On 6 February 2013 08:20, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Pownce is clearly a footnote by now. One of WP's purposes is to host
such footnotes. So the writing issue boils down to reducing froth to
footnote coverage.
I went on a massive cleanup of [[OpenOffice]]
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 08:20, Charles Matthews wrote:
Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
DG raises an interesting writing issue, nevertheless. Remember Pownce?
This is the startup over which Andrew Lih went ballistic - with risk
of distortion in
On 6 February 2013 09:07, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Pownce is an interesting example of why we need to keep these kinds of
articles around: every time a new social network comes along, people
jump on to it like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Showing them the
many failures
On 2/6/13, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
Yeah. But that is a bit of a canard in some cases. It is a question of
whether coverage endures and continues or peters out. i.e. Whether
people/sources (the
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F
How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]],
[[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time
On 6 February 2013 13:06, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2/6/13, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
Yeah. But that is a bit of a canard in some cases. It is a question of
whether
I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
which rates do people have access to it?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Charles Matthews
On 6 February 2013 14:04, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
which rates do people
I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
which rates do people have access to it?
Wikipedia is a summary of generally accepted knowledge.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F
How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]],
[[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time
If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
notable, no?
No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is irrelevant.
My bad. My comment was based on the apparently mistaken
On 6 February 2013 15:14, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out information which is no
longer of interest to readers or editors. Perhaps this could be one
criteria justifying deletion, or perhaps some other form of archiving. We
could
Oops -
the thesis that salience or its perception changes over time begins
to look tenable
is the point I was hoping to make.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
notable, no?
No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is
irrelevant.
My bad. My comment was based on the apparently mistaken
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
notable, no?
No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
by at least occasional publishing of information about in in contemporary
reliable sources.
That's not strictly tenable, as the range of history is so vast that
contemporary historians only ever write about a small portion of it,
and even
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
by at least occasional publishing of information about in in
contemporary
reliable sources.
That's not strictly tenable, as the range of history is so vast that
contemporary historians only ever write about a small portion of it,
and
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or
journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the
canon of knowledge and could then be archived.
Maybe, but I don't think you can generalise. You
On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or
journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the
canon of knowledge and
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:33 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or
journal article over 250
It's a problem. Information about the current status of these projects
may have fallen off so much that little or nothing can be obtained from a
notable source. So you are left with the splash and little else. No
obituary available.
Fred
I don't think you need a *notable* source for all information, though, just
a reliable one. If the project officially shut down, a notice from the
project itself should suffice, right?
I suspect in most of these cases, though, the project never officially
died, just petered out. If the
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you need a *notable* source for all information, though, just
a reliable one. If the project officially shut down, a notice from the
project itself should suffice, right?
I suspect in most of these cases,
23 matches
Mail list logo
