On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they
assume no responsibility whatsoever for content
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their
deliberate attempts to do things wrong.
Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient
It certainly happens.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboardoldid=522638898#Muna_AbuSulayman
The rest depends on how you define often. How often is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Wyatt Lucas darthyut...@gmail.com wrote:
What about infoboxes and leads? They must mention ethnicity, religion,
sexuality, etc. somewhere.
--
~~yutsi
Sent from my iPhone.
To give some examples:
The article on Steven Spielberg says in the section on his
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
The French Wikipedia is written in the French language, but it isn't
French. It is hosted by an American charity on servers in America (and
a few in the Netherlands, I think). French law doesn't apply.
This is
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 19 August 2012 10:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite wrong, and a dangerous fallacy to promote, Thomas. To give
an
example, a few months back, German Wikipedian Achim Raschka got a phone
As French Wikimedians are unlikely to see this thread here on wikien-l (and
wikifr-l seems moribund), I've dropped a post about this to wikimedia-l.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-August/121744.html
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
I've been told (and have verified) that the French Wikipedia indeed does
without categories to mark people as Jewish, LGBT, etc.
I actually quite like that approach.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen
Wikipedia needs flagged revisions, so that anonymous edits are approved by
someone who is actually committed to the idea of building an encyclopedia,
rather than to malice or lulz.
Here is an example: half the internet (and at least one book on haircare)
thinks that Erica Feldman or Ian Gutgold
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
There's no great drop in the number of editors:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28September_2011%29.png
See
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
Editors making
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
There's no great drop in the number of editors:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28September_2011%29.png
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 17 May 2012 02:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Editors making 100+ edits a month in English Wikipedia were at 5,000+ in
early 2007, and are now down to less than 3,500.
Sounds about right
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs?
I've had a look at some stats. See
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
According
Risker,
This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about
pending changes.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the use of
Pending Changes until significant changes to the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very
patiently to
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 4/19/12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our
company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product
recall
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Continuation of conversation:
Look, we're all impressed
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for picking the topic up again, David.
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
unless an exception can be made according
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days.
Yes, but it takes place *before* publication. :P
Not at all.
My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm;
they
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. What we
have here is an ongoing loop in being able to read WP:COI properly. I
believe the guideline on COI to be the best available take
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
One of those would be me :)
A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians
individuals from CREWE where we could
About four months ago, to check what the current rule was about image
placement at the beginning of a subsection (before or after the header).
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:23 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a quick straw poll:
When was the last time you looked at the Wikipedia
firmly in
BLP policy. Could we continue that part of the discussion there?
Andreas
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No eventualism is one principle that I would like to see
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2012 17:20, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So you have been arguing that without the BLP policy, and without the
noticeboard set up to help compliance with the policy, just the same
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think a serious position paper on BLP is possible. There are several
aspects:
* We are currently not very good at recognising when biographical
information is indiscriminate (see
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2012 14:04, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_%28radio_presenter%29
This is a rather broad and (as I've noted) hideously
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
ii) Be respectful of the article subject and be prepared to work with
them if they raise concerns, and don't needlessly antagonise them.
I wrote a couple of essays about this a while ago.
I would second this. In addition, I believe we should allow
borderline-notable people to opt out of having a biography, to prevent the
sort of drama we are currently having with the Hawkins biography.
Otherwise, we are digging our own graves. As we all know, editor numbers
are stagnating, or
Nice to talk to the real RickK for a change. :) Any chances of your making a
genuine comeback?
Best,Andreas (Jayen466)
--- On Mon, 15/8/11, Rick giantsric...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Rick giantsric...@yahoo.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] User:RickK2
To: Wikipedia English wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
There was an article in the New York Times a few days ago, on a related theme:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=2
One of its arguments was that there are whole cultures that lack published
reliable sources.
Quote:
---o0o---
In
If you try making the article more succinct, Carcharoth, you may well find
editors reverting
you and claiming that you are deleting reliably sourced material and
censoring what you
don't like. What policy would you cite in response?
In a way that is a new problem. Most of our policies are
--- On Sat, 4/6/11, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
(start an RFC already and let's centralize
this nonsense!)
SlimVirgin started an RfC yesterday, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content
A.
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take
into account
that even talking about the article on this list might
affect ranking.
What is needed is to improve the article; it
. And that was the
end of that conversation.
Andreas
On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I don't want to get that clever, to the point that
we take
into account
that
editor notified
them of this thread?
WereSpielChequers
On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's just delete articles we don't
like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
You see, I
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a
wider problem
though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as
participants, rather
than
neutral observers and reporters, in the political
process.
I'd
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 21:56
I'm skeptical that we should have an
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 22:38
On 25 May 2011 11:34, Andreas Kolbe
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Then you've missed the point. The point is not that
[[Corbin Fisher]] is
about a gay porn company. The point is that it's
written in PR style,
complete with a blue call-out box:
Except
dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay
porn bit. :Þ
You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant
and obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms
http
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
George,
Can you please address a couple of points that I
believe have been brought
up in this thread. You may want to read the previous
emails that more
clearly
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
I don't agree with either statement.
The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects
on
Santorum) is
notable. It's covered
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
The Santorum controversy... article has 2 sentences on Savage and the
neologism, no coverage of the consequences on Santorum's career,
Santorum's comments regarding it, or critical
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH gmbh0...@gmail.com wrote:
From: GmbH gmbh0...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11
On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at
that
level. It's so offensive on one level that academics
and political
commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than
addressing the
rather deep Hey,
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get
itself represented
twice, with two different titles (one of which
redirects to the other).
Personally, I think redirecting the
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this
Wikipedia article is the
second result.
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
From: Mark delir...@hackish.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 13 May, 2011, 8:28
On 5/13/11 7:57 AM, Andreas Kolbe
wrote:
The job of WP:V
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The problem is that Wikipedians like to make the complex
world simple, in
order to create nice rules and pretend that what we do is
objective and
editorial judgement and POV can be excluded. This is a myth
and a dangerous
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
From: Delirium delir...@hackish.org
Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what
verifying
information with a reliable source means, rather than a
problem with the
principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to
think through what
verification means. And it's malice in most cases
where editors insist
that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography,
based on
now.
A.
--- On Thu, 12/5/11, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
From: Mark delir...@hackish.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, 12 May, 2011, 22:15
On 5/11/11 2:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe
wrote:
A while ago
--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Verification not truth must not be a suicide pact
and certainly not an
excuse for sloppy publishing of gossip on BLPS.
The idea that someone cannot challenge a source fact simply
because
they doubt its truth is very useful,
--- On Wed, 11/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
A while ago there was a discussion at WP:V talk whether we
should
recast the policy's opening sentence:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability,
not truth—
whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia
The [[Fan service]] article on en:WP has for some time included an image
advertising Kogaru Diaries, a graphical work that features depictions of
child sexual abuse (erotic spanking of prepubescent girls).
The work is not notable; nor is its creator, beyond the fact that he is banned
from
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Academic writing makes a judgement
about what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an
academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions.
(I am
likely to skip ahead and
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Our article talks about her dalliances with communism,
feminism, and sufism,
and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries
when
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA
standard, we'd need
to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer
was allowed to
start from scratch and write a new article,
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
From: Mark delir...@hackish.org
On 2/4/11 6:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe
wrote:
I do not permit any of my students to cite your
encyclopedia as any
kind of reliable source when they write papers for me.
Wikipedia is too
much a playground
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead Rawat has often been
termed a cult
leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]]
writings - stating
to it.
Andreas
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 13:25
--- On Fri, 4/2/11
We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see
little evidence
that
we adhere to it.
Andreas
After such examples are found they still need to be edited.
The editing
community varies in its tolerance, experience, and
compliance. What in
one context might slip though will
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is
more of a news
aggregator than an educational resource, and the
reason is that the
community likes it that way.
Parts
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries,
which are a
different sort of source to news articles.
While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;)
Tough old bird.
Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism,
and tells us
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some
people take
a percentage approach to it. My view is that the amount
of weight
something has in an article is a function not just of the
*amount* of
text, but also
The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken
over by
single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and
continued
participation by a reasonable number of independent editors
with new
voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification
stagnation. At
various times, one or
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just
letting everyone edit the website.
Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly
encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
From: MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody
starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on
biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there
72 matches
Mail list logo
