I confess, I got took link-wise. I've been trying to ignore the nasty
people on Wikipediocracy and was
not sufficiently diligent when one seemed nice.
Nevertheless, I think it would be problematic if GGTF banned editors in
a questionable arbitration
were not permitted to make reasonable suggestions here, as was the
implication regarding Neotarf.
I personally don't intend to make a lot, but it's the principle that
matters...
On 12/24/2014 11:36 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Please avoid using Examiner articles. Unreliable sources...it's user
created content like Wikipedia.
And what Nathan said. Please tread lightly. (From personal experience!!)
Sarah
On Dec 24, 2014 8:22 AM, "Nathan" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Carol Moore dc
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-biographies-favor-men
http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-shows-favoritism-on-wikipedia
hmmm, interesting.... but dated...
http://www.examiner.com/article/number-of-women-going-down-on-wikipedia
Merry Solstice!
See my video - http://merrysolstice.com
Carol, are you familiar with that author and his history with the
projects? He's not exactly an objective journalist (or a
journalist of any kind, actually).
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
[email protected]
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
