Gwern Branwen wrote:
The [[dwm]] deletion discussion has caught the interest of some of the
more nerdy online communities:
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b8s29/the_wikipedia_deletionists_are_at_it_again_this/
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1163884
It's interesting
On 5 March 2010 13:25, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Charles Matthews
Oh yes, and what Carcharoth said about FLOSS history needing the
secondary sources: if they don't write the history, it isn't just WP
coverage that suffers, but the whole
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2010 13:25, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Charles Matthews
Oh yes, and what Carcharoth said about FLOSS history needing the
secondary sources: if they don't write the
Has anyone been following the way editing has developed on the
en-Wikipedia articles on the Haiti and Chile earthquakes? It looks
quite different to me. For some reason, the editing has tailed off a
lot on the Chile earthquake article (could the fact that the article
was semi-protected for the
On 5 March 2010 13:30, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of these deletions are on the complete absence of evidence that
anyone outside the project actually cares.
By project you mean dwm, not Wikipedia,
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Has anyone been following the way editing has developed on the
en-Wikipedia articles on the Haiti and Chile earthquakes? It looks
quite different to me. For some reason, the editing has tailed off a
lot on the Chile
I suspect the semiprotection has a lot to do with it. If our policies
were more clear, we wouldn't have a debate every time a high profile
event leads to a higher rate of editing. But we do, and a good portion
(maybe even a majority) of the time the related article(s) end up
protected in some
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
As usual, one has to sift the arguments. Why aren't blogs included under
RS? That would be because they are generally unreliable?
One of the things that's bizarre about notability is that it requires reliable
sources to establish notability.
There's also the lack of interesting controversies to spur editors'
interest in the Chilean earthquake. With Haiti, you had Pat
Robertson's stupid comments, the alleged attempted kidnapping of
orphans, the invasion of Scientology, etc. Haiti's geographic
proximity also increased relative
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
As usual, one has to sift the arguments. Why aren't blogs included under
RS? That would be because they are generally unreliable?
One of the things that's bizarre about notability is that it requires reliable
sources
At 05:53 PM 2/24/2010, Ken Arromdee wrote:
You shouldn't *need* to go through this level of debate just to keep a page
around when the notability rules could be fixed instead. Otherwise we're
no longer the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we're the encyclopedia that
anyone with an extraordinary
11 matches
Mail list logo
