On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org wrote:
On 1/13/09, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
AFDs cannot conclude as a merge. AFDs are meant to be a binary decision.
Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any
2009/1/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
cleanup is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
*adds* their opinion (or that of others)
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:24:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their search
results? Google's search results establish the prime time articles.
--
This position however
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
What would that serve? I do not understand that!
Please help me understand what non-indexing stub articles will serve?
Wouldn't that hamper the entire point of stubs. We advertise via
I am sorry I still do not get it.
1) Is your proposal going to completely hide unfinished articles from the
public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?
2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or
not? A process like requests for publishing?
3) Isn't
AFD itself is quite broken. Decisions made at AFD may
not necessarily represent the best interest of the site. The use of DRV had
skyrocketed over the passing years. Originally there was no need for a DRV.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com
I am sorry I still do not get it.
1) Is your proposal going to completely hide unfinished articles from
the
public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has
decided
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com
4) I am not ready to accept anything I am forced to accept. Your
tone
implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass
deletions. Mass deletion itself has no
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction
related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month.
Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart
I think not. We already have plenty of that. Tens of thousands of articles
were deleted via redirectification, afds, prods and speedy deletions as well
as other methods.
Just because some people are being extremely aggressive does not mean people
like me will settle with something less aggressive
Indeed. Our (Wikipedias) most visited articles is littered with fiction
related topics. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages
for a list of most visited articles. There are links to other tools which
provide more detailed statistics.
For your convenience:
Mothly
1. Wiki (+ 268 redirect hits per day)
2. The Beatles (+ 60,737 redirect hits per day)
3. YouTube (+ 6,163 redirect hits per day)
4. Christmas (+ 384 redirect hits per day)
5. Ponzi scheme
6. Wikipedia (+ 713 redirect hits per day)
7. Favicon.ico
8. Deaths in
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what?
How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction
related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009
Ah well, Wikipedia was fun while it lasted.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.comwrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what?
How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
If you read throughly, I
Or Nüpedia. That would be great.
Á la Nü Jazz, Nü Metal, etc.
--
Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:05, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
We should rename this project Newpedia or something.
Hmm... maybe a little jazzier
How about Nupedia?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM,
Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would
hasten the process.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.orgwrote:
I would assume such a system would just create a non-published
namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes
Explain why :P
Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a
limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do
for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial
increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion
(not
In a message dated 1/14/2009 7:58:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
same
as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted
In a message dated 1/14/2009 8:54:02 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
Indeed but doesn't every non featured article fall under not ready for
consumption category?
- White Cat
That's odd to me. You think an article needs to be FA before we should let
How you figure out which pages go in the non-google section is
somewhere in between only FA and everything. Figuring out that exact
point is up to debate :P
For example you can say any article with a dispute tag on it... But
saying that means that some of our religion articles may not be
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 11/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete -
take
your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can
always
You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
That there would be a prime time Wikipedia, which any reader can find, and
then a sub-surface Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go
to prime time.
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
reader
wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are acceptable in the
mainstream,
but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
edit.
Makes
Consider it this way, if the other side is cheating in chess, why should you
want to switch to checkers?
There is no consensus behind the current practice so acting as if it is
commonly accepted does not go beyond being a mere misconception.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Noah
It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual
deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
people who know would improve them.
And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted
Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy
deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the
direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]]
and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines.
That said, even if only 1 in
AFDs cannot conclude as a merge. AFDs are meant to be a binary decision.
Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any
further.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
Makes
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take
your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always
be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk
has been rock solid all along. A problem has emerged when people
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
postings may
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
Carcharoth
--
-Ian
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
sub-par
I don't think this would work properly, sinve don't forget this is an
encyclopedia, not a blog, and it is supposed to have the same content
from everyone; otherwise it would get pretty messed up.
And when you say that only selected articles would appear, you're
saying there would be some
But it's very probable that that person clicked the article to
actually read it/search it, not raise its quality, which would be in
2nd place, if the person happens to know about the topic.
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 16:22, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Carcharoth
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Falcorian
alex.public.account+enwikimailingl...@gmail.comalex.public.account%2benwikimailingl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual
On 10/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright
line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.
Somebody clever may be
In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:09:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
and...@soschildren.org writes:
only need to
give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles -
no real section Entitled History, so no requirement to copy that
Five principal authors of Wikipedia.
I can
I am sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. Merge
was proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it was
never commonly accepted. If it was I want to see the evidence of that
consensus.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:41 AM, wjhon...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:06:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
I am sorry? Who encouraged merging? There is no consensus behind that. Merge
was proposed as a compromise to the mass deletion/inclusion war but it was
never commonly accepted. If it was
I do not have a personal war over fiction. I hardly edit the topic area. I
should have no more than 10 edits in the past year plus. It is very
distasteful to improve articles on fiction nowadays with the amount of crap
you need to put up with. And this thread isn't only about fiction related
In a message dated 1/8/2009 12:40:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
As for your interest in this thread (intended point)... I think Geni is
right in saying that our current practice of merging is in violation of
GFDL. We cannot ignore any part of the GFDL
2009/1/8 wjhon...@aol.com:
Whether or not Geni's interpretation of this particular point is on-target
is tied as well to our current blatant disregard for mirrors which do not even
link to the history page in the first place. I mentioned that a while back
and since then I know of nothing
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem the GFDL is horriby
vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
questions about and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.
Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual licensing.
Discussing is taking place on EN here: [[Wikipedia talk:Transition to
CC-BY-SA]]
A final vote will be on Meta to move all the projects.
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, White Cat
In a message dated 1/5/2009 11:21:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the
history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close
enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do
Any admin can merge page histories through import or delete/undelete.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:34 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/5/2009 11:21:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you
In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:20:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
Any admin can merge page histories through import or delete/undelete.
- White Cat
Then that's a problem isn't it?
The rest of our editors cannot do this. That's a
It is not a problem at all. A merge is a slow and delicate process. It takes
time an energy. One should not be trying (or claiming) to be merging
hundreds of articles in a matter of a day.
That is of course the kind of merge people normally do. In the case of this
thread a merge can be the
In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:30:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
It is not a problem at all. A merge is a slow and delicate process. It takes
time an energy. One should not be trying (or claiming) to be merging
hundreds of articles in a matter of a day.
Just like deleting a merge requires admin tools. You are welcome to file a
bugzilla on this.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:33 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:30:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
It is not a problem at
In a message dated 1/7/2009 11:35:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com writes:
Just like deleting a merge requires admin tools. You are welcome to file a
bugzilla on this.
It's not at all like it.
In this case, anyone can do a merge. You
If you and I were the people involved, we could reach a compromise.
Indeed, for about 90%of the people who care about the issue, we could
reach a compromise. This leaves 2 ways of proceeding:
remove or silence the most difficult 1%.
compel them to reach a compromise--which amounts to binding
In a message dated 1/4/2009 10:52:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
p858sn...@yahoo.com.au writes:
[[Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes and_characters 3]]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes_and_characters_3_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAR#Episodes_and_characters_3)
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of unimportant articles in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to
whatever you were doing.
I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
Deletionists strike back!
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of unimportant
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-stanton-usability-grant-stop.
html
Wikipedia's occasionally expert-unfriendly culture that turns off those
with the most to contribute.
Wikipedia culture that gives little priority (or even respect) to
activities focused on the community
He seems to be following the letter of the rules. I'd say he's ignoring the
spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the
spirit of the rules too. In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that
different people can agree on them in the first place, which makes it hard
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com:
I already prepared the popcorn. Oi! Who deleted my popcorn?
Deletionists strike back!
- White Cat
User:TNN meets the persistently violating copyrights; requirements
of WP:BLOCK. Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved
2009/1/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved
content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can
nail them for persistently lying in edit
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved
content from one article from another (the rest of
Well... You are welcome to file that. Unfortunately I am not an admin.
And also once his block expires he'd stop calling them merges. I really
don't think that would slow him down. He changed his tactic after his
6-month ban from fiction related articles expired.
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5,
Like I said... blocking TTN for an hour or two or even indefinitely wouldn't
solve the problem.
The real issue at hand is that we are at a forking road and we need to
decide which way we want to go:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
The main problem is a
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/Wikipedia
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.comwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_visited_articles
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is
promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
the content of a
Indeed. I can sign under this. Wait... I have... :)
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:03 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
only to fans. What really harms
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not articles on minor
subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is
promotional
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of unimportant articles in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to
whatever you were doing.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
Oh and please go out of your way to completely disregard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Episodes_and_characters_3
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
68 matches
Mail list logo
