I think you can share any or all of the following rules of thumb, in order:
"make proposed changes to talk pages.
ask other editors to help you update an article.
avoid editing articles about you/your organization directly,
unless you are fixing vandalism or typos, updating stats, or adding sou
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard 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 at the speed
limit, that
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 pr
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madeleine_Astor&di
On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee 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 at the speed
>
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very
patiently to someone what our definition of COI is and is not; and the
response is "you're telling me that if I sail close to the wind on NPOV but
don't quite go over the line, th
On 04/18/12 7:26 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
"Besides, it's their own fault for listening to Jimbo anyway. They should
know enough about Wikipedia to understand that he doesn't make policy. I
mean, he's just the public face of Wikipedia, why would anyone who needs to
know about Wikipedia policy li
On 18 April 2012 19:20, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> We're not talking about some genuinely arcane thing like the definition of
> some term using a zillion clauses. We're talking about a case where
> (regardless of any internal Wikipedia hierarchy which says that guidelines
> aren't true policies) th
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 officia
On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem is not the ratio between editors and biograp
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the
> ratio
> > of editors editing within policy vs edit
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Slrubenstein was a rock. Never could be trolled or drawn into a hostile
> exchange. He did have very strong disagreements with people. The one
> I remember him best by was over the proper expression of dates, and
> over whether or no
On 18 April 2012 15:26, Ken Arromdee 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 references
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> hatchet job or an infomercial. This i
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bob the Wikipedian
> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians
>
> Oh dear. I see from reading that page that not only have we lost Ben
> Yates, but also Slrubenstein.
>
> http://en
>> 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 re
On 18 April 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
> negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
> my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally
> favoured. Not doing
On 18 April 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe 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 properly.
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
On 18 April 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> Well, it is still true that in a conventional encyclopedia, everything goes
> through vigorous professional fact checking *before* publication. We have
> nothing to compare to that. Not even Pending Changes. Surely that is a
> very, very significan
On 18 April 2012 14:24, Tom Morris 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
> 'ethically'!", I have a
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,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Morton 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 were surpr
>
> 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 sign
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>
> 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 prominent
> printed encyclopaedia
On 18 April 2012 13:55, Charles Matthews
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 soundbite, and is
> almost certainly
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton 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 a real-life WIkipedia are
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >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
> time.
> > How many commercial encycl
On 18 April 2012 13:45, Andreas Kolbe 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 wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dal...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton > >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 v
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >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
> time.
> > How many commercial encycl
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton 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 time.
> How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better?
I hope you're joking here. :)
Just
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" wrote:
> PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. C
On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard wrote:
> PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce
> trust in Wikipedia.
>
>
> Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
>
> "When the talk pages were used to request edits, it was found to typically
take days for a respon
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 Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman 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 to other Wikipedi
36 matches
Mail list logo
