At 04:08 AM 5/23/2010, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
[...]I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
preserve,
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
The combination results in a badly distended view of knowledge that has
wrecked more than a handful of articles on Wikipedia.
Some examples may help.
I already gave an example of the Marion Zimmer Bradley article: a published
author has a dispute with a
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Shmuel Weidberg ezra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told
On 17 May 2010 14:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
You could make an argument that the article might give an uninvolved
party a reasonable feel for the situation, but there still would be
effectively no way to incorporate the _facts_ from this article into
Wikipedia in a manner
David Gerard wrote:
The article is basically not even wrong. And that's because they
really don't care, and literally just made up some shit:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/16/jimmy-wales-fox-news-is-wrong-no-shakeup/
Sources of this type, even if owned by a large media company, need to
be
On 17 May 2010 16:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I would say the point of the Fox article is the subtext: no one rules
the WMF, ergo they would have no way to comply with legal requirements
such as a take-down order. NB the subtle solecism free reign (for
free
David Gerard wrote:
On his SharedKnowing list, Dr Sanger notes he's just joined Wikipedia
Review and heartily recommends it to all.
Yes, an ideal place to complain about getting blocked from enWP for
editing [[Talk:History of Wikipedia]] on the assumption that Wikimedia
Commons is part of
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Nathan wrote:
Obviously it would be an impossible task to study all potential
sources and make a proactive determination of reliability. We hope to
some extent that folks citing academic sources have vetted them in
some way as to their credibility, but with mainstream news
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If riddled with errors means has more (frequent) errors than other
sources, then this makes some sense.
If riddled with errors means has errors that we have recently had our
attention called to or has errors that happen
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
preserve, less obviously-compromised motivations, and _significantly_
greater circulation
To return to the topic of the original post, we have a practice of
assuming reliability based on content categorization. We've never
examined Fox News and determined Fox News has substantial quality
control at the editorial level, including fact checking and high
journalistic standards. Similarly,
[ simulcasted to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Reliable_sources.E2.80.94_some_of_these_babies_are_ugly
]
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told FoxNews.com.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I don't believe that this is, by any means, only a problem with Fox
although they might be the most obvious and frequent example.
To a first approximation, mainstream media reporting about Internet
institutions is largely worthless. They mostly know what a webpage is,
Charles Matthews wrote:
I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted)
who mouth off about the doings in the usual hyperbolic terms that we get
used to on mailing lists, might have to reconsider their approach to
commenting so freely in public, given that this is
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the
very least they would have
16 matches
Mail list logo
