On 11/09/2011 22:08, David Gerard wrote:
On 11 September 2011 22:07, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Greg put the lot up on BitTorrent and wrote an eloquent message which
more or less says Come on if you think you're hard enough.
(To be precisely, the pre-1923 stuff that is
On 07/09/2011 21:45, Andrew Gray wrote:
I don't think we've discussed the outline of X articles much on this
list, which surprises me, but people might nonetheless be interested
in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#RfC:_Elimination_of_outline_articles
I
On 23/08/2011 19:54, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
But bias of the kind he works with is a really unhelpful concept for
us, in practice: especially when trivialised by being metricated.
What other way is there to claim bias than being metricated? Is he
On 11/08/2011 23:03, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There was an article in the New York Times a few days ago, on a related theme:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=2
One of its arguments was that there are whole cultures that lack
On 11/08/2011 00:34, William Beutler wrote:
My take is that Wikipedia, for all its faults, dealt with it very well. The
debate turned on several questions about what the very nature of what
Wikipedia is all about, and how the community worked to resolve a very
difficult case.
Not for us to
On 27/07/2011 08:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 07/26/11 3:13 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
On 20/07/2011 10:17, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I missed reading this thread when it was active, but my own estimate of
what still needs to be done in historical biographies alone is quite
high.
Yes, that is one
On 20/07/2011 10:17, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I missed reading this thread when it was active, but my own estimate of
what still needs to be done in historical biographies alone is quite
high.
Yes, that is one area where the material seems available to do much more.
An estimate of 20,000,000
I've probably said here in the past (and have certainly thought) that
attention to WP's more media-like aspects can be a distraction from the
'pedia stuff. But the current hoo-ha about [[Johann Hari]] of the
(London) Independent touches rather directly on an aspect of my past
admin work. See
On 02/06/2011 19:56, Sage Ross wrote:
My impression (admittedly based on a fairly narrow range of
experiences in the area) is that we actually are getting pretty close
to a tipping point. And the key lever we have for tipping things is
better tools and guidance and support for having academic
On 23/05/2011 03:56, geni wrote:
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the
second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it
On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
I take it Fred means this article or this campaign: if the latter
that's obvious enough. Given a mainstream piece of coverage such as
This was mentioned on the list a little while ago: a proposed new forum
about Wikipedia and Wikis. Having got through the preliminary or
definition stage, the proposal now needs people to sign up as
potential users:
http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/13716?phase=commitment
Charles
On 10/04/2011 20:44, geni wrote:
Thing is their business model appears to be to start with $50 million
of funding and proceed to hire whoever you need to write your
encyclopedia.
And there is no particular reason why paid staff couldn't be a viable
route to a competitor. But that sounds like
On 07/04/2011 19:26, David Gerard wrote:
snip
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone
in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
Work like a startup. Wikipedia now
On 08/04/2011 11:09, WereSpielChequers wrote:
snip
Other options would be for a site that ended the
inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and
concentrating on verifiability or aiming for comprehensiveness. That
seems to work for IMDB but possibly you need to restrict this
On 08/04/2011 15:57, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 April 2011 15:17, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Notability has always been a broken and widely-misunderstood aspect of
enWP. My impression is that deWP, for example, sets the bar higher, and
has fewer problems: in a
On 04/04/2011 12:56, Carcharoth wrote:
So is there anyway to encourage or help with whatever needs to be done here?
Have a look at [[Template:Protected Areas of Massachusetts]], for
example. This nearly doubled in size early in 2011, with a couple of
hundred red links added.
What we have here
On 04/04/2011 11:56, David Gerard wrote:
This sort of thing is happening a bit lately. It strikes me as
possibly a somewhat more manageable form of expert participation than
throwing individual well-meaning experts into a wiki cagefight with
individual persistent idiots. How's the community
On 10/03/2011 18:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 10 March 2011 13:11, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
What is an airbush? I think we should be told.
Our article Airbrush does not include information on the use of
airbrush as a metaphor
Charles' point was that the article says airbush
On 09/03/2011 23:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Think Progress, a progressive blog run by the Center for American
Progress, today ran a story about a hired PR firm creating sock puppet
accounts to clean up Wikipedia articles for the Koch brothers.
If true, this will only get messier as the
On 18/02/2011 23:24, aude wrote:
Heather Ford, a former Wikimedia advisory board member and researcher/writer
in South Africa has written an essay, The Missing Wikipedians about
systematic bias on English Wikipedia (especially) against new users and
topics pertinent to Africa and other diverse
On 16/02/2011 23:56, Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:54 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a *heck* of a lot still to be written.
On that topic, I came across this interesting essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth
It
On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote:
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article
to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article
incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED
magazine article?
On 17/02/2011 17:09, Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote:
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article
to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia
On 14/02/2011 22:31, WereSpielChequers wrote:
snip
If something like WYSIWYG
editing were to bring in a new wave of editors then the model would
break and it would be possible to think in terms of how many potential
articles qualify.
I think there is a point here. There are certainly a number
On 15/02/2011 18:17, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 15/02/2011, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
On 14/02/2011 03:35, Ian Woollard wrote:
I think you can't take the simple percentages of articles, a lot of
the most important and well visited articles are pretty well sorted,
whereas the stubs are mostly articles few people go to.
While this discussion is worth having, I wish to record a
While people are generally aware of the tendentious nature of some
infobox entries, there's a related issue that is just creeping into my
consciousness. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ahnentafel/doc
for a general idea what this is about - oddly enough Template:Ahnentafel
itself
On 07/02/2011 15:38, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 06/02/2011, Magnus Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Many of these links are due to templates, which I can do little about.
I hope it will still be useful to some.
Is that necessarily a problem in this case?
We still will have pages, that
On 06/02/2011 13:53, Samuel Klein wrote:
Tom - Great idea.
I believe what we want to end up with is OSQA, like what OSM has set
up, not a (proprietary) StackOverflow site.
OSQA is a great tool for collaborative knowledge-sharing.
On 31/01/2011 06:43, George Herbert wrote:
Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
As an advocate of keeping user friendliness and friendliness issues
separate in discussing enWP, I'd like to note that the gender gap is
On 31/01/2011 14:00, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/31/11 7:30 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
As an advocate of keeping user friendliness and friendliness issues
separate in discussing enWP,
I don't agree with you here, Charles. The tone of interaction, including
On 29/01/2011 18:23, Tony Sidaway wrote:
snip
I think Charles' point about the immediate after-effects of the
September 11, 2001 atrocity needs some expansion.
Maybe so, but I wasn't trying to make a broad-brush point.
[[Wikipedia:9/11 victims]] should give anyone not around at the time
some
On 26/01/2011 14:15, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Tom Jenkinstomjenkin...@gmail.com wrote:
StackExchangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StackExchange, a free
Question and Answer network of websites would start a website dedicated
to Wikipedia and Wiki questions if the
On 24/01/2011 18:47, Tom Jenkins wrote:
snip
StackExchangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StackExchange, a free
Question and Answer network of websites would start a website dedicated
to Wikipedia and Wiki questions if the community only supports the
project by voting for it.
I'm familiar with
On 23/01/2011 05:13, Tony Sidaway wrote:
'I must be very naive not to have realised, all this time, that the
so-called English Wikipedia was actually the American Wikipedia.
Or could that nomenclature reveal a somewhat suspicious starting
point?'
I don't see a problem with that choice of
On 20/01/2011 20:18, Tony Sidaway wrote:
In an article for Wired, Nathaniel Tkacz conducts an interview with an
early Spanish Wikipedian, Edgar Enyedy, who led a couple of dozen in
leaving the project to create a major fork in 2002. This is followed
by responses by Larry Sanger and Jimmy
On 19/01/2011 00:05, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 18 January 2011 10:56, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17/01/2011 15:30, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I suppose my problem here is understanding how the discussion goes
fromthe useful part of the web is expanding faster than we
On 16/01/2011 23:46, Tony Sidaway wrote:
We
don't need to be able to find every single thing on the internet, only
the useful stuff. A huge amount of the useful stuff is on Wikipedia.
This is true, but not particularly objective. The OP's question itself
has merit. The long-term view surely
On 12/01/2011 23:59, phoebe ayers wrote:
All of those things are true, to my knowledge :)
There's a page to collect Wikipedia10 media coverage at:
http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage
Three pieces of BBC coverage today: a World Service documentary
On 10/01/2011 15:09, David Gerard wrote
We're more than famous, we're part of the framework. How the hell did
that happen?
Do good by stealth technology. We're invisible to 17 kinds of radar. And
we flew in under the rest. Jimbo may get recognised in the street, but
who else?
Without taking a
On 21/12/2010 04:19, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Joseph Reagle's book on Wikipedia culture reviewed by Cory Doctorow
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/20/good-faith-collabora.html
Could be useful if you still haven't worked out what to get the
internet nerd in your life for Christmas.
All AGF, not
On 16/12/2010 20:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Good news from Wiki-research-l in case you're not subscribed to it...
Nemo
Messaggio Originale
Oggetto: Re: [Wiki-research-l] [WikiEN-l] Old Wikipedia backups discovered
Data: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:53:14 -0500
Da: Joseph
On 14/12/2010 19:40, George Herbert wrote:
I think Charles is describing groupings as of 2 years ago rather than
current. They've changed.
Oh, quite. What I described was history.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
I knew little about Web 3.0 (WP and Facebook and don't care having shown
Web 2.0 to be something rather than nothing) until I talked to Andrew
Turvey and Mike Peel of WMUK in a Starbucks one day. And I later
realised that some of what I had heard made sense. I floated this at the
London meetup
I appreciate the challenge in getting old versions posted again. But I'm
also interested in the folks, rather more than in CamelCase and UseMod.
As I asked somewhere else recently, where are they now? I don't mean
outing people; just what do we really know about the Old Bolsheviks,
shot or
I wrote
Never previously revealed to anyone, except to Paul August [...]
Not so much ooops as why don't I wear a paper bag over my head until
some time in February? that, for embarrassment. An offlist colloquial
comment in shorthand language to David Gerard, it went to the list. To
try to
On 13/12/2010 11:49, Elias Friedman wrote:
That sounds like the first draft of an essay that would be a more personal
alternative to [WP:Expert].
Not really: I know a couple of the group at the Welcome Sanger Institute
(Magnus Manske I have met often at Cambridge meetups; Alex Bateman came
On 11/12/2010 17:21, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we
On 12/12/2010 19:19, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I
remember telling a rather bemused American at dinner at the Alexandria
Wikimania about the four political parties
On 12/12/2010 19:49, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 December 2010 19:19, Daniel R. Tobiasd...@tobias.name wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I
remember telling a rather bemused American at dinner
On 11/12/2010 04:12, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
You weren't wrong about that, in
On 10/12/2010 05:02, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Tendrl:Differences
Everyone uses their own real names.
Meh. You lose good editors that way.
Potential contributors need
On 08/12/2010 14:45, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 December 2010 11:19, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Which mailing list would be more appropriate to be subscribed to to
get details of things like this?
wikimediauk-l usually gets UK-based events of interest posted to it.
There
On 04/12/2010 12:05, Peter Jacobi wrote:
WereSpielChequers, All,
1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than
the the number of articles
This is a weak argument. The constant activity of interwiki bots alone will
add a huge amount of database storage space without
On 02/12/2010 07:24, Peter Jacobi wrote:
Charles, All,
Are we glad to have five new substantial articles, or embarrassed to
have persistent five stubs? So has this made things proportionately
better or worse? Discuss.
Short stale articles at least openly announce that they are in
a rather
On 30/11/2010 11:20, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
All articles start as stubs, and grow over time. This does not happen
evenly, but there is no need for some to whine about it.
I think the point being made was that some
Stubs and how to handle them seem to be controversial still (or again),
which is rather surprising given that we have been going nearly a decade
now. I'd like to ask how many articles still are stubs, by some sensible
standard?
Points arise from that, clearly. But I'm hearing quite a lot
On 29/11/2010 17:59, MuZemike wrote:
Short answer: I think we have made a step in the right direction by
getting five decently-expanded articles as a result of ten stubs.
That's my answer also.
However, what about the ones that cannot be expanded? That leads to my
long answer below:
It
On 29/11/2010 20:18, MuZemike wrote:
Absolutely agree. There are a lot of articles that are not assessed
(though, for all intents and purposes, WikiProject assessments are not
exactly the same as stub-tagging on the actual article page itself) at
all, as well as a lot of articles that are
On 30/11/2010 01:46, MuZemike wrote:
And that's another problem that I am seeing more and more of. Call it
simply being lazy, unable to write actual prose, or a combination
thereof; but there are so many articles that get created that have only
one (likely unsourced) sentence, a pretty
On 23/11/2010 11:15, David Gerard wrote:
I meant, of course, a fork of Citizendium. Buh.
The knives seem to be out for the fork of (fork of WP). As you say, if
Tendrl is CC-by-SA it's all good, in terms of spooning content around.
Apart from noting that social dynamics of the uneasy kind is
On 24/11/2010 09:48, Fred Bauder wrote:
It is not the specific variation which is central. Anything that
successfully incorporates social media can succeed, as some Wikia wikis
have such as Lostpedia: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Enthusiasm is what makes the difference. Why does
On 05/11/2010 22:52, Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07FOB-medium-t.html
That has to be the first time I've seen WP:OWN analysed in a newspaper
article!
When it says no author is tempted
I've noticed a very much slower rate of loading of images for several
days now. It's affecting the work I can do. Is this a general
experience, or is it perhaps my ISP?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
On 03/11/2010 12:51, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:33:27 +, David Gerard wrote:
Anyone used this and able to report if the wikitext output is any
good?
Given that it's from M$, I'd expect code that you'd need a frontal
lobotomy to appreciate.
Don't care about that. What
On 21/10/2010 22:27, MuZemike wrote:
What? No Toilet paper orientation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
Proof positive that Wikipedia is still going strong when we have weird
articles like these.
I follow the MathOverflow site, where a question starting something like
On 22/10/2010 13:56, Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 21/10/2010 22:27, MuZemike wrote:
What? No Toilet paper orientation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
Proof positive that Wikipedia
On 18/10/2010 23:50, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Five versions of the name is positively simplex. The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Westbourne manages eleven without
overwhelming the article.
I think it is reassuring to have multiple names up front - people will
come to an article from
Something different to talk about. I have wondered for some time if it
is really the case that we have not addressed the issue of alias
names, where the point may simply be alternate spellings. This is not
particularly important for contemporary names that are already
Romanised. It is
On 15/10/2010 22:36, MuZemike wrote:
snip
That comes to my question regarding whether or not we are here to build
an online community or an online encyclopedia. Should we focus outwards
toward the reading/viewing audience, or should we focus inwards
towards the editors?
It was settled
inwards
towards the editors?
on 10/16/10 9:01 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
It was settled early on that we are writing an encyclopedia. Before I
started editing. What has happened since then? Well, we have had some
divas on the site who have thought that we should
On 14/10/2010 20:36, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious
On 13/10/2010 14:45, Fred Bauder wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
I don't know. One of them (#67) may be about you, but it's kind of hard
to tell whether
On 13/10/2010 16:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
So we got Conservapedia and some other conservative website accusing
Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. What else is new, or what else are
we to expect?
-MuZemike
Well, is there anything at all to it, or is it just bull?
Of course they can point
On 12/10/2010 21:37, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 October 2010 21:36, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if Lord Brooke [1] has seen that article yet.
[1]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8058885/Lord-Browne-review-round-up-of-reaction.html
Browne. Gah!
On 02/10/2010 01:36, Carcharoth wrote:
That looks like the paper I read a preview copy of a few months ago at
a wiki-meetup! I remember thinking much the same thing as David
(Gerard) at the time, along the lines of this is great stuff!. :-)
Indeedy. Two of the authors were there, and I had
On 24/09/2010 12:28, David Gerard wrote:
Citizendium is no longer Larry Sanger's personal project, but an
independent group run by its community:
https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2010-September/001510.html
The regulars hope the Charter will help revitalise Citizendium. This
On 24/09/2010 13:02, David Gerard wrote
But an encyclopedia with the semantic stuff actually being used -
that'd be *interesting*.
For certain readers, heavy emphasis on structured data would exactly
cover what they want: the world in an infobox. Of course many of said
readers may be
On 24/09/2010 14:21, Fred Bauder wrote:
He says, 'There is some seriously twisted stuff on
Wikipedia that has no business in a resource calling itself an
encyclopedia.'
I wonder what that is about?
He also says the money is running out. I wouldn't pay that any mind.
As a personal
On 11/09/2010 15:07, geni wrote:
It's an impressive example of churnalism.
Original source is:
http://booktwo.org/notebook/wikipedia-historiography/
Talk can be found at:
http://huffduffer.com/dConstruct/25256
http://www.slideshare.net/stml/james-bridle-dconstruct-20
I've always
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 8 August 2010 14:22, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR
than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would
Gwern Branwen wrote:
'British Museum pays for Wikipedia page views'
http://www.examiner.com/x-58002-Wiki-Edits-Examiner~y2010m7d26-British-Museum-pays-for-Wikipedia-page-views
I decided to ignore the whole prizes aspect of the BM residency.
That's a snarky piece, really, and there is no
Michael Peel wrote:
On 27 Jul 2010, at 09:15, Charles Matthews wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
'British Museum pays for Wikipedia page views'
http://www.examiner.com/x-58002-Wiki-Edits-Examiner~y2010m7d26-British-Museum-pays-for-Wikipedia-page-views
I decided to ignore
Jon Q wrote:
snip
One observation I've made is that for a good part, the editors who regularly
review content seem to look down upon many different types of sources online
-- and while there are real world sources that aren't online, they don't
seem happy unless they can easily click on
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 18/07/2010, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or systematic
problem like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
given case,
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
whatever
Carcharoth wrote:
It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
laws and regulations. But there is an element where Commons (and to a
lesser extent Wikipedia) is seen as acting like the copyright police,
Jon Q wrote:
The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- Come on in! Start writing!
Be bold! Break the rules! and you're heartened by the seeming generosity
of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The
problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
like further reading.
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Somehow this thread became about RFA standards. What happened?
True. We seem to be missing the point that the trouble with the
Administrators Noticeboard is at least in part that it is a
noticeboard, i.e. not a process for which there is a charter, but an
unchartered
Liam Wyatt wrote:
On 13 July 2010 09:05, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
James Alexander wrote:
On a related note: someone brought this Times article to the
meetup in
Boston Monday
http
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
But I also think that we all agree
that there's definitely a long way to go before en-wp could be considered
full. IMO we're only just scratching the surface of what we can eventually
achieve :-)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
interpretation of the anyone can edit part of
Where is our cheatsheet for Wikipedia editing? Is it any good?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Forrester wrote:
On 29 June 2010 10:05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Where is our cheatsheet for Wikipedia editing? Is it any good?
There's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheatsheet-en.pdf (on
wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Carcharoth wrote:
And I think people would be surprised
how many readers wouldn't dream of trying to edit, despite the
messages encouraging that.
Undoubtedly people (Wikipedians) are surprised that there are so many
readers who don't want to become Wikipedians in any sense. But we have
Alec Conroy wrote:
Wikipedia is synonymous with NPOV and changing that would be confusing.
But-- surely there should be somewhere in the Wikimedia family for
people to collaborate on works, even if they aren't working to make
NPOV, notable encyclopedia articles. Editorials and opinions and
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27 June 2010 06:47, Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like
a bad idea to me - the encyclopedia would shatter into an unnavigable
mess if every interest group were to split off their own versions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/07/james-murdoch-british-library
James Murdoch criticises the British Library's plans to digitise old
newspapers. And I quote: public sector interest is to distribute
content for near zero cost – harming the market in so doing ...
I think the WMF should
101 - 200 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
