Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
All that's happened is that the professionally produced material had
some specific attention towards making it readable.
The Wikipedia AFAIK doesn't have any formal processes to check that,
so
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
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to
fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first
David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with
the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue
how to deal with people who they see as being
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply.
With ten million registered editors and a handful of RfAs, that's
obvious.
They
don't generate evidence one way or another. It is a perfectly
Michael Peel wrote:
We block our precious new users at the drop of a hat, but an admin has to do
something pretty damned horrific to even consider removing their status, and
even then it takes months.
This depends on what you define as 'pretty damned horrific. I'd say that
it's
David Gerard wrote:
On 28 May 2010 23:21, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
With new contributors, we can both improve the articles and gain new
ones. It does not matter how someone gets here: if they care enough to
create nonsense, they can be persuaded to create sensible
Andrew Gray wrote:
Regardless of what technically happens to that submitted junk, and how
many boxes they tick in the process, we'll still fundamentally have a
space people can put prospective article content into, and someone has
to say no to it.
Is that true? When was the family of
David Goodman wrote:
Not bad in terms of function, except for the small size of the search
box, which should be twice the current size there. But it would
still be better on the left side, under the logo.
Ah, but it would be confusing to be out of step with other websites,
wouldn't it?
William Pietri wrote:
The community of editors definitely make this place what it is, but our
shared goal is to serve readers, and I think that should be paramount in
our minds. Especially in situations like interface design, where a
classic and incredibly common mistake is for internal
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Probing the bounds of your actual authority in our environment is a
necessary thing that all of us do with every BOLD action, it's a
consequence of the generally non-hierarchical nature of the projects.
So I don't think it's justified to flog someone forever when they
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 sources
even that
Shmuel Weidberg 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 FoxNews.com. When asked who was in charge now, the
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
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
AGK wrote:
On 17 May 2010 20:45, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
when he plainly
said in about as many words this was a symbolic gesture to diffuse and
refocus criticism
Mhrm, that's arguable. The flags that Jimbo relinquished meant that he
could no longer do such things as
Risker wrote:
On 15 May 2010 21:40, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Carcharoth wrote:
Next thing you know, journalists will be reporting from blogs by
Wikipedians and Wikimedians, Wikimedia blogs (some of those are
semi-official at least) and even (gasp) from Wikipedia or Commons
discussion pages! Some of the attitude displayed on internal project
pages is
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,
Cameron and Clegg have got to WP already? No, I must be confused, but
the new look has arrived on our pages.
My first reaction is that the watchlist arrangements are cryptic. (I was
always going to hate having to scroll to the top for the search box.)
Charles
Carcharoth wrote:
sigh
I'm used to typing the term for a page I know is there and hitting
search (instead of go) because I want the results of a search
rather than being take to the page (e.g. when searching for people not
listed on a disambiguation page, though they should be). How do I do
AGK wrote:
Basically, us set-in-our-ways old-timers aren't the target audience
for the Vector skin :-).
Indeed. Going back to monobook is not quite enough, though. Best to hide
the message speaking of We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia, too.
Charles
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
lobbying groups. A look through the articles in this category (if
accurately placed there) may help UK readers of this mailing list to
see what public policy means:
Keith Old wrote:
Folks,
According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for
researchers than Britannica.
http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia
snip
Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on Wikipedia by looking in
Is this an old thread or a new one that I missed? I'd like to read the
rest of the thread if it is still available.
Carcharoth
Oops, I appear to have answered a mail of Marc Riddell's from 17
September 2008 - for reasons best known to my email client. It will of
course all be online in
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sorry, that bit in brackets wasn't meant to be a summary of the
criteria for each class, it was a description of the difference
between the classes. Each has lots of other criteria, but they are
essentially the same for both.
Getting back to one of the main points: I
Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
You forget an important point. enWP has many readers and contributors with
English as second language. They usually use IPA as reference how English is
pronounced and have been taught English this
Nihiltres wrote:
snip
I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a given
article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the perceived
level of quality involved, is a good thing. The Wikipedia 1.0 assessment
system (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA…)
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 27 April 2010 21:33, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the
most difference to the reader. So I would make that central to any
system: from 5 to 6, say. I have seen perfectly
David Lindsey wrote:
snip
Finally, though this idea failed to gain any real traction on wiki, I would
like to state my support for the idea of adding a fifth criterion to
WP:WIAFA: 5. The article, if possible, has been reviewed by an external
subject-matter expert. Even if no such
Marc Riddell wrote:
And, on not-so-obscure websites, where there is a clear - and acute -
academiphobia present.
I can show you the academic mathematicians editing, if you like. It's
worth analysing the black legend that Wikipedia hates academics,
though. Fred's comment Serious academics
Fred Bauder wrote:
You can go back to the
early history of the article reality a little article I created March
11, 2002:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Realityoldid=27840
At a certain point Larry will chime in...
Fred Bauder wrote:
A lot of this sort of trouble results when an expert edits without citing
good sources. Students often can edit more successfully because they have
appropriate references at hand.
Interesting. This all sounded like absolutely standard blog comment
complaint: the kind of
stevertigo wrote:
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the prospect of a nice machine
synthesizer in the future (with the ability to provide real
recordings, of course) is probably sufficient justification for
continuing to use IPA all by itself.
Ah. The minimalist
Blog post from March, I think we missed it:
http://kdpaine.blogs.com/kdpaines_pr_m/2010/03/wondering-about-wikipedia-you-should-be.html
Depth rather than breadth, and some of the conclusions not easy to
interpret. Perhaps more negative edits because more people are ticked off?
Charles
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is
(in theory) anyone writing
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You are aware that Nupedia wasn't a wiki, right?
Certainly - I've even read the book I co-authored which mentions this
fact. The point I was trying to make is more like if you bolt a
community like a wiki onto Nupedia-like processes, you can expect a sort
of social
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I would be much more interested in a system for expert refereeing than
the present FA system. To some extent, the current peer review
process can already be used for this, but I don't
William Pietri wrote:
That reminds me of something I've been meaning to propose:
topic-specific groups of subject-matter experts who serve as resources
for article writers.
snip
I saw this mainly as an editor-pull system, rather than a expert-push
system.
Any such layer needs to take
David Gerard wrote:
But, what of it? they then ask. That it has let itself become a
project of no effective import. If it's not dead, it's moribund.
Shrug. Sanger is no Wozniak. He did great things in the early days of
WP. Subsequently he has seemed determined to prove that he has totally
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 16 April 2010 16:38, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Three were on the fence so while the article may report a 55%
success rate, it also is stating a 32% failure rate.
It's hard to tell from their scoring system which the three borderline
ones
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong
with it?
Dunno. Nothing wrong with it as PR, obviously, almost by definition. As
we know, what we can enforce (pretty much) is that people edit within
the rules; we cannot in any sense enforce the
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links
might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as
a first class member
Michael Peel wrote:
There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking here.
If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were done by
transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages
organised by both language and topic?), how could that be
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically
persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically
persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few
actual rights.
Charles
And why should links have any particular rights? External links should be
justified in the same way as
Matt Jacobs wrote:
I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their
additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard
expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption
of good faith involved in an editor removing an
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And
further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of
the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the
topic.
Carcharoth
That is why I despise the
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with. Taking
the attitide that External links is the name of a Further reading
section for reading that happens
Ian Woollard wrote:
* - there's been some new articles required since the Wikipedia
started up in 2001; knowledge has been created! New knowledge is
eventually going to set the level of continued growth of the
Wikipedia, perhaps about 500 articles per day or something. If you
look at the new
David Gerard wrote:
On 28 March 2010 17:18, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I just received an odd email suggesting I hand over my admin account to
the Wikipedia Freedom Fighters. I see that they did something similar
back in May. Whether this is an actual effort or just a way
David Gerard wrote:
On 25 March 2010 20:45, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
Well, they're not dwindling since admin rights don't get taken away on
inactivity. ;-) But to the general question, because the standard expected
of a candidate for RfA has gone up over the years?
David Gerard wrote:
On 26 March 2010 08:57, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given that WikiProjects generally will have a better idea of the
character and contributions of participants (compared to those whose
idea of RfA is an extended box-ticking process), I'd
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:25 AM 3/6/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken
David Gerard wrote:
This is beautiful and true, and you must watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkF5o6KPNI
(I have been at a pub with a trivia quiz where the table of
Wikipedians didn't enter because it wouldn't be fair.)
Thank God it doesn't reinforce any stereotypes. Oh, wait
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
To an extent this is true, but no more (or less) than saying all
volunteers are weird. And they are. There are bound to be exceptions,
but I find that with almost every single volunteer there is either
something mentally wrong, or there is something seriously lacking in
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken. (Notability has always been a broken concept, but the real
question 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
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
George Herbert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Perhaps this contains the
germ of an idea: a process Drafts for mainspace, a review debating
unuserfying. The Bizarre Records solution to our problems - just what
sthe
George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the
sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a
closing admin
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The present rules at Wikipedia are so many and
contradictory that it is possible to construct an argument with them to
justify almost any decision--even without using IAR.
I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing with
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we have no really universally agreed vision of what the encyclopedia
should be, almost any decision is the result of compromise [...] Personally,
I
think that's the worst way to find a
David Goodman wrote:
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
Ken Arromdee wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
be said in an article that has any content. X is
It's not quite a simple issue. I think we know vandalism is a long
tail phenomenon, i.e. statistics of average reversion time get
dominated by some very long-lasting bad edits. So for example median and
mean reversion times may be very different. The question is whether one
reads that as soft
The first of four films has just been screened - this is a documentary
series by Aleks Krotowski for 20 years of the Web.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/
is the website, with footage from the interviews.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Isabell Long wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 09:43:14PM +, Charles Matthews wrote:
The first of four films has just been screened - this is a documentary
series by Aleks Krotowski for 20 years of the Web.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/
is the website, with footage from
geni wrote:
2010/1/30 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Isabell Long wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 09:43:14PM +, Charles Matthews wrote:
The first of four films has just been screened - this is a documentary
series by Aleks Krotowski for 20 years
David Gerard wrote:
On 30 January 2010 23:15, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I hadn't heard the one about Arianna Huffington being an interesting
person, but not exactly a revolutionary. I suppose one caps that by
saying Keen is an uninteresting person
Sarah Ewart wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell
As of 28
Gwern Branwen wrote:
It is easier to attack than defend. If you want to justify high
standards and removal, there are easy arguments: 'what if this could
be another Seigenthaler?' 'what if this is fancruft Wikipedia will be
criticized for including?'
If you want to defend, you have... what?
Carcharoth wrote:
But this
feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a
minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of
others ones being worked on at the same time, and then the people
doing this rough-and-ready referencing moving on to other
Carcharoth wrote:
The interesting thing is noting at what point someone reaches some
critical mass of *real* notability (i.e. not Wikipedia's definition of
it) and they start to gain widespread recognition from their peers,
and then start receiving awards and whatnot, and also how competent
The Cunctator wrote:
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page?
I mean, what's the point?
Um, maybe email is OK in the
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
I would say the MilHist B-class criteria would be a good minimum
standard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/B-Class
* B1. It is
Carcharoth wrote:
Fascinating. Didn't they have the same name and birth and death year?
You aren't going to make us guess which person this was, are you? I'm
guessing 16th century and Huguenot.
Not far off. [[Ralph Baines]] and [[Rudolphus Baynus]].
Charles
quiddity wrote:
What to do about someone who has lost the plot?
For example, this editor seems to be going from article to article,
deleting every prose paragraph that doesn't have a ref tag (usually
everything except the intro sentence).
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any
Emily Monroe wrote:
Can anybody explain what PWD is?
Surely. But in another thread, I hope.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
quiddity wrote:
What to do about someone who has lost the plot?
For example, this editor seems to be going from article to article,
deleting every prose paragraph
Apoc 2400 wrote:
It is commonly said that anyone can remove unsourced information, and that
the burden lies on the editor who wants to include information to provide a
source. I have always taken this to mean that if I think something is wrong
or otherwise does not belong in the article, then
Gwern Branwen wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/technology/25link.html
But Google can do something that cowboys can’t: create more real
estate. The company is sponsoring a contest to encourage students in
Tanzania and Kenya to create articles for the Swahili version of
Wikipedia,
geni wrote:
unsourced BLPs are not however dangerous in a way that sourced BLPs are not.
Face it, slogans haven't got us very far in this discussion. A BLP that
no one responsible has looked at is certainly dangerous in a way that a
BLP that some one responsible has looked at may not be.
Nathan wrote:
The new arbitration case is an utterly predictable outgrowth of the
BLP mass deletions and their endorsement by the arbitration committee.
snip
What price reduction of arbitrators' terms, so that a January ArbCom
might have even less collective memory and experience?
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. snip
-- phoebe
I don't think Gwern was saying that sourcing is irrelevant, only
thatunreferenced BLP is a blunt measurement that doesn't return
David Goodman wrote:
Arb Com at this point seems very willing to encourage arbitrary action
by administrators, when we really need to be be moving in the opposite
direction, of requiring greater admin responsibility and care.
As far as I know, the principle remains that admins are personally
Ryan Delaney wrote:
snip
But this is an argument that inclusionists always make to anyone who
tries to delete an article that is missing something crucial -- they
put the burden on other people, rather than themselves.
snip
Yes, there's something to this line of argument. Why are PRODs not
Gwern Branwen wrote:
I see a lot of mindless fetishism
of sourcing here,
Oh, and mindless fetishsim about content, too. Let's remember that
there is a definite mission, which is to write a reference work. It is
not a new idea that encyclopedic works should cite their sources.
but suppose
James Alexander wrote:
I think the biggest thing was that Google thought that if we were
working with China and going along with their filtering they should be
leaving us alone.
So far, so standard for Western corporations in Asia. Oh, you mean we
have to understand the culture as well as the
This is one of those small earthquake, not many dead stories. But the
banner I read from Jimbo suggests the $7.5 m has been banked now, within
the Twelve Days of Christmas.
Anyway, we'll presumably still be discussing some of the same issues in
2011, whatever the Wall Street Journal thinks
Carcharoth wrote:
Er, how about: how much do people here use wikisource. I
think it is a great resource that gets under-used.
Oh, Wikisource is coming. Be afraid, be very afraid. But Wikisource
reminds me (not in a bad way) of Wikipedia five years ago: lot of
potential, things not quite
David Gerard wrote:
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki
concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but
hidden complexity.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
Fascinating! I note how the article Celilo Falls was created a brought up
to
four long paragraphs by User:67.168.209.23. Today IPs are not allowed to
create articles and some want to limit it to
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I do know with absolute certainty that if some admin had blocked me in
error early in my editing my response would have been to forget about
the site and not attempt to edit it again for many years, if ever.
This seems to be a big Web issue (no, I don't mean that some
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
WMC lost his admin tools over his block of me during RfAr/Abd-William
M. Connolley, but that was not by any means an isolated incident.
Mmmm, no. William's fuse is shorter than ideal. Obvious enough to many
people, and over the years there has been much
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote:
This is the one you were taken to arbitration over, and was the source
of your proposal that experts be banned from editing articles on their
expertise.
Not at all, completely incorrect, even though asserted
201 - 300 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
