On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Keith Oldkeith...@gmail.com wrote:
...Youngborg recommends that
people use a “jaundiced eye” when surfing the Web. *
*“I think people are going to have to get a little more calloused at the
Internet,” Youngborg said.*
Jandiced eyes and callouses? Sounds like he
David Goodman wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
[[WP:BEFORE]] seems to need some work, at
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
(Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
You can get a pretty accurate profile of
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our
first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter
what their source was.
You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term
is not the established meaning
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly
cause a book to revert to primary source status?
I have seen the dual argument as well: that sources which would
certainly be counted as primary if they
Steve Bennett wrote:
Most well known or
best known? Whichever one is currently in the article. Focus your
efforts elsewhere.
Hey, this is an amusing topic ...
Example for a beer-tasting FAQ (about American lagers):
*Budweiser, Coors, and Miller are the most well-known bad examples of
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
I still think it is a potential good indicator of poor style. Anyway,
pursuing it got me into an area needing attention, including what is now
[[first date (meeting)]].
{{merge}} with [[Dating
I dispute that this is my private meaning.
And I propose that this is the standard meaning.
As well as the inworld meaning.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 9/9/09 4:50 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Writing styles - and editing styles - are indeed quite
distinctive. If someone suddenly writes something out-of-character
online, I'll tend to first assume someone else is using
a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by hand) and
pushing you down a different route for
There is no way you
2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
discussion?
Anything PRODded
Apoc 2400 wrote:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
discussion?
Is it really good to propose the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based
2009/9/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
ask the deleting administrator about those
Carcharoth wrote:
I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
ask the deleting administrator about those first?
I think an admin
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I think an admin undeleting a speedy should always leave a note to the
deleting admin, explaining why. The usual reason would be that a mistake
of some kind (e.g. on copyright) has been made in applying CSD. If there
is an issue of a
David Gerard wrote:
So making a
drama-free clean up afterwards procedure was considered the least
worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian politican lady from the dead. If the 10
ton weight drops on
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
So making a
drama-free clean up afterwards procedure was considered the least
worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian
Treating them as such would lead to over-defending them, i.e. drama.
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
whenever I can (okay,
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
Oh, well. I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/8/09 10:44 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic
spectrum,
Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
subordinates.
True, but I see a lot of articles at new page patrol that also violate
NPOV, CIVIL, or both. I run this great business is POV, not to
mention SPAM.
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
whenever I can (okay, take the PROD tag off
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also has
a note asking for more and better references.
- d.
Go more slowly, is all I can suggest ;-p
That's what I'm learning! I'm trying to at least use PROD more often,
if tagging for deletion at all.
Do take heart that anyone who's read large chunks of
Special:Newpages will fully concur on the absolute necessity of
knifing lots and lots of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses.
That was what I was talking about. Thanks--I probably should've looked
there to begin with! :-)
It also has a note asking for more and better references.
And yet
on 9/9/09 12:45 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also
2009/9/9 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
Given the lack of reliable sources, the removal of information on the
kidnapping seems justified. His article is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Farrell_(journalist)
That would rather depend on what was at the
The protection referenced an OTRS ticket
(https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoomTicketID=2009090610014951)
in the edit summary. I'd be interested to know more information on
that ticket, specifically if it was a request for protection from a
news organization.
I suppose
Would you have us do different?
Fred
Folks,
From the Huffington Post:
Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media
around
the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to
the OTRS
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
would suggest just protecting the article straight away with a link to
the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
would
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
would suggest just protecting the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Would you have us do different?
I would prefer something more honest, rather than defaming innocent
editors trying to add true and verifiable information to articles. I
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
More serious than life and death?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely
David Gerard wrote:
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
potentially extremely harmful information.
We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews
for that. If we wait a few
Keith Old wrote:
Folks,
From the Huffington Post:
Last November, David Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held for
several months, before managing to escape with his interpreter. Media around
the world, at the request of the *Times*, kept silent about the kidnapping,
and later drew
2009/9/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
2009/9/9 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect
wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping
other more established news organizations, but in fact
be there before all the other major news orgs with the
full nitty
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
BTW does Wikinews have any traction yet?
I mean does it hit the first googly page ?
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009
I really don't see this as IAR.
It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
I really don't see this as IAR.
It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
flat to me. But at any
2009/9/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
I really don't see this as IAR.
It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
secret, helps them to not be killed.
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Will Johnson
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
Fred
___
WikiEN-l
2009/9/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
BLP talks about removing unverifiable harmful information about living
people, it doesn't say verifiable harmful information should be
removed (unless it is given undue weight).
That's the point - it's entirely in order to be very conservative in
Do no harm isn't a consensus however.
That language is so incredibly vague it could be taken to mean almost
anything.
Fred we've been over this many times on this list :)
You really want to do it again?
We have articles on murder victims which appear on the top of Google,
keeping that fresh in
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Will Johnson
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
There is no such
Well what were the sources?
Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Once it's all over
the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the
article.
- d.
Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well what were the sources?
Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
They are all in the article history. This news article, for instance,
seems reliable:
Iranian press, sourced in a Taliban regional commander. Since when is
that a
Interesting here is what they say about themselves
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international
news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding
Iranian and foreign media professionals.
I don't think the point is needing to reach but rather it's slapping
the hand that reaches.
Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
sources in these cases as Fred puts it. And I really don't know what
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
I don't think the point is needing to reach but rather it's slapping
the hand that reaches.
Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
sources in these cases as Fred puts it.
Interesting here is what they say about themselves
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international
news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding
Iranian and foreign media
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they
probably are much more reliable then other media. They did talk to a
Taliban regional commander and got the story.
Iran and the Taliban don't exactly get on so unlikely they would
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap thing to do. Everyone however
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap
-Original Message-
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
The entire argument about keeping
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in
2009/9/10 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
2009/9/10 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
This is wishful thinking, Geni.
Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
sized ones (1 ton) is not.
Uk's first attempt failed and India's probably did. I think that
qualifies as tricky.
And the explosive lenses
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:07 PM, geni wrote:
2009/9/10 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
This is wishful thinking, Geni.
Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
sized ones (1 ton) is not.
Uk's first
Emily wrote:
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
What? I'm confused.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Emily wrote:
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Fred Bauder wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this,
Fred Bauder wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
Any responsible journalist will.
Fred
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:39:40 +0100
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
Shortly after I thought we'd finally killed off the habit of excessive
polling, an apologetic, humorous and evidently quite common meme
appeared on
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting and !voting, what's the difference?
On 8/28/09, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
Polling and voting is a good way to see what people think without having to
wade through a mass of comments.
If
i agree with you very much that Welcome, but ... messages as
currently used would be considered an insult or condescending by
almost anyone. Here's your speeding ticket. Have a nice day!
You might try using custom messages. I have variations on several that
I use, but i always to adapt them to
Sometimes the best way of spreading best practices like this is to
write a userspace essay. It can start small, but can help get thoughts
together. There are several userspace essays I should have written
that I never did, so I'm not really one to talk. But some of the most
insightful things I
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:14:00 -0500
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
Holy cow. Is Jimbo aware of this?
Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him next week.
I'll bet he'll be delicious with BBQ sauce and a side of mashed
potatoes and baked beans. Mmm mmm
77 matches
Mail list logo
