Talk:Jason Scott

Self references

About self-references...On the one hand, I would not expect to find Jason Scott's attitude towards Wikipedia in an encyclopaedia, not even an encyclopaedia as broad in scope as Wikipedia. On the other hand, you (User:Leif) are right that Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles in itself violates the self-ref rule in all but a few cases...But I think that's a discussion we should have about that category. User:Sverdrup already brought up the subject on Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. How about this for a compromise: Move some of JScott's quotes to wikiquote? — David Remahl 01:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought the sentence in question was notable enough for inclusion because, based on my prior knowledge of the subject, I was somewhat surprised to read the lengthy condemnation of wikipedia on his user page. In fact, I even emailed him to verify that User:Jscott was actually him (and it is). In email, he also expressed sentiments similar to the above about not being sure if the sentence had relevance in the article, and predicted it would probably be removed again eventually. Though I still think it's somewhat relevant, I won't push it further. Thanks for starting this article, David. ~leif ☺ _HELO 06:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is he notable? The site yes, the nerd no. Gaining notoriety in Wikipedia itself doesn't count. There's no page on User:Wik.Dr Zen 03:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm unsure. I'm pretty sure this will be on VfD within a few hours. In my personal view, having been interviewed in Wired and created a successful site is enough for notability. If there also exists verifiable information about the person, then it fit for Wikipedia. And policy (see Wikipedia:Vanity_page) says that "There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be ignored in deletion debates.". This is obviously not de facto how VfD works, but non-the-less... — David Remahl 03:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long. This article is now listed for VfD. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This guy is only notable as a shameless self-promoter. How is this autobiographical article still here?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Full name

I am uncertain as to the reasoning behind listing Jason's full legal name on this page, as he is not just "often known by the pseudonym Jason Scott", but probably "always known by the pseudonym Jason Scott (except to his lawyers)". This seems to be more of an involutary outing, and I'm not sure how this sort of divulgence of personal material can be handled. In short: He has chosen not to use his surname, so why should you? You might be able to look up his phone number as well, but that doesn't mean it ought to be part of his entry. --Golgo13 17:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that the subject has always been known almost exclusively by the pseudonym to the public. I did not include the full name in the textfiles.com article, �because that site is published solely under the name of Jason Scott. However, this article does not concern itself solely with Jason Scott, the pseudonym, but with the person behind too. The main reason I felt it important to include the legal name, was that the information about the legal case (brought by HarvardNet) would essentially be unverifiable without that information. Now, anyone who would like to verify that section of the article can access public documents from the court that handled the case, by searching for his name.

The practice of using legal names when known seems established, for example by Eric Corley and Eric Blair. Granted, these were both rather well-known when Wikipedia came along. The article should possibly be located at Jason Scott, as that is arguably how he is best known (in accordance with the Manual of Style). However, since Jason Scott is a disambig that is not possible in this case.

I would welcome a Request for Comments on the subject of how much personal information should be divulged. In fact, I'll start a WP:RFC now. — David Remahl 22:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's unclear to me where this information is coming from. If it is not public information published in a verifiable source, then it should be removed both because it is original research and because it may violate the person's right to privacy. Just pointing to court documents saying that there was a Jason Scott Sadofsky is a start, but not enough, unless those court documents also tie in that Jason Scott with the one who runs textfiles.com. anthony 警告 16:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The whois records for sadofsky.com match those of textfiles.com. The defcon speech mentions textfiles.com. But yes, I suppose in theory all those things could be orchestrated by someone unrelated to Jason Scott of textfiles.com to make it look as though Jason Scott Sadofsky and he are the same person. — David Remahl 16:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would say basing an encyclopedia article on whois records constitutes original research, but please do note that I'm not arguing for removing this information at this point. What I've looked at suggests that this information is almost surely public knowledge (the speech, the whois records, the court documents). It seems to be verifiable enough, too. After writing that message above I looked into things, and everything seems to check out. I don't think we need an RFC on the underlying issue, because I think our verifiability and no orignal research policies are sufficient. On top of that, Wikipedia is not a phone book, so even if someone's phone number were public knowledge it wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. Jimbo's address, phone number, and even the assessed value of his house and how much he paid for it, is readily available through online public sources, but no one has seen this information encyclopedic enough to put into Jimbo Wales, not because of privacy concerns (it's already available on the internet), but because that information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (well, maybe the house value, as it's an interesting fact considering how much he's spent on Wikipedia). anthony 警告 17:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the personal details question is difficult and different enough from the original research policy to warrant separate discussion. For example, on WP:IFD (nov 30), a japanese child killer. Is it right to publish an image allegedly of her? (no other comparisons, of course). And as you note, the line between original research and direct observation can be blurry at times. Maybe only the regular rules should apply, but a RFC discussion that could clarify that that is consensus is good. And that, more or less, seems to be the case (see the rfc page). — David Remahl 17:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it right to publish an image allegedly of her? Depends on who's making the allegation. But in my opinion, if another respectable source has already published it, then there's no moral or legal reason (based on privacy) for us not to, because it's already public information. I suppose if you disagree with this you could start an RFC, but otherwise I don't think one is necessary. anthony 警告 17:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, but the RFC was started a week or two ago: Wikipedia:Divulging personal details. And as I said, there seems to be some sort of consensus around the way things are now. Moving on :-). — David Remahl 17:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jason Scott @ Wikimania

Has he ever talked there? 58.108.122.0 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)