stevertigo wrote:
Note also that I find your comment don't feed to be a bit.. vexing.
I insist that you refrain from making such accusations to me or anyone
else for that matter - particularly when you've demonstrated your
substantial capacity to intimately misconstrue both the subject and
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
OK, here's what I think.
Let's hear it.
You have shown you are prepared to troll on this list and others.
You are no doubt referring to unrelated issues with regard to certain
officers. The issues I raised all dealt with obvious lapses in
stevertigo wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
This would be another swipe at [Officer] - don't feed.
No, Charles, it was not a swipe at [Officer]. If it was a swipe at
anything corporeal all, it was at the way BLP paranoia and the
BLP-police-state often
Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, Charles, it was not a swipe at [Officer]. If it was a swipe at
anything corporeal all, it was at the way BLP paranoia and the
BLP-police-state often appears to bring about an institutional
violation of our most core policies. As in the case of the
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing.
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying.
Actually a point I felt was missing from NYB's talk, which took
privacy as general theme, was this: as we know from WP:NOT, Wikipedia
is not concerned with indiscriminate information. This ought to
provide some clear blue water between us and popular journalism, which
actually uses
This is a very valid point in terms of another way of approaching the issue.
(In evaluating the speech for completeness, do bear in mind that I only had
a certain amount of time and couldn't make every possible point, but I
should have found room for this one.)
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying. What are you trying to say,
exactly?
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
This would be another swipe at [Officer] - don't feed.
No, Charles, it was not a
stevertigo wrote:
Saw it. Liked most of it.
Diffuse, weaker on facts than theory?
So Wikipedia Review gets credited with the idea of attack page, or
something. Oddly, I think we knew all that anyway, or at least the
rudiments of the debate, pre-BLP qua policy. But that could be one for
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Diffuse, weaker on facts than theory?
Hm. People strong on facts, are typically weak on the theory, and
vice versa (and so on).
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing. (That, and of
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing.
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying. What are you trying to say,
Readers of this list who have not already seen or heard it may be interested
in a talk I gave in July at the 2009 Wikiconference New York. The (somewhat
pompous) title of the talk is Wikipedia, the Internet, and the Future of
Privacy.The video of that talk has now been posted and is available at:
237mb downloadable in Ogg format - is there not a streaming version somewhere?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Privacy.The video of that talk has now been posted and is available at:
13 matches
Mail list logo
