The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken
over by
single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and
continued
participation by a reasonable number of independent editors
with new
voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification
stagnation. At
various times, one or
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of
real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a
good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until
On 2/3/11 11:59 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of
real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a
good start. Once the demographics
On 3 February 2011 11:26, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being
written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for
the most part?
Nerds are obsessive about things being right and not wrong. This leads
to most
On 3 February 2011 11:28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO W
... Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting
everyone edit the website.
-d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just
letting everyone edit the website.
Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly
encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.
-MuZemike
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
From: MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody
starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on
biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.-MuZemike
All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.-MuZemike
All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for
the subject.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from
mature, and still beset with problems
[...]
it is not easy to say what fair, proportionate representation
actually ought to mean in practice.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
