On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels
Draft Checked and quality, but this is under active discussion.
Quality
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
keep track of, the absolutely lousy articles people often pass over
without notice, or
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
The place
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
The process can and should be made mostly invisible to casual editors.
Like I said, you don't want the process to be 'invisible'
to casual editors, you want it to be *transparently
2009/9/29 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
The place where the comparison to NPP falls short is that NPP doesn't
*do* anything, except coordinate with other people using the
feature and people don't use it because it doesn't do anything
snip
To
David Goodman wrote:
If enWikipedia has only 4,000 active editors, and we don't do better
at this than, we are going to keep up with only a very few articles.
The plan will work , though, for the most watched articles,
fortunately where they are needed, because that's the ones where
people
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
UI fail.
There is no reason for you to know or care that your edit isn't being
displayed to the general public. It's being displayed to you, it's
being displayed to all the other
Sage Ross wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations! And thanks for your dedication to the project. You
realize when he turns thirteen he's going to die of embarrassment over
this...?
That's the idea. We're stocking up on
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
We're an encyclopedia. Often sources conflict. If so, mention what both
sources say. An example where this has happened in another article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal#Source_of_information
See last para of that section. May help you.
Adding to that:
From a Wikipedia editorial stance, stating that date of birth has multiple
reliable sources that conflict, is fine. Books state X, official government
records state Y, both are RS enough to be worth citing and the difference
is probably worth noting in the context of her article
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
From a Wikipedia editorial stance, stating that date of birth has multiple
reliable sources that conflict, is fine. Books state X, official government
records state Y, both are RS enough to be worth citing and the difference
is
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Verifiability, not truth means that sometimes we'll put in something that's
verifiable but isn't true.
That statement gets abused. The prime exception is the Verifyable,
but untrue case.
If it's Verifyable, but verifyably
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Verifiability, not truth means that sometimes we'll put in something
that's
verifiable but isn't true.
If you use IAR now, you'll have a hard time justifying not using it every
time something's verifable-but-false. And
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Write about what is verifiable, rather than what you or someone happens to
believe is true is a soundbite, a way to express that approach. We don't
know
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
The soundbite I use is that Wikipedia outsources truth. The debate about
what is or isn't true is not ours but is played out amongst the various
sources that we can draw upon as references.
Good soundbite. :-)
-Kat
--
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of
Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have
been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a
mistake.
My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's
21 matches
Mail list logo
