phoebe ayers wrote:
interesting quick article about the trials and tribulations of other
open access encyclopedia projects:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/14/encyclopedias
In another direction, I'm interested in the issues we have in citing
online reference works.
(a) We do
phoebe ayers wrote:
interesting quick article about the trials and tribulations of other
open access encyclopedia projects:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/14/encyclopedias
Quite a lot there about plato.stanford.edu (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy), which certainly seems
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Now has a Slashdot story:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia
Which links to two articles:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Threat not a promise: newish book, anyone read? I see the Signpost are
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Review desk|looking for a
reviewer]]. I did try to get a publisher interested in Teach Yourself
Wikipedia in early 2006. Do we know Michael Miller, the author? I must
say Participate
Mike Pruden wrote:
It isn't uncommon for the normally active user to have hundreds, if not
thousands, of pages on their watchlist. Then, when somebody makes an edit
that a certain user doesn't agree with, it gets changed or outright reverted.
It's like, at the least, a form of a bunch of
Steve Bennett wrote:
Strangely enough, the flaggedrevisions feature seems to provide a lot
of what we need:
1) People don't have to watch changes as they happen, they can stumble
on them when they go to save a new change
2) Changes are marked as patrolled, so far more efficient than 10
David Gerard wrote:
2009/12/10 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
The logic is wrong, in that the pile-up factor is not the main issue:
coverage on someone's watchlist at all is the issue. Divide the number
of articles by the number of active Wikipedians and you find
phoebe ayers wrote:
A note that this week marks the 250th issue of the English Wikipedia Signpost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
I rely on WP:POST to stay in some sort of clued-up zone. I imagine
hundreds of others would say the same.
Charles
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Soxred93 wrote:
I feel inadequate. 32. :'(
Well, I have less than 1% of the total. But apparently more than 0.5%
That would be around 20,000 redirects! boggle
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the typos for MySpace.com and google.com had been created
and deleted by db-R3 (typo unlikely to happen in real life). I
recreated them with an edit summary pointing to that page, as
Steve Bennett wrote:
Here's another: when someone searches for an article (let's say norwegian
antarctic expedition) that doesn't exist, let's encourage them to add it -
we have successfully located someone interested in a topic that we don't
have an article about. This is a good start.
The
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton just volunteered for something. Anyone got favoured VA
exhibits we don't have a pic of? Get back to him with room,
collection, cabinet, etc :-)
VA = Victoria and Albert, a
Soxred93 wrote:
I feel inadequate. 32. :'(
Well, I have less than 1% of the total. But apparently more than 0.5%
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we need affirmative action in favour of articles about Africa?
No because we already have this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
Which
David Gerard wrote:
I'd like to work out some way of advocating the missing article
lists to potential new contributors. On en:wp:
http://enwp.org/WP:WANTED
http://enwp.org/WP:MISSING
I've been writing new stub articles just from those in the past couple
of days. It reminds me of how and
Carl (CBM) wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
(I happen to think that starting by improving existing articles is probably
a better training,
and certainly an easier one. The question is how to motivate newcomers, to
do
Emily Monroe wrote:
I think some
mottos of the day would also be a good idea.
There is [[Wikipedia:Tip of the day]], which I had rather lost sight of.
The sequence of new tips seems to have been revamped at the end of 2008.
Could be combined with mottoes of the day, no?
Charles
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/wikipedia-known-unknowns-geotagging-knowledge
Mark Graham writes. Map of density by geo-tagging round the world, and a
sensible comment that broadband is only just coming to parts of Africa,
meaning we can expect more editing from there in
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
On Dec 3, 2009, at 4:00 AM, wikien-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Apparently people should use edit summaries and only use American
English. Agree with the first, disagree with the second (Americans
asserting ownership on spelling is a negative rather than
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6710237/Wikipedia-
ordered-by-judge-to-break-confidentiality-of-contributor.html
is a news story about the British High Court ordering the WMF to disclose an IP
number of an editor. This is in line with the statement of the Privacy Policy,
as I
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Given all of the above, how could the community better reward
contributions and nurture new editors? How can the Wikimedia projects
become a friendlier and more welcoming place to share knowledge?
We'd love to have your input on the talk page of that question!
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/wikipedia_on_the_wane.html
Some interesting comments have been posted to that blog.
And of course some off-topic ranting. The original
David Gerard wrote:
We do this stuff so people can use it, but it's a bit off to turn
around and claim we should be paying them for the privilege.
Reading the blog comments and thinking about it, I decided ingrates:
hope the people you're planning to give Christmas presents all say they
Durova wrote:
Mr. Murdoch wants to shift to a paid access model for online the online
versions of his news holdings. He's negotiating a deal with Microsoft's
search engine toward that purpose.
It's hard to understand the conjecture that Wikipedia ties in with those
plans. If anything,
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol20/?pg=16
Argument intelligent enough, use of notable is off-base though since
for us notability is an attribute of topics.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Carcharoth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/wikipedia_on_the_wane.html
Might be of interest to some here.
Up to three BBC TV interviews will be occurring today. They are
scheduled on the BBC News Channel for 5.50 pm, 7.50 pm (that should be
me), and we think
at 6:55 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Could you describe briefly what the editorial policy of this forum will be?
Charles
I can. I want to promote a relaxed atmosphere without allowing outing or
trolling. It should be a place where editors can
Jake Wartenberg wrote:
I've created website to complement these mailing lists a venue for
discussion. It's at wikien.net http://www.wikien.net/. Please let me know
if you have any feedback or questions.
Could you describe briefly what the editorial policy of this forum will be?
Charles
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting
born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
there will always be a need for new articles.
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
As you can see, this doesn't really contain any info useful to anyone
but server admins. Which is why it was originally posted to
wikitech-l, not wikien-l.
True, but
Brian J Mingus wrote:
I believe the banner will be judged, not based on the almost
universally bad
impressions of it that I have seen from Wikipedians, but based on how much
money it makes. I don't think it's surprising that the banner rubs many
Wikipedians the wrong way. It was created by a
Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/wikipedia-lesson-plan/
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211
references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
The article you posted seemed to
take the epistemology as the basic lesson: if you tell me we know
that, what do you mean by know? It's a reasonable assumption that
being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can
Fred Bauder wrote:
http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/wikipedia-lesson-plan/
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211
references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected
article I had started,
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want
us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad
one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say,
it could always be worse.
It is pretty much traditional for the
Ryan Delaney wrote:
I'm still not seeing the connection, but I'll try one last time. It
sounds like you're saying that discussion of deletion process
distracts us from working on building new, better articles on topics
that we already have, and that we shouldn't worry too much about
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any
article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure
wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect
Ryan Delaney wrote:
I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not
familiar with how you are using rationalisation. Can you explain a
bit more please?
Wiktionary meaning (3) for rationalization is
A reorganization of a company or organization in order to improve its
David Goodman wrote:
snip
That this leads to non-notification is only part of the problem. It
also leads to a failure to correct errors. When I see a bad speedy,
unless I think it's really important, I leave it alone, and do not
revert it, although I know it will result in people coming to
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
I created a journal article in the end. Not part of this experiment,
but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I
Samuel Klein wrote:
Forwarding from foundation-l. This is lovely - bold of HuffPost to include
Wikimedia in its wide-angle view of today's media, and appropriate
considering the way WP helps make sense of the chaos of breaking news.
Right. I wonder whether the ambiguous use of access in
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider
below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
after all.
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't
Ryan Delaney wrote:
That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the
reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I
think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's
beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid
Sidewiki is from Google, is a toolbar feature they have come up with for
commenting web pages, and is apparently launched tomorrow:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/help-and-learn-from-others-as-you.html
So now the entire Web gets talkpages. Sadly this doesn't actually make
the entire
Bod Notbod wrote:
I heard a radio show discussing side-wiki and one issue they raised
was that it gave web owners no control over what people said about
their site in the wiki (as opposed, say, to on-site comments).
Hmmm, and it would be a way of commenting on any site while keeping your
Surreptitiousness wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that
we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid,
arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions?
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate
Wikipedia is not a
bureaucracy for deletion
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be invoked, as its not a rule; IAR
should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props
for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
Or perhaps [[WikiReader]], if you'd prefer facts.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:37 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Well the WP:SOHE idea to me seems a reasonable compromise -- one that
makes small parts of copyright texts open to our research needs, while
still respecting the needs of authors to keep whole
David Goodman wrote:
Quite apart from the incredible range available from a research
library, the great majority of Wikipedians, even experienced ones, do
not use even those sources which are made available free from local
public libraries to residents. Many seem not to even think about using
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/10/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
If you are in the US and you blog and are paid or receive oher
commercial benefits for it, the FTC requires you to reveal the
relationship:
David Goodman wrote:
The deletion of improvable articles
because the small number of participants at AfD who are interested
and willing to rescue them is one of the reasons for people losing the
interest in Wikipedia.
Counterfactually, suppose you had a team of universal researchers you
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
An example of the kinds of problems you bump into when depending on
primary sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swampyankdiff=prevoldid=312682486
But there should be no problem under policy for pointing out BOTH what
a respectable primary
David Goodman wrote:
If enWikipedia has only 4,000 active editors, and we don't do better
at this than, we are going to keep up with only a very few articles.
The plan will work , though, for the most watched articles,
fortunately where they are needed, because that's the ones where
people
stevertigo wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I believe you are misreading what is said here. It is not being stated
that Arbcom has no time to do the job. Rather, it is being stated that
if it wants to do the job, it doesn't also have the time to deal with
all
Ray Saintonge wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
More thing on my to-do list: Get Arbcom to actually deal with
adjudicating policy and sections therein.
That can't work without opening up the broader question of how policies
are formulated and later amended. Any kind of policy review
George Herbert wrote:
snip
It's not so much that it's impossible to do and make stick, as doing
it and making it stick requires the right people, timing, attention,
and focus, and those are all in perpetual short supply.
Well, of course I respect your hands-on experience. I was coming at
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/25/09 5:36 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It is more a matter of editors taking back the wiki from the tiny
minority that is abusing others. You can't vote for people who openly
advocate not enforcing civility rules and expect the arbitration
stevertigo wrote:
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
adjudicating policy.
Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
by
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I've always lamented the fact that people have no idea what arbitration
means on Wikipedia. That's one of the biggest reasons why arb-com is
such a failure, no-one ever treats its decisions as final. Arb-com
doesn't have to legislate, that's not its purpose. Its
Ken Arromdee wrote:
However much anyone says that Arbcom doesn't make policy, given that the
rules are complicated and often ambiguous, deciding whether something fits
existing policy is often the same as making policy. So you just end up
with Arbcom making policy and pretending not to.
I
Surreptitiousness wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that
Surreptitiousness wrote
I don't really know what you do with early life articles. I'm still
working out how you define early life.
Case-by-case, I should think. There is one on John Milton, going up to
1640 or so, which makes a lot of sense. Some lives are heavily segmented
(e.g. Winston
Steve Bennett wrote:
But you question whether it's even encyclopedic. Apply the specialist
encyclopaedia test: would a specialist encyclopaedia about skiing in
North America list this ski area? It ought to. So the answer is yes.
Hmm, could be wrong, here's a webpage says Kettlebowl:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't ski. You are partly arguing that there should not be a
notability guideline for skiing sites. And partly that a specialist
skiing encyclopedia should be a directory
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hmm, I feel that Wales' post is kind of at cross-purposes to the meme
he's trying to defeat:
1) Meme: Newbie editors who make edits to random articles will require
those edits to be approved before going live.
2) Rebuttal: Newbie editors will now be able to make edits to
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm
somewhat concerned that a reliance on reader survey will indeed
tend to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the
sake of other stuff that is not too
David Goodman wrote:
So put them in another space: call it directory space.
The problem is that having a distinct article is treated as a question
of merit--we word things this way ourselves: deserves an article.
Thus there is a continual pressure from spammers and hobbyists to
include a
Surreptitiousness wrote:
And I don't find anything in this to disagree with, and yet we
disagree, so obviously one of us or both of us are making
assumptions. I don't see reader input into what we do as a bad thing,
for starters. In fact, I thought the very ethos of Wikipedia was that
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace rather than
just type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think
it doesn't still work in principle.
I can't do now what I did then. IP's cannot create new articles, and
you have to wait
Surreptitiousness wrote:
And let's not forget that if we're looking at books, we have to take
into account appendixes, something you have to fight to justify on
Wikipedia. That list you want to split from your large FA? Hmm, is
it a notable list? That list you want to include in your
Surreptitiousness wrote:
We've lost the idea that our readers can let us know what is missing
by starting new articles, because we enforce standards that don't
reflect that given reader's concerns. Yes, there's the obvious
argument that if we adopted the standards of the most edits, we'd
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/21 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and
popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear
that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about
the person.
Carcharoth wrote:
Is there anything like this page on the English Wikipedia?
Apparently WP:SO TOUGH has yet to be created.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly
atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are
regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community,
they often have a group of
Emily Monroe wrote:
Yeah, it does seem to me that the more spammy the article, the more
likely the person simply doesn't know of Wikipedia's COI, spam, and
notability requirements. It's not that they are writing in bad faith,
they really don't know that, for example, just because their
stevertigo wrote:
Note also that I find your comment don't feed to be a bit.. vexing.
I insist that you refrain from making such accusations to me or anyone
else for that matter - particularly when you've demonstrated your
substantial capacity to intimately misconstrue both the subject and
Steve Bennett wrote:
Learnt about this the standard way knowledge about wiki syntax
proliferates: diffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gippsland_Lakes_Discovery_Traildiff=314633894oldid=314622174
Yes, good, but {{reflist}} is also progress and needs to be made compatible.
Over in the recondite if productive arena of WikiProject Mathematics,
fresh eyeballs have been looking over articles in areas that retain a
structure imposed up to five years ago, and not much liking what they
see. Basically there were POV forks introduced in areas, to calm down
edit wars, at
Amory Meltzer wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining.
Actually this is not so much an example on bullying, but on _precisely_
why we have WP:COI.
The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs. Is this an
encyclopedic topic? Not
David Goodman wrote:
the overwhelming majority of speedily deleted articles deserve to be
so. -- yes, so they do. But of the people who contribute them, many
can be encouraged to learn how to write adequate articles and perhaps
become regular contributors. People who write inadequate
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Over
the past years the number of vandals and other simple troublemakers has
dropped and our technical means of dealing with them have improved. We still
have the army of hobby-cops and they aren't going to sit around idle. So we
get the situation that writer above faces.
Emily Monroe wrote:
The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals
we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).
Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this
question not out of spite, but of curiosity.
It is composed of two things.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing.
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying.
Actually a point I felt was missing from NYB's talk, which took
privacy as general theme, was this: as we know from WP:NOT, Wikipedia
is not concerned with indiscriminate information. This ought to
provide some clear blue water between us and popular journalism, which
actually uses
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Don't fully pretend to understand this, but given there was stuff about
a WikiJournal on the list recently, I thought this article might be of
use to some of the participants:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/last-fm-mendeley-victor-keegan
stevertigo wrote:
Saw it. Liked most of it.
Diffuse, weaker on facts than theory?
So Wikipedia Review gets credited with the idea of attack page, or
something. Oddly, I think we knew all that anyway, or at least the
rudiments of the debate, pre-BLP qua policy. But that could be one for
Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't
think I'd write most known, but I wouldn't be rushing to correct it
either. I guess I'd see it as an example of poor quality writing
rather than an error as such.
Time to bid this thread goodbye. But even best known is scarcely
verifiable, so all this can be
Steve Bennett wrote:
No, readability has much more to do with appropriate use of
vocabulary, sentence length and phrase construction. Correct grammar
that is unfamiliar to the audience decreases readability. Just like
referring to the spit and image of someone would be less readable
than the
FT2 wrote:
If we did try, then a WikiJournal would be a classic case where we could do
the job right using present tools, and achieve something that most similar
sites won't do. Try this:
- Anyone can post up a paper, in usual academic form (ie authors info
would be required, formal
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:25:28 +1000
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Disagree. High quality, comprehensive, readable information is far
more important than English grammar pedantry. Most well known or
best known? Whichever one is currently in the article.
This alienates a large number of academics who are already very
interested in learning about and contributing to Wikipedia but have
difficulty justifying it as legitimate work.
[[Academia]] claims ...Academia has come to connote the cultural
accumulation of knowledge, its development and
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/12/09, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course there's a process for speedy deletion.
Not at all. An admin simply deletes an article. That's a speedy deletion.
You're both correct, said he soothingly. An admin deletes after going
through
Keith Old wrote:
Folks,
The New York Times reports:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/the-wikipedia-battle-over-joe-wilsons-obama-heckling/
If journalism is the first draft of history, what is a Wikipedia entry when
it is updated within minutes of an event to reflect changes in a
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Realistically, I think we're really
only approaching the end of the middle of the initial stage. By which I
mean the initial stage is to get as much written about as much as we can
as possible.
I'd put it this way: the business of flagged revisions indicates a
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'd put it this way: the business of flagged revisions indicates
a feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a first
draft, and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
Yeah, that's
David Goodman wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
[[WP:BEFORE]] seems to need some work, at
301 - 400 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
