Fred Bauder wrote:
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.
That
Fred Bauder wrote:
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
Surreptitiousness wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their
Fred Bauder wrote:
I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't
sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it
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,
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it was useful ...
Once upon a time I
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
Heck, in a few cases the Women classification might prove to be based
on a judgement call. The panoply of transgender classifications and
Joe Anderson wrote:
The Register enjoyed calling ArbCom 'Wikicourt'.
The Register article was written by Cade Metz, who has written
extensively about Wikipedia before and for some reason goes out of his
way to insult and misrepresent how things work here. This article
contained a particularly
- Original Message -
From: Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org
For your comedy pleasure :)
http://xkcd.com/545/
What does he do if the article gets deleted? Burn the money? :)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Ting Chen wrote:
I believe sometime we will go in this direction. But at the moment this
would mean that the edit would be more complicated. The problem is if I
edit a section, I put in ref id=smith /. But at the same time I
cannot add reference id=smith.../reference into the References and
11 matches
Mail list logo
