That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Angela bees...@gmail.com wrote:
I made this page a few years ago:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically
persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:26 +0100
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically
persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few
actual rights.
Charles
And why should links have any particular rights? External links should be
justified in the same way as
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
More than one thing seems a weird standard, in my opinion. An
athlete wouldnt be notable unless also a movie star? But perhaps you
mean elected twice to their legislature?
I do
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
More than one thing seems a weird standard, in my opinion.
To be expected it was invented by the BLP mob.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of Engineering do not have articles.
More than one thing seems a weird standard,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and
further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the
article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few
years ago
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want a higher level, 90% of the present members of the US
National Academy of
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2010 18:16, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0100
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their
additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard
expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, geni
Hi everyone -
Sorry for the late notice.
Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 04:00-05:00 UTC,
Wednesday, 31 March. Local timezones can be checked at
http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010month=3day=31hour=04min=0sec=0p1=0
As always, you can access the chat
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
High value links should always be provided. Can you provide an
reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful
additional resources shouldn't be provided? I'll gladly go and
disagree with them.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:21 PM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
As has been said before: Most of these types of conflicts can be
boiled down to [[m:Immediatism]] vs [[m:Eventualism]].
(imho) Immediatism is great for BLPs, and CurrentEvents, and dealing
with unambiguous
Matt Jacobs wrote:
I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their
additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard
expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption
of good faith involved in an editor removing an
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:48 +0100
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
Ed: DoesWikipedia Suck?
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs
Charles Matthews wrote:
The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there
the distinction between may be removed and must be removed is quite
important. And there is the right, not of the link but the editor
adding it, to have good faith assumed: other things being
It did evolve from that, and it made very good sense in that context,
to avoid having the name of a victim given undue unfortunate
prominence. It makes sense in some other BLP contexts also, but its
expansion to a general rule is what was absurd. BLP1E should, in my
opinion, have been confined to
22 matches
Mail list logo
