spelling!

Ah, I apologize. I did mean original research! However, I still stand by my statements...

You know, I think we're at quite the impass here, so I'm going to cut out, but I can certainly see where you're coming from.

[Ben]

Yeah, ok. Let me just clarify a bit. No need to respond, you probably already get it, but just for the record...

If 50/60 was just a leaked mp3, I'd agree. Like I do about the cover. Even though I think the image is at least a (real) draft, I agree that it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia.

But ok, first there's 50/60 the track. Then there's various primary source statements about it, though they probably wouldn't pass Wiki's standards for credible sources. Third are comments on the author's Myspace. We could argue if it's really him, but now we're starting to split hairs.

Finally, on top of all that we have the song's citable coverage in magazines, online articles, and even television. Yes they could be wrong, and we know just repeating prior information. But one of my first points was that anything, even official statements, can be inaccurate too. So I think we're well past the practical safe point for inclusion of information on a site like Wikipedia.

If we want to get really technical about it, the page could just be edited to say something like "50/60 is reported to be another track". Even if the song itself is debatable, the fact that it has been reported on is not.

[Roman]

All good points. My point was really that I'd like a picture of Alizée on her page in Wikipedia. There was one, but it was removed due to permissions problems. Since I have never taken a picture of Alizée, I suppose I don't have permission either, but could one try to find a suitably public domain picture?
Ok, I hadn't looked around enough. The other albums mentioned do have pictures. So, it's just Alizée herself and Psychédélices that have no pic. Psychédélices can certainly wait since we don't know what the cover will be. And, yes, I think it's irresponsible to NOT mention 50/60 somewhere, or at least it makes Wikipedia a weak source of information if you can nowhere mention 50/60. I do think one should be careful about how they declare it. For instance, when 50/60 came around everyone was calling it Alizée's first single. That was jumping to conclusions. However, to make no mention of it makes Wikipedia incomplete and a poor source of information about Alizée. Though, I understand, one will always have to go elsewhere anyway for certain information, like the names of her family members, which I guess is too personal to put on a page like that.

[heyamigo]

i'm with espire, we have to draw the line somewhere. yes i know the wikipedia isn't perfect but we don't have to be the one to keep lowering standards.

and snatcher said "For one, the three fans who meet Alizée say they heard it from her before the leak. But why should that line be someone "official" telling us anyway?" (that's the first time i heard that) still i don't agree that a couple fans that hear it in such fashion to declare it a song, because not everyone is honest and deserves the benefit of the doubt. thats why there is a rule of "citiations" and the need to verify things that can be questionable. i would be okay if in the article it said, rumored or speculated song but i think it would be right to get it from actual track listing for the album when it is announced to us by alizee or RCA, instead of some fans or from rumors. so basically i draw the line between something that is announced by alizee's camp or RCA and the rest.