toddmallen wrote:
People are readily identifiable by the information given about them
anyway. How hard is it to find the Star Wars kid's name, even from our
article, where all the sources we use readily publish it, or a google
search on the article title brings it right up? If something is in
A recent recycling of Aaron Swartz's analysis of the difference
between who-makes-the-most-edits, versus who-contributes-the-most-content:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway
I think we all know the real story, but it's fascinating how much
traction
This should be required reading - it completely upends fundamental
assumptions about our content, and has huge implications for things
like deletion. The sense that our inclusion and notability policies
put us at odds with readers who are not major parts of the community
has always been
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:39 AM, geni wrote:
2009/1/3 Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com:
This should be required reading - it completely upends fundamental
assumptions about our content, and has huge implications for things
like deletion. The sense that our inclusion and notability policies
Phil wrote:
This should be required reading... The sense that our inclusion and
notability policies put us at odds with readers who are not major
parts of the community has always been there, but this troublingly
nails it: the population of people who write articles and people who
delete
Steve Summit wrote:
Inclusion and notability policies
ought to be based neither on what an anonymous contributor is
interesting in writing, nor what a self-appointed policy wonk
deems notable or encyclopedic, but rather, on what some
nontrivial numbers of our readers are interested in
2009/1/3 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I think that is could be, not ought to be. The mission is not to
maximise readership: as of early 2009, it still to write the
encyclopedia. You know, the old Wikipedia some of us have thought we
are writing for a few years now.
As
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. The article is
fundamentally flawed - you can see it contradicts itself with no other
knowledge or figures to hand.
They say that The bulk of Wikipedia is written by 1400 obsessed freaks who
do little else but contribute to the site, but then go
Heebie wrote:
So it seems to me that Swartz's work backs-up Wikipedia as being a
truly crowd-sourced project, and only goes against Wales' original
remarks, which were a bit worrying in the first place. Or am I getting
the wrong end of the stick here?
A two-layer model of how content
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
toddmallen wrote:
People are readily identifiable by the information given about them
anyway. How hard is it to find the Star Wars kid's name, even from our
article, where all the sources we use readily publish
10 matches
Mail list logo
