On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The criteria are the same as for any other source: whether it is used
in publications that are acknowledged to be reputable. It is the way
the outside world looks at it.
You are replying to the question what rules make sense by answering
the question
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode
dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush Limbaugh
isn't a reliable source.
Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush
Limbaugh does or says (which is
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode
dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush Limbaugh
isn't a reliable source.
Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush
Gwern Branwen wrote:
The [[dwm]] deletion discussion has caught the interest of some of the
more nerdy online communities:
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b8s29/the_wikipedia_deletionists_are_at_it_again_this/
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1163884
It's interesting
On 5 March 2010 13:25, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Charles Matthews
Oh yes, and what Carcharoth said about FLOSS history needing the
secondary sources: if they don't write the history, it isn't just WP
coverage that suffers, but the whole
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2010 13:25, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Charles Matthews
Oh yes, and what Carcharoth said about FLOSS history needing the
secondary sources: if they don't write the
On 5 March 2010 13:30, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of these deletions are on the complete absence of evidence that
anyone outside the project actually cares.
By project you mean dwm, not Wikipedia,
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
As usual, one has to sift the arguments. Why aren't blogs included under
RS? That would be because they are generally unreliable?
One of the things that's bizarre about notability is that it requires reliable
sources to establish notability.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
As usual, one has to sift the arguments. Why aren't blogs included under
RS? That would be because they are generally unreliable?
One of the things that's bizarre about notability is that it requires reliable
sources
Hopefully someone will write a proper history of the FLOSS
(free/libre/open source software) movement someday. As someone who has
sometimes tried to find sources on early 20th century stuff where it
seems no-one wrote a history, I certainly hope the FLOSS history
doesn't end up the same way.
Perhaps in future we could send these to the incubator (unless their
BLP or the like) instead of deleting then see if the people want to
work on them?
-Peachey
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
11 matches
Mail list logo
