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
PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce
trust in Wikipedia.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
The paper's message appears to be Wikipedia's rules need to change.
(Also, Jimmy Wsles is a
On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce
trust in Wikipedia.
snip
Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
When the talk pages were used to request edits, it was found to typically
take
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 time.
How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better?
On Apr 18, 2012 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
PR people who edited Wikipedia
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 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 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
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 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not arguing Wikipedia is the solution. But the argument that
printed encyclopaedias are better at this I know to be false.
More generally, arguments that make a comparison between an idealised
fantasy Britannica and
On 18 April 2012 13:55, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or
paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite,
rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm;
they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with
some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a
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 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 Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:58, David Gerard wrote:
Also note that in my experience, it is pretty much impossible to get
across even to nice PR people that they have a really bloody obvious
COI. I have spent much time trying. I would guess that this is because
getting their POV in is, in
On 18 April 2012 14:24, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
User:Fluffernutter gave a talk about paid editing last year at Wikimania,
comparing it with needle exchange programmes. Much as my gut feeling is god
no, don't give an inch to PR people even if they are claiming to act
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 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
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page
that specifically
asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors
in spelling,
grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add
or update facts
with references such
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians
Oh dear. I see from reading that page that not only have we lost
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio
of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a
On 18 April 2012 15:26, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012)
page
that specifically
asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor
errors
in spelling,
grammar, usage or facts, provide
On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Let me get this straight. You are arguing It is okay to for Jimbo to tell
the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely
the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy.
The COI guideline is not an official
On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
close to a line.
If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive
The pending changes stuff should probably be restarted in a new thread
(or the subject line changed, whichever is best). I've never been
clear, though, how 'recent changes' works, let alone pending changes.
Take a recent edit I reverted:
Dear Wikipedia contributors,
Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to
contribute to Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey
Abeyta, an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. You can read a more detailed description of the
26 matches
Mail list logo
