On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
credible. If he was told that he wasn't a reliable source in WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
How's he supposed to know the difference?
Besides, once he is verified
On 10 September 2012 17:04, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
credible. If he was told that he wasn't a reliable source in WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The
issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
preference.
The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the
existing secondary
Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if there
is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list
become unfit to drive?
Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this
moment..to dismiss him as an elderly man googling
Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if
there
is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list
become unfit to drive?
Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this
moment..to dismiss him as an elderly man
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
On 8 September 2012 14:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he
could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw
his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of
spending decades
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 into
On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
No it doesn't.
I'll give you good odds on me being right.
Because I see the same thing week after week.
You mean leading author almost synonymous with rare interview assumes his
word is good enough for WP?
We've had a problem with courtesy for a long time; the entire internet
has. We're one of the few organizations that has made a concerted and
determined effort to address it, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/weekinreview/29cohen.html
Fred
No it doesn't.
I'll give you good odds on me
It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they
are the authority on their own opinions.
We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work.
Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze
over the most important bit.
I DO see these sorts
11 matches
Mail list logo
