We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a
website. We regularly defame people.
Tom
On 12 November 2012 13:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yet another PR company busted:
dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of
a
website. We regularly defame
Note, in other words, that the defence of the PR editing here is
entirely deflection
To an extent.
It also represents frustration along the lines of: whenever one of us does
a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do a bad thing it
gets no traction or notice
I don't
On 7 October 2012 14:56, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
cheating
on his wife with a
On 11 September 2012 16:23, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
That comment sounds like it was written by Peter Damian. Not everyone,
even Wikipedians, recognize or keep in mind the fact that there is a
subversive principle (or really, many) underlying the Wikipedia model.
It intentionally does
On 12 September 2012 17:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 September 2012 16:50, Matthew Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
One problem with that approach is that OTRS is not seen as representative
of WP; the administrators are. If the admins are widely perceived as
being
How exactly? On OTRS we handle much more sensitive private info :-)
Tom Morton
On 12 Sep 2012, at 17:26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
UTRS was created because handling ip unblock requests on OTRS would violate
our privacy policy
On Sep 12, 2012 6:17 PM, Thomas Morton
On 11 September 2012 15:00, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
If we know a VIP or they knows us they do get rather gentle and forgiving
treatment. They may email Jimbo and a quiet word may be passed to someone
to counsel them regarding how to deal with the community and any problems
On 11 September 2012 17:06, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2012 17:05, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It's a new topic. Addresses the general question rather than rehashing
Roth.
Correct. When the topic changes substantially, the subject line should
Wow high and mighty much?
I haven't had chance to look into this; but I bet I know what I will
find. Someone being a bit of a jerk to him, which has led to having to
take this approach. Which is about rebutting Wikipedia rather than the
source which we cited.
Rather than whining about him we
No it doesn't.
I'll give you good odds on me being right.
Because I see the same thing week after week.
Tom Morton
On 8 Sep 2012, at 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I haven't had chance to look
than your word isn't a reliable source.
If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning
the reliability of him/her as a person.
Tom Morton
On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho
On 18 July 2012 13:03, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 18 July 2012 12:32, james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Actress is certainly not obsolescent in common usage, and I would
suggest it is not the role of Wikipedia to redefine the English language.
The point here is
On 8 July 2012 12:44, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi there,
Telling a user that I took the effort to archive thier article is
considered spam? What if you are the author? Dont you have the right
to know?
See this :
Changing the template to whinge about another user is not going to help
your cause in the slightest.
Tom
On 8 July 2012 15:15, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2012 12:44, Mike Dupont
On 31 May 2012 16:59, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
There were a number of flaws in this experiment that IMHO reduce its value.
Firstly rather than measure vandalism it created vandalism, and vandalism
that didn't look like typical vandalism. Aside from the ethical
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 requesting
changes
as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response
On 18 April 2012 13:45, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
To be fair about the time-criticality: it does matter in that mirror sites
will refresh their WP dumps on some basis that probably isn't daily. OTOH
we do offer the OTRS route also for complaints, and that presumably offers
a better triage.
Charles
Unfortunately not. There is a
On 18 April 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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 have an actual dialogue (I sent an
email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night).
If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that
...@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 have an actual dialogue (I sent an
email to Daria about getting
Hi Dario,
This proposal went through a long review process, involving community
forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010.
The Berkman research team first approached WMF to discuss this study in
January 2010. They suggested a protocol to recruit English
All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to
http://dods.co.uk/
It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about
relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...).
Currently the images are licensed as freely usable with a non-commercial
clause,
But the article whichever version is used still needs a massive
citation needed tag added, and better sources. The monkey stuff seesm
to come from the experiment described here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/02/monkey-see-monkey-facepalm/
Trouble is, most
If somebody is being a
jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing
upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom.
+1
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On 3 October 2011 11:02, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
According to our article [[Facepalm]], this is a startrek internet meme
indicating an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief,
disgust,
shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of
Ideally if we are going to push gammification it should be centered on
quality content primarily.
Gammification is hard to pull off in a way that ensures maintaining quality
in output - because by it's very nature such a system is gameable. And you
will tend to find, anyway, that the most
A pretty mature apology in the circumstances I suppose.
Tom
On 14 September 2011 19:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Johann Hari admits he did it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html
- d.
It's always sad to see this cast as a left/right thing - or Wikipedia has a
liberal bias. We equally have huge problems with right wing agenda's on
some articles. And most of the BLP issues aren't related to politics, but to
all manner of sides (sexuality,political,ethnic,historical and those are
For those who professionally seek attention,
You know; rather than political bias, or political editing, this is probably
the root cause of problems in the specific articles he highlights.
Not that I'd call it their own damn fault, but they are in those
situations deliberately.
Tom
Development is being consciously moved to this model, because the devs
have realised that repelling the volunteers is a bad idea.
That's *great* news!
A lot of the community upset about every little thing is just why
wasn't I consulted? [1] Sometimes this is appropriate and
reasonable,
This reminds me somewhat of the Vector rollout, I've just today come
across another example of why we need to upgrade newbies to Monobook
once they start editing. Monobook has a rather useful Email this
user option in the sidebar. I suspect Vector has something hidden
away in a dropdown
Hey All,
This new feature has caused a bit of flack on English Wikipedia; which gives
me a bit of a platform to bring up some issues that have been rolling round
in my brain recently. A lot of the criticism on Wiki has been overly harsh -
so I want to try some constructive feedback here on the
34 matches
Mail list logo
