Talk:Ogi Ogas

Anonymous blogs as sources

Removed multiple anonymous blogs and included references from more reputable sources and peer-reviewed journals. If a rant-filled anonymous blog-post ([2]) can be included, as is the case currently, then we might as well start including anonymous comments on blogs and profanity-laced tweets as sources. QuietMorn (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this important editing work. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

What's with the "not relevant to the subject" tag? It's certainly relevant, but is a stub. More information is out there on the web. (unsigned)

Seems to currently be researching a potential book entitled "Rule 34". Any of this noteworthy enough to be included? [3] 69.181.245.219 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's large quantities of material about this on the web (see http://linkspam.dreamwidth.org/5800.html) but I haven't seen any that would count as a reliable source. Unless we have published sources on his book or on the issues surrounding his fandom survey, I don't think we can include them here. Surely those sources will become available once the book is published, though, so I think patience is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it up the scale of credibility of the criticisms of the Rule 34 project that Ben Goldacre, from the Guardian's "Bad Science" column, has now begun to weigh in on the issue? Only in twitter at this point, but citing the post above, plus an additional source for background information. The feeds are here: http://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/3754523032 and here: http://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/3755228929 203.171.199.194 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As of this writing, Boston University has also pulled Dr. Ogas' page from the server. This is consistent with currently-unsourced information regarding BU instructing Dr. Ogas to stop using university web resources in connection with this project. Not noteworthy of itself, but may be once more published sources begin talking about this issue. Parcequilfaut (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Boston University pulled Dr. Ogas' page. Since Dr. Ogas' page was removed at the same time as Dr. Sai Gaddam's Boston University page (and Dr. Sai Gaddam is a post-doc at Boston University), and at the same time that the survey-related websites were removed, this would suggest they voluntarily removed their entire web presence to mitigate the hostility of the fan fiction community. There is also no sourced evidence that Dr. Ogas or Dr. Gaddam were using university web resources in connection with this project.

The implication that the researchers removed the survey due to methodological complaints is unsubstantiated, based upon the purported personal communications from the researchers included in the anonymous blog cited as a reference (http://community.livejournal.com/crack_van/3992036.html), where the researchers stated they considered the survey a "smashing success." Their removal of the survey discussion page could be related to the hostility of the metamob (as cited in fan fiction's fanhistory wiki), but there's no basis for assuming their actions were related to methodological criticisms. Further, a more neutral summary of the anonymous blog referenced here would indicate that the blog comments largely consist of personal attacks on the researchers, and that observers criticized the content of the survey more frequently than its methodology. It's impossible to attribute the term "participant" to critics of the survey since the survey itself was anonymous, and thus evidence of participation is not possible. Published sources of information regarding the issues surrounding the survey will likely become available once the book is published. Innocuity (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not usable as a source, but it's also not true as you state that "there is no evidence" that BU pulled the page. See here for evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no citation (nor any evidence I could find) that the fanfiction survey was "published"; Ogas' own comments as cited in the previously-cited reference do indicate that the survey was taken down in order to allow him and his colleague to revise it before collecting any further responses, however. (Unless the blog account identifying itself as his was fraudulent, and the mere fact that the account was subsequently deleted neither proves nor disproves that assumption.) If the survey has in fact been conducted, concluded and published, I apologise, but all I could find were many instances of complaints about its methodology from other quarters, and silence from Ogas and Gaddam about the alleged survey. (The complaints about the survey describe it but don't constitute evidence of it under Wikipedia standards.) Please, if someone can find where it was actually published — if it was — provide an appropriate and verifiable citation. Makingyouhungry (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Boy, is my face red — after all my talk about proper citations, I completely forgot to replace the info in the previously-formatted citation with the info for the one I actually used. Oops. Well, it's fixed now. Makingyouhungry (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear why the unsourced, ambiguous information about the fan fiction survey merits inclusion on an encyclopedic entry for someone who so far is only notable for game show appearances. In addition, why should this kerfuffle in the fan fiction community would be of interest to someone visiting this entry. Fan fiction groups have reacted against perceived outsiders (as described in the Fan Fiction Wiki: www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Metamob), and these do not get mentioned in Wikipedia. One reaction involved many well known authors and editors with significant Wikipedia pages and lasted more than 6 months, and yet even this has not warranted its own Wikipedia entry: www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Race_Fail_2009) Considering the fan fiction kerfuffle involved a survey which has not been published anywhere, had no sourcable repercussions, and considering Ogi Ogas' entry is based upon his game show appearances and not his research, this seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Furthermore, the fan fiction kerfuffle is mentioned subsequently to Ogas' book contract. There's no evidence, and certainly no sourcable evidence, that the survey was intended as part of the book. Indeed, in Dr. Ogas and Dr. Gaddam's information page about the survey, they never mention any connection with the book. The connection was only drawn by members of the fan fiction community. On top of this, the book isn't even out yet, and we don't even know if the book will come out. Members of the fan fiction community may wish to see Wikipedia endorse their anger, but unless Wikipedia wishes to give similar coverage to every other event, person, or "fail" that elicits hostility within fandom, I'm not sure why Ogas' survey deserves special mention. In sum, why is this poorly sourced event (the only reference given is a minor blog that made no attempt at providing neutral coverage of the event nor tried to contact Dr. Ogas or Dr. Gaddam for their side of the story) of interest primarily to the fan fiction community included in an encyclopedia entry for a game show notable?BottomOfTheCrackerBarrel (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Ogi Ogas. Boston University never issued any reprimand, removed any of our websites, or turned off any of our Boston University email addresses. This is a complete fabrication. My Boston University web site has remained the same: http://cns.bu.edu/~ogiogas/. My Boston University email address has remained valid: ogiogas@cns.bu.edu and I can still send and receive email from this address (and always have been able to), though I now rely on an alumni email address. We maintain friendly relations with our former department (which is getting subsumed by a new department) and the university. The BU IRB issued no reprimand; if they did, where is it? If Boston University formally asked us to stop claiming affiliation, where is the documentation of this request? Citing blogs by anonymous individuals who don't provide any documentation is hardly a verifiable claim. OgiOgas (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous edits to the book section discussing the research problems have been removed for not being properly sourced, but now there are two sentences with half of the citations of the page attached to them, and that seems pretty awkward as well. I'm going to attempt a basic summary of some of the critiques, sorted by citation, and stick strictly to the information included in those cited pages, using as many direct quotations as possible. JollyJeanGiant (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done Jolly Jean, thank you. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ogi Ogas. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //grandslamshow.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=81&sid=12f6c95e1a40adce39a0a7372aeded48

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits of this date

Came here for information, but was appalled to find:

• advertising language in the book descriptions, apparently attributable to User:Katzan123, and
• some of this plagiarised (copy and pasted from the web pages of the book publishers web pages, without quotation marks, or—in one case—acknowledgment of the source).

At the same time, the structure of the article was not in any way standard to a WP biography; some of this I have remedied, but other, better sets of eyes are needed, and so an Expert tag was placed, calling for Biography attention.

After these visible warnings of malpractice, I began reading more closely, and became aware that significant biographical material was either from the subject's self-populated web pages at his Harvard place of work, or from press releases to organizations to which he belonged (i.e., non-third party, and so self-published or otherwise not independent).

On closer examination—limited, because of time, I began to check citations for the content they purported to provide, and gave up when the entirety of the lede proved untrustworthy, encyclopedically. For instance, the DOB that was sourced to the Oak Ridge press release does not appear in it (search born, 1971, etc. to no avail), and the remainder of the lede is either unsourced, or sourced to self-published pages.

I removed the vague DOB appearances, began to structure sections more per usual, removed egregious WP:VERIFY violations (Amazon sales page as a source), began moving in text book details into refs, etc.

I then repaired bare URLs (using reFill), and noted those irreparable (marking them as dead links).

Finally, I:

• identified and rectified plagiarised advertising text from Hatchett, and
• moved that and other clear advertising quotes to block quotes to make clear these need to be removed by future editors.

In one further case, over-confident language claiming that something was "demonstrated" was toned down to say "attempted to demonstrate." (Read Popper's Conjectures and Refutations; such overconfident text about scientific subjects is either deeply flawed philosophy of science, or is simply more of the promotional language.)

The piece is otherwise not encyclopedic, giving ISBN's in the text (rather than via reference), mis- or inconsistently using standard formats (titles sometimes italicized, sometimes not), and mucking up punctuation. While I have corrected such wherever I came upon it, the article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit to begin to move it toward encyclopedic.

Tags were thus placed in most clearly offending sections, and at article top to list this article as in need of attention. Inline tags are placed to make clear to future editors specific places where I have already found problems. An absence of inline tags in a section does not mean the text is fine; it simply means no one has looked at it closely, yet.

Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

General issue with presentation

I would note in closing, a general issue with this article's presentation of a Harvard University visiting scholar. The normal units of scholarly publication in academia are the research article or the research monograph—not books in the popular press. Hence, respected academics write series of papers, or monographs, and then, at some point in career, follow these with popular accounts about the implications of their research. The way this article is written—see the section on A Billion Wicked Thoughts, and its closing sentence—this academic is presented as creating popular press material, and following it by conference speaking tours. This is not academic scholarship, and so this article is either mis-telling the story (ignoring the scholarly basis for the popular works), or, there is a significant, deeper story about this individual that is not being told here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced sentence moved here to Talk

The following sentence, which suggests an earlier possible title for one of this writer's books, is moved here to Talk because:

• the first of the two citations is a dead link, and
• the second is a self-published blog.

Here is the sentence:

The book is reported to have originally had the working title of Rule 34: What Netporn Teaches Us About The Brain.

That is, there is no reliable source given for this sentence, so it was redacted, and moved here until it can be sourced in compliance with WP:VERIFY. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfounded, misleading section on role in a particular book moved to Talk

The section that appeared earlier, before and after my edits, seemed to imply that Ogas was a formal contributor to this book. He is not listed as a co-author, or in any other way that justifies this section appearing here:

The End of Average

Ogas collaborated with Todd Rose on the non-fiction book The End of Average (2016) The book describes three key “principles of individuality” derived from the science of the individual: the principle of the jaggedness, the principle of context, and the principle of pathways. The book suggests that the average is a statistical myth, and presents “a new way of understanding and maximizing everyone’s potential.” The Washington Post named End of Average one of nine leadership books to look out for in 2016, and it was featured in Facebook's First Reads program.

What the book says, and its accolades, are immaterial here until a formal connection is made with the title subject, Ogi Ogas. Please only return the book to the article, when the role played by Dr Ogas is made clear, based on a reliable, independent (third-party) source. If Ogas is simply acknowledged, or acted a research assistant, it does not belong as a separate section in his writings/career, rather as a single sentence. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I would mention it in the last sentence of one of his books. It's still important, just more minor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)