All I am saying is Wikipedia is not a news site. And if we have to have
a policy on why we are not Wikipedia, then they should have one on why
they are not Wikinews.
--
Jason Safoutin
Wikinews accredited reporter and administrator
jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org
Wikipedia needs to do what
But News is news. And an encyclopedia is not news. I am not saying to
force anyone to contribute anywhere, but to contribute to the items
where those items are supposed to be. And that means no news on
Wikipedia. I mean seriously...we have to tell people all the time we are
not Wikipedia.
On Mon, 25 May 2009, David Goodman wrote:
Basic information that anyone can understand is what is known to be
safe, and what is known to be dangerous. The more directly we present
it, the more we fulfill our mandate. NOT CENSORED, frankly, and that
should settle it. Some people think it
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on Wikipedia,
and how common sense is ignored.
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
That would require us to exclude information on rather a lot of
2009/5/26 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on
Wikipedia,
and how common sense is ignored.
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to
harm.
That would require us to
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote:
I understood it well enough. Accurate information on a number of subjects
is inflammatory.
This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense.
Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should
avoid *any harm
2009/5/26 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on Wikipedia,
and how common sense is ignored.
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
That would require us to
On 26/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is
wrong.
Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid
harm? What if it's
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage
is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is
wrong.
Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid
harm? What if it's only a
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote:
You're preaching to the choir. Often when we want to do the right
thing,
we are confronted with a demand for a rule, or presented with one,
typically no censorship. There is no substitute for doing what is
appropriate in the circumstances. Trying to
2009/5/26 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Trying to do Biographies of living persons without a rule proved futile;
so a written policy was created.
Which only works because it's NPOV/NOR/V with (a working aim for) no
eventualism whatsoever.
We still don't have a corresponding
policy
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot
something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors
will have a net benefit...
---
Then
On 26/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to
harm.
If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is
wrong.
Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid
harm? What if
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot
something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors
will have a net
On 26/05/2009, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We're all censors, we just vary with respect to what we censor.
No, I don't think I am. I don't remove anything except that which is
believed to be illegal in the state of Florida... which this isn't.
That's not my censorship, that
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
snip
you could write a book on the biographies on Wikipedia
[...]
Not a book you would want to publish or distribute in the UK, however.
Turning away from BLPs to featured articles, it is well-known that
articles on
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more
harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info:
Manhattan Research
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add Value
for Information Users
http://www.birdsonginfo.com/blog/2009/05/in-addition-to-analysis-we-need-people-who-can-create-an--ecosystem-of-knowledge-that-is-not-specifically-about-answering.html
Fred Bauder
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add Value
for Information Users
http://www.birdsonginfo.com/blog/2009/05/in-addition-to-analysis-we-need-people-who-can-create-an--ecosystem-of-knowledge-that-is-not-specifically-about-answering.html
Fred Bauder
From our
-Original Message-
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add
Value
for
-Original Message-
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add
Value
for
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Wikipedia makes its own rules, for the benefit of Wikipedia.
Yep. As it stands, none of the sister projects are closely enough
integrated for me to accept arguments like Don't put it in X, put it
in Y. This happens with
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add Value
for Information Users
http://www.birdsonginfo.com/blog/2009/05/in-addition-to-analysis-we-need-people-who-can-create-an--ecosystem-of-knowledge-that-is-not-specifically-about-answering.html
Fred
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add Value
for Information Users
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add Value
for Information Users
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add Value
for Information Users
29 matches
Mail list logo
