David Lindsey wrote:
What we need, then, is not a way to desysop more easily, but rather a way to
delineate highly-charged and controversial administrator actions, and the
administrators qualified to perform them, from uncontroversial administrator
actions, and the administrators qualified to
On 1 June 2010 05:56, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious
liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls
to one's
On 31 May 2010 20:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Interesting, AGK. Are the ideas important, or the personalities?
Here, you just demonstrated my concern even further.
Now I understand why you are able to write at such length. Rather than
make your arguments based on facts,
Again, this gets long. If allergic to Abd Thought, or to lengthy
comments, please don't read. Nobody is required to read this, it's
voluntary, and you won't hear a complaint from me if you don't read it.
Actually, the mail triggered moderation, the list is set to 20 KB
max, which is low in my
(continuation from Part 1, preceding.)
I never sought the desysopping of JzG, as an example, and didn't
argue for it for WMC. I argued for *suspension* until the admin
assured ArbComm that he would not repeat the use of tools while
involved. JzG's actions had been egregious, and still ArbComm
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
Risker
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to
skip two. This is part one.
Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :)
You could write the lengthy version of your comments on various topics
in a
At 12:56 AM 6/1/2010, Durova wrote:
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious
liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls
to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia
Risker wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
While I understand where you are coming from, it bears noting
that some people would like a limit of length both on the short
and the long side, and you would in the eyes of some, fail on
At 09:07 AM 6/1/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 1 June 2010 05:56, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] It is hardly surprising that, in this weak economy, wise
editors have been declining offers of nomination.
This is IMO asymptom of there being insufficient admins.
Yes.
And again,
On 1 June 2010 15:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't actually agree with Sue on that particular summary being
all that insightful. (Sorry Greg!) But a lengthy summary did in
fact please Sue in that particular instance. So making the moderators
bar posts like the one
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
nothing
On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in
there.
Now you know how
At 09:38 AM 6/1/2010, AGK wrote:
Derailing meta-discussion with criticism of specific users stinks of
axe-grinding.
I criticized an argument with an expression of concern about how an
administrator might apply that argument. That remains within
metadiscussion. I specicifically disclaimed any
At 09:57 AM 6/1/2010, Risker wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
There is a 20K limit. That's lower than usual, my experience. I think
it's silly, since it is easier to ignore one 30K post than to ignore
two 15 K posts. But, hey, I
At 10:01 AM 6/1/2010, you wrote:
On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to
skip two. This is part one.
Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :)
You could write the lengthy version of your
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
I'm not a
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have
nothing better to do, and
Folks,
The LA Times health blog Booster Shots reports:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/06/three-cheers-for-wikipedias-cancer-info-well-two-and-a-half-cheers.html
As it turns out, information on Wikipedia can largely be trusted, at least
as it pertains to cancer. That should
The problem is the fundamental issue of rapidly changing content; a
snapshot analysis will never give you a good grasp of an article (or
all of Wikipedia's) general reliability, because any article can be
perfectly accurate in one minute and horribly misleading in another.
Any article about
Keith Old wrote:
The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncologyhttp://chicago2010.asco.org/:
Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth to the
professionally edited database, it was
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncologyhttp://chicago2010.asco.org/:
Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth
23 matches
Mail list logo
