[WikiEN-l] Atlantic on Wikipedia and PR

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay On January 11, 2013, James Heilman, an emergency-room physician and one of Wikipedia’s most prolific medical editors, was standing watch over the online

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Another little tidbit for the "common sense" grist: While her mother was still alive, Demi Moore stated her birth name was Demetria. Virginia Guynes died in 1998. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi > > Moor

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan wrote: > The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was > on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People > Magazine as reliable sources is laughable. Where do you think t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi Moore. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan wrote: > The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was > on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People > Magazine as reliable source

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Ummm... common sense says that if someone says what their birth name is, about 50 years after they were born, when decades of documentation -- including interviews -- says something different, that someone is making up the new info. Either Demi Moore was incorrect in 1996, or she is incorrect now

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

I've cleaned it up. ... and, it's been reverted back into its crufty revisionism. Good job, Tenebrae. On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Steve Summit wrote: > Ken Arromdee wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore > > Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says th

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Long Dong Silver]]

Long Dong Silver is genuinely famous. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:35 PM, George Herbert wrote: > Fred? Could you please explain why you suppressed the revisions? > > None of the criteria seems to apply. > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Steve Summit wrote: > > It's still in Google's cache

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

This is a mistaken understanding of what "unbalanced" means with respect to Wikipedia. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. > > > > Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably > >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering. On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder wrote: >> From: Fred Bauder > >> I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take >> into account >> that even talking about the article o

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith. This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on wiki-en. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ia

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

There's also this: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html *Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

Huh? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. > > You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. > > Fred > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@list

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH wrote: > > From: GmbH > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] > > To: "English Wikipedia" > > Date: Tuesday, 24

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet. On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > I'm skeptical that we should have an article. > > The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article > about something whose promoter specifically intends

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff > >> that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica. > >> > > I tak

Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect

The real problem is that people are perfectly willing to lie about themselves. "I never slept with that woman." "I don't fund the Tea Party." "I'm not a hypocrite." etc. etc. On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Sarah wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:38, Scott MacDonald > wrote: > > "It fails o

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

Did he say he was working for Koch's PR firm? On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > 'Being really good at it' is subversion when they aren't actually really > > good at it, they just disregard the rules. I wont speak for George, but > > yes, > > doing it in secret makes me thin

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

thin the Wikipedia, and then other places like > Wikipedia Review and eventually in the press. The more people that > look at the bias, the less sustainable the position of the conspiracy > becomes. > > > On 15/03/2011, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunct

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote: > > The Koch brothers are mostly unknown. ... > > ... It is Ken's assertion that there are "many > > people highly motivated to write misrepresentations and >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, David Goodman wrote: > > It is possible to provide arguments against the reliability of any > > source whatever. (And in the other direction, it is possible to take > > most sources and selectively quote them to provide e

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

Of course, if an interested minority party has effectively infinite money, they can start to tip the scales. On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: > On 14/03/2011, David Goodman wrote: > > It is possible to provide arguments against the reliability of any > > source whatever. (And

Re: [WikiEN-l] Drake Bennett: Wikipedia ten years on

It was a "temporary experiment" that was transparently neither temporary nor an experiment. I think I got chewed out for pointing that out at the time. I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia could have become if it truly stayed experimental, instead of aspiring to the lesser goal of a better Encarta. C

Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia, which wasn't going anywhere. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 17 April 2010 03:15, David Gerard wrote: > > In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit to Citizendium: > > > > http://en.ci

Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins

By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project. It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this undergo. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > WereSpielChequers wrote: > >> >> What are the likely results of a dwindling numbe

Re: [WikiEN-l] In defence of the minor edit

Yes, trying to force people to do big edits is a bad idea. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:19 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I'm afraid I have to disagree with David Goodman's final paragraph > calling for an end to minor improvements to articles. I have done many >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

one else has yet > really written a comprehensive biography. > > Which comes back to the point of whether Wikipedia should be the first > to do so (we can produce something similar to the mini-biographies > already out there, such as the four that The Cunctator found, which >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

JustFixIt. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth > wrote: > > > And no-one has yet created a redirect? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell > > PS. I forgot. "Bob Corell" gets a lot of hits as well, and should be a > redir

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

Sheesh. I was on a press conference call today with one of the deleted people as a speaker. *Robert Corell* is the Director of the Global Change Program at The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment and is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Policy Program of the American M

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

Jimbo has never been an active editor. The BLPs aren't being deleted for being shoddy, they're being deleted for not having references. On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Cool Hand Luke < failure.to.communic...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > > > "Wh

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

At the same time, *Always leave something undone. **Give the author a chance.* *Build the web.* *Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.* and *If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.* On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Cool Hand L

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

Just restored a former prime minister. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > 2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen : > > > > >> silent mass deletions are now an acceptable admin tactic. > > > > That bit's not ideal, I'd think they shoul

Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator coup / mass deletions

Why don't we just delete Wikipedia? Then we won't have any of these problems. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2010/1/21 David Gerard : > > > That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a > > {{BLP-prod}}, where someone has a few days to put the re

Re: [WikiEN-l] Climate change on Wikipedia

Clearly this is just a plot by scientists to take money from oil companies (well, only some of them, because Shell and BP support action) and give it to investment bankers in order to build bird-killing windmills. This plot was hatched back in the 1960s, when MIT climatologist Ed Lorenz discovered

Re: [WikiEN-l] IAR

; stevertigo wrote: > > "Communal sense" does'nt mean anything -- the *Nazis* had one > also. We > don't let "wikiality" guide article development for a > > reason -- why should "wikiality" continue to guide policy? > The Cunctator wrote: &

Re: [WikiEN-l] IAR

hooray for godwin! On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM, stevertigo wrote: > stevertigo wrote: > >> Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good* > >> dicks to act like dicks? > FT2 wrote: > > No. I'm saying IAR ensures that /if/ an admin wishes to act > > against a genuinely problemat

Re: [WikiEN-l] IAR

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM, stevertigo wrote: > > 2009/10/4 stevertigo : > >> Then do we even need WP:Civility, if we have IAR? > David Gerard wrote: > > That's actually a subclass of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. > > Well your heirarchical classification skills leave something to be > desired. By

Re: [WikiEN-l] IAR

Because it reminds people that the true responsibility to be a good Wikipedian lies with themselves, and not official police or arbiters. On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Tony Sidaway wrote: > > That's intrinsic to ignoring all rules. If they could give you a rule > > for wh

Re: [WikiEN-l] Classic commentary

ate a poisonous atmosphere > >>> here." - Larry Sanger > Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, on which side of the door do you see yourself, Steve? > The Cunctator wrote: > > Ah, the good old days. > > In case anyone doesn't get the injoke, C

Re: [WikiEN-l] Classic commentary

Ah, the good old days. On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On 10/3/09, stevertigo wrote: > > '''Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if > > permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere > > here.''' - Larry Sanger > > Out of curio

Re: [WikiEN-l] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > > > If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged > > position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on > > > > > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong

Re: [WikiEN-l] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

Your edits have been submitted for review. On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, stevertigo wrote: > PPCD: > > stevertigo wrote: > > - and "unfogiveable" only entered > +and "unforgiveable" only entered > > - but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials, > +but from a logic

Re: [WikiEN-l] So what does Flagged Revs feel like?

The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged revision some kind of counter appears immediately that lets them know their rev

Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist

Seriously?? Are you arguing this kind of article shouldn't be in Wikipedia? Sheesh. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29 > > > - d. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lis

Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos

The premise that the only photos on Wikipedia are absolutely awful. E.g. exaggerating how bad the photos of Janney, Bonds, and Beckham are. On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Steve Summit wrote: > The Cunctator wrote: > > Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie. > > W

Re: [WikiEN-l] NYT: Wikipedia May Be a Font of Fac ts, but It’s a Desert for Photos

Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie. But hopefully it will encourage more people to contribute photos. On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:29 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/7/19 David Gerard : > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html > > > > One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia r

Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)

Wikipedia would be so much better off if we just didn't let people edit the content. On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote: > "Ray Saintonge" wrote: > > From: "Ray Saintonge" > > > > Andrew Turvey wrote: > > > Per the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]], "Sharing an account – or the pass

Re: [WikiEN-l] xkcd

Right, that's the real failing of the comic. The condition is easy to game. On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/21 Kat Walsh : > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Judson Dunn > wrote: > >>> For your

Re: [WikiEN-l] xkcd

Depends what event he appears at. But yes, I would expect the deletionists to go nuts with this. On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson < oskarsigvards...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Judson Dunn > wrote: > > For your comedy pleasure :) > > > > http://xkcd.co

Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia

This isn't actually accurate. Wikipedia may have reached the point where most people find it includes most of the stuff *that has been traditionally found in encylopedias* they carry around in their heads. Wikipedia is not paper. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/2/16 Charles

Re: [WikiEN-l] How to raise the tone of the wiki

Mandated regulations for forcing politeness generally don't work well. If you don't trust people to have common sense, they won't exercise it. But I know I'm in the minority here, so have fun. On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > George Her

Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions trial proposal and vote

Funny how it supposedly closes tomorrow but it's already done and archived. On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Proposed trial: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial > > The voting page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revis

Re: [WikiEN-l] Reasons I care less about Wikipedia than I used to, No. 43

Are you kidding me? Person X has one opinion. Person Y has another. You agree with person Y, so you conclude person X is "completely wrong." ObSheesh: Sheesh. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Nathan wrote: > Instance number 192,453,345,252 that someone complains about something that > "makes

Re: [WikiEN-l] Reasons I care less about Wikipedia than I used to, No. 43

I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective. On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > Hah, > > I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining > why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by > default to top post, and

Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)

wrote: > Apple!? > > > -- > Alvaro > > On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator" wrote: > > > No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an > > inexorable > > decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of &

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would hasten the process. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote: > I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published" > namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be > made t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)

under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat wrote: > You high or something? > - White Cat > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator &g

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something. Hmm... maybe a little jazzier How about "Nupedia"? On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM, wrote: > < > I am sorry I still do not get it. > 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from > the > public? If so who wi

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!

Ah well, Wikipedia was fun while it lasted. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, White Cat wrote: > Which does not connect with the content of my post... > > So what? > How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. > If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the par

Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletion for its own sake (was MUD history)

Long live deletionism! On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: > 2009/1/13 Carcharoth > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have > > > disappeared: > > > > > > ht

Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense. On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote: > >> Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here... > > >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told "publish in Wikipedia or else"

This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good results. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Larsen wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for clarifying. > > > This is an excellent experiment. With Wikipedia's open edit process I am > > confident that the plan will adjust as it

Re: [WikiEN-l] Has an article in a paper encyclopedia, but it's "Not Notable"

I had to revert a deletion of an article about a guy who was involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal. It's pretty sad. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 a