Re: [WikiEN-l] US Army starting to use MediaWiki for collaboratively update / rewrite field manuals
It will be interesting in how the U.S. Department of Defense attempts to organize this. Obviously, this wouldn't be accessible to those outside the DoD, but it's still interesting software and hardware wise in how they might be able to provide such a service to the troops (which wouldn't be accessible to those with obvious access). -MuZemike --- On Thu, 8/13/09, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] US Army starting to use MediaWiki for collaboratively update / rewrite field manuals To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 9:45 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/14army.html?hp I don't have the actual URL for the system (not sure if it's public or not). -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk: Dear Wikipedians, We're making a 4-part documentary series marking 20 years of the World Wide Web, Digital Revolution. ). This comprises an interactive website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution/), and four documentaries for broadcast on BBC Two at the beginning of 2010, in the UK and across the world. Our first programme, provisionally titled The Great Levelling, asks questions about the power shifts and democratisation the Web has brought about. A major part of this programme centres around Wikipedia - as a community project which really brings these kinds of issues alive. We're interviewing Jimmy Wales, as well as a couple of US Wikipedia contributors, one of whom has written a lot of articles as a lay expert, and another who has helped monitor dodgy edits by e.g. big business / politicians. To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interview a UK Wikipedian. We're looking for a passionate Deletionist - someone who identifies with the goals of Deletionism to create a high quality encyclopaedia, and does a lot of this kind of quality control themselves - perhaps someone who is a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. It sounds like this debate peaked a couple of years ago, but we are taking a historical approach - have you been involved in this debate in the past? Or, I understand a hot topic of debate at the moment is biographies of living people. Do you have strong feelings about how much this should be regulated - how high the threshold for inclusion should be? If you can help us, and would like to be involved in the debate, it'd be really great to hear from you. Either reply to the list, or to me at cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk, or by phone - 07800 794299. Best wishes, Cathy Cathy Edwards Digital Revolution Room MC4 C6, BBC Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ M 07800 794299 digital revolution (working title) is an open and collaborative documentary about how the web is changing our lives join the conversation on the web at www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution or follow us on twitter @BBCDigRev If the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists gets a mention, I'll be very happy :) http://snurl.com/pvcl8 Pete / the wub ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Report a Problem hack
Erik Moeller, Fri Aug 7 00:59:55 UTC 2009: The Polish Wikipedia has hacked together a neat little pop-up tool for reporting errors in articles. To see it, go to We on it.wiki have considered this possibility, too. The aim is to explain people that they can actually get things fixed (maany don't understand that they can press edit...). However, pl.wiki doesn't seem to have received a great feedback, so far. The volume is similar to the one of it.wikitionary, which uses a different system: see a random page: http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Speciale:PaginaCasuale All feedbacks are collected here: http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikizionario:Feedback Well, I see that en.wiktionary does the same, but you have to logout: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Random Nemo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Drafting - was Re: Civility poll results
I have the impression that that's only available to admins? Emily On Aug 13, 2009, at 8:39 PM, FT2 wrote: It's simpler than that. Move has an option not to leave a redirect. FT2 On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: There is no draft namespace (yet). That would have to be proposed and discussed on-wiki (discussions here are more like brain-storming). The closest thing at the moment is userfy (if there is a tag for that). But you would usually move it to the user's namespace (yes, you do it the normal way) and let them know what you've done, as you then need to delete the redirect. It is usually only done for obvious cases (e.g. someone write a biography of themself that should be on their user page instead). Carcharoth On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: I propose that we have a This probably belongs in the draft namespace. tag. I don't know how to move something from one namespace into another (do you do it the normal way?), and it will help with busy new page patrollers. If I see two or three articles that needs to be moved to the draft namespace, and then four or five looking like attack/test/spam pages, I'll probably be grateful for the ability to tag. More than likely, I'll just forget about the two or three articles needing to be moved, and it's highly unlikely, in this time of my life, that I'll change the way I patrol. Emily On Aug 13, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Carcharoth wrote: Oops! That's right, I completely forgot that! :-/ Carcharoth On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: Non-logged in people cant create new articles. - Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2009 17:10:41 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Drafting - was Re: Civility poll results On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Carcharoth wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if some other user has started work on a draft already. This would possibly help collaboration, ensure only credible articles get mainspaced, yet retain anyone can edit and the gradual development of stubs without pressure to delete. Thoughts? It's been suggested before. What it needs is someone to drive the idea forward. Notice that if you now try to start the page [[dummydummy]], you get offered the chance to draft it at [[Special:MyPage/Dummydummy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MyPage/Dummydummyaction=edit ]]. I'm not entirely clear what the preferred route is from there. But I imagine suggestions for drafting as more systematically encouraged should be grafted onto this use of special pages. I *think* that is only for people who are logged in. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Complaint - Re: Drafting - was Re: Civility poll results
Hmmm ... a mail with seven unedited wikien-l footers, and two contra-flow top posts on top of around four going down the page. What is more, the content includes two replies by people who provided wrong info off the top of their heads. I'm going to sound grumpy, but this list can do better with the editing (was I really being criticised for snipping?), thoughtfulness, and thread discipline (talking about drafting in a civility thread is a meandering notion of how to debate a serious issue). Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: That's right. I proposed that we *treat* self-proclaimed experts as having a COI, i.e., the same basic rules. A badge of honor, not a shame. No more arguments about whether a situation is a real COI or not. You claim to be an expert, please don't contentiously edit the article. The idea that a badge of honor results in a restriction is contrary to what most people think of as a badge of honor. Like the argument a block isn't a punishment, calling a restriction by a nicer name and pretending it isn't a restriction isn't going to fool anyone, and may only discourage more people as they now see that not only are you adding dubious restrictions, you're trying to lie about them. It's a way to *protect* experts, not attack them. Treating as COI isn't an attack at all. Right now, COI is often used as a attack. It's an attack because it allows you to limit their activities in a way that you could not if they didn't have a COI. In other words, it's treated as an attack because it functions just like one. You're not going to get anywhere by pretending it's not something that it is. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to explain it in the article? It's quite possible to explain it to other people while being unable to explain it to the specific other people who are complaining. In other words: they can explain it to article readers because the article readers are less biased and have less of an incentive to misunderstand than the people on the talk page. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
At 01:49 AM 8/14/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: An expert editor is not a source, the have to edit using sources, just like anyone else does. Their personal opinions have and should have nothing to do with building articles neutrally. Neutrality is not the result of a single editor, it is the emergent condition of the cloud editing concept. The final result of hundreds of edits by a dozen editors is neutral. This is completely correct, it is basic wikitheory. However, it can also be seen as highly inefficient, especially when the process continues, and the continued process can seriously burn out experts. It works, there is no doubt about that, *unless there is controversy in the field. In which case something more may be needed. The *final* result of *thousands* of edits can be far from neutral, and, if it attains some kind of stability, it may be because we start banning disagreement. But it won't attain stability, in fact, there will be frequent objection. Frequent objection is a sign (not a proof!) of lack of neutrality. If an expert cannot provide an adequate source for something they are claiming, then they are not an expert at all. Just a pseudo-expert. No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this, and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts won't want to put in that work, because, after all, they know the fact so well. So we get the best results with interaction between experts and non-experts. Perhaps if you gave a concrete example from a specific article it might help to see to what you're referring and how to address the issue. I agree that it would help. Unfortunately, I'm an expert and don't have time to explain. I'm just advising here, not trying to control. :-) Eventually, great idea, I'll do it if I can. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to explain it in the article? It's quite possible to explain it to other people while being unable to explain it to the specific other people who are complaining. In other words: they can explain it to article readers because the article readers are less biased and have less of an incentive to misunderstand than the people on the talk page. Another point here is that experts are sometimes the only ones who can properly evaluate the reliability of the sources used for some articles. Ideally, there would be more accessible (as in understandable, not as in free or available) sources, but sometimes those sources are over-simplified or just wrong or outdated. The trouble then is how to ensure the expert is accurately judging the reliability of the sources, and not biasing things towards their POV which may differ from that of other experts in the same field? Sometimes you can find sources on how reliable a source is, but then who judges the reliability of the source-judging sources? Ideally, when things get that complicated, you will have an dispassionate and neutral expert who is willing to explain things carefully, pointing to copious sources, so that the logic of the various expert views and their choice of sources outweigh the logic and source-selection of armchair topic experts who might (often with the best of intentions) be getting things wrong. Not to mention those with fringe ideas trying to get them represented to what they feel is the correct weight. But more often than not, you end up with arguments and fights instead. Sometimes very polite arguments, sometimes very incivil arguments, sometime very long arguments, sometimes very incoherent arguments. Sometimes mediation and other measures can help. Sometimes not. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Emily Monroe wrote: Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive. True. Maybe we can do something along the lines of Four 12-24 hour civility blocks, and you'll be blocked indefinitely. or live indefinite blocks up to the community. I'd prefer the latter. Four over what period of time? It makes sense when the person keeps getting back to incivility as soon as a short block ends. Contrast this with those others who only go off the rails once every six months when they take a baited hook, and are well-behaved the rest of the time. Regrettably, we have had some people who like to dig up ancient history whenever they feel offended by someone else. There are difficulties attached with community actions. Ultimately, it's only one person who pushes the block button. There is the inevitable question about how we define community; the vast majority of editors do not want to be involved in this kind of activity. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the most punitive minded to gravitate toward this sort of police work. One could have a small group of trusted and fair-minded individuals to administer longer blocks, individuals with a proven ability to communicate with and calm the hot-heads. The problem then becomes one of how to select those individuals. Elections don't work because they are rooted in a win-lose model that favours those who have a fixed agenda about how to solve problems. It is hard to find a solution when we have no metric for trust, and so much of what happens here is rooted on a presumption of mistrust. And all this is said without entering into the vexing question of how to define incivility. Saying we'll give you another chance, and not many more, is a power move where you are using your superior privileges, shrouded in a royal we, to intimidate the other person into complying with what you believe to be the rules. Okay. What if the person has an attitude that is interfering with writing articles? What if several people do? We agree that there's a point that incivility shouldn't be tolerated. There is a big gap between 24 hours and indefinite. Left to my own devices I would be inclined to progressive blocks, each slightly longer than the one before, but these could also be scaled back for good behaviour. If two people are slinging mud at each other they should receive equal treatment. When even more people are involved, each still needs to be treated as an individual. There's a difference between 'We agree' and 'We agree'. The problem with the royal we is often that the person using it is basing it on certain implied assumptions. Better to say I and accept responsibility for the consequences of one's errors. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
In a message dated 8/14/2009 8:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, a...@lomaxdesign.com writes: No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this, and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts won't want to put in that work, because, after all, they know the fact so well. So we get the best results with interaction between experts and non-experts. - I'm glad you finally agree with me :) Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together. Anyone can find a source stating that cats have retractable claws. Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster. I'm not really interested in an expert *explaining* anything to me. I'm interested in that expert finding the souces that *back up* their words with published third-party authorities. If they can't do that function, then I agree that they should not be editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was born in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what matters. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
2009/8/14 wjhon...@aol.com: editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was born in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what matters. The problem comes not in finding sources, but in establishing due weight, convincing anyone that a crank idea is a crank idea and so forth. Most usually, it's when an expert is arguing with a crank and the crank won't be satisfied until the expert proves a negative - there's no great sources that the crank idea is a crank idea because only the cranks even bother talking about it. Often, the expert goes bugger this, I have better things to do. Even quite patient experts have a limited tolerance for idiocy. For an extreme case, look at the first global warming arbitration case, where the cranks got together to try to get one of the UK's top climate scientists voted off the island. Fortunately, the AC had the presence of mind to point out that peer-reviewed scientific papers are rather better encyclopedia sources than Rush Limbaugh show transcripts. And the expert in question also happens to be a rather good Wikipedian. Abd's proposed rule is pathologically anti-expert and would be disastrous for Wikipedia's content and its production process. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 73, Issue 63
Again you made broad assumptions. The quoted part below is a normal quotation within an email reader. However it then appends *all the previous discussion* as well. By it, I mean the email program, not me. I could of course manual cut off the remainder of the email each and every time I post, but then how would I piss you off? I mean shsh. So now you know, or should know, this is not something people are purposely *doing* to annoy you. It is something that is being done *to* them, and possibly annoys them, just as much as it's done to and annoys you. You victim you ;) Will Johnson You've managed an even sillier style in some of your messages, double top posting, where you top-post your reply over a double quote, first a trimmed quote of the part of the message you're replying to, then a fullquote of the whole message. -Original Message- From: Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2009 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 73, Issue 63 On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:35:46 EDT, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: This double-quoting to which you refer is a new feature of some mail readers. Cute isn't it? Not. It's hard for me to learn how to use it without pissing off sensitive types ;) You've managed an even sillier style in some of your messages, double top posting, where you top-post your reply over a double quote, first a trimmed quote of the part of the message you're replying to, then a fullquote of the whole message. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
At 02:27 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote: I'm glad you finally agree with me :) Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together. Anyone can find a source stating that cats have retractable claws. Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster. I'm not really interested in an expert *explaining* anything to me. I'm interested in that expert finding the souces that *back up* their words with published third-party authorities. Sure. However, sources alone are often not enough. You may have all the sources in front of you, and fail to understand them because of assumptions in those sources that an expert -- or someone moderately familiar with the field -- will understand. If they can't do that function, then I agree that they should not be editing. I wouldn't go that far. Experts should have the same right to put up unsourced text as anyone else, in fact probably more right. The problem is only when there is conflict. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was born in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what matters. I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as Carcharoth suggests. There are two meanings for reliability. Reliability in RS, I claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense is about notability, and certainly not about reliability in the ordinary sense, that we could assume that the material is true. If it's in independently published source, it's reliably sourced. Sure, there are gray areas. If we accept that fact in reliable source -- or asserted fact, to be precise about what can be verified -- is usuable in the project, my view is that RS establishes notability and that, therefore, the fact belongs somewhere in the project, it should not be excluded because someone, expert or not, claims that, say, the author is biased. Rather, if that impeaching claim can be backed, itself, by reliable source, we would provide both, and the original fact would be stated with attribution, according to ... and probably likewise the rebuttal. Even if there is no impeaching claim in reliable source, it is within the sovereignty of local consensus to include attribution where it will broaden consensus. I'd love to give some examples, but not right now. The real point is that we determine NPOV and many other things by consensus, there is no objective standard that works all the time, but if we have broad consensus, found through voluntary acceptance of text, we can be sure that it is NPOV *and* accurate, and the broader the consensus, the greater our certainty. At some point, there is a loss of efficiency, when our scale is large, trying to pull in and satisfy that last holdout but the principle remains. Consensus is the only way we have of measuring NPOV, notability, or anything, in fact. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as Carcharoth suggests. Experts do not determine what sources are reliable. Consensus does. There are two meanings for reliability. Reliability in RS, I claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense is about notability, and certainly not about reliability in the ordinary sense, that we could assume that the material is true. If it's in independently published source, it's reliably sourced. Sure, there are gray areas. No. Reliability as we use it in WP:RS depends on an author and the publisher's editor being known as producing resources which accurately reflect their own underlying sources. It is not about the notability of the publisher, because in that case a *famous* publisher like Ivana Trump Enterprises could produce complete dreck and be called reliable. WP:RS is a combination effect arising from the interface of author-publisher-source. It's not dependent on one of these alone. If we accept that fact in reliable source -- or asserted fact, to be precise about what can be verified -- is usable in the project, my view is that RS establishes notability and that, therefore, the fact belongs somewhere in the project, it should not be excluded because someone, expert or not, claims that, say, the author is biased. Rather, if that impeaching claim can be backed, itself, by reliable source, we would provide both, and the original fact would be stated with attribution, according to ... and probably likewise the rebuttal. Even if there is no impeaching claim in reliable source, it is within the sovereignty of local consensus to include attribution where it will broaden consensus. RS does not establish notability. Example among a few hundred other deeds that Bogislaw I did, he also loved partridge pie. It's sourced reliably, that doesn't necessarily means it's notable. Things which are notable should be important, interesting, standard, curious, odd, startling and so on, not mundane, bland and trivial regardless of the source. Next IF you have an example (I'm sure you do, you're just too shy to tell us its Britney Spears or Scientology or both) where a single expert has decided that a source is biased and is therefore blocking that article, then tell us so we can go beat him or her up. If you don't let's just say that a single editor should not be able to OWN an article nor the use of a source or it's disuse. Community consensus still prevails and there is an WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard where you can bring that forth and establish a community posse to take out the varmit. IF however your source states something that *the vast majority* (and I characterize this as meaning me) would say that claim is outrageous then you have to recognize that fact and abide by the community standard view. So apple pie with whipped cream has been shown to cure some types of cancer... no. Space Aliens tend to like to visit San Diego more than Los Angeles no. Some medical studies show a correlation between high blood pressure and doughnut-eating (Source 1) while other studies have found no such correlation (Source 2). There is a point at which a claim falls off the face of the Earth because most of the community is rolling around on the floor laughing. So bring your example, mr shyness. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
Abd it seems your slant has shifted, or maybe your shift has slanted. At any rate, perhaps you could restate your proposal, focusing on what you think should be advisory and what proscriptive. I don't anyone is *expecting* experts to do this or that, but that is quite different from stating that they *may not* do it, that is that we are forbidding it, or demanding it. If you don't do it this way, you will likely be blocked, it quite different from, shouldn't you do it this way, or would you mind doing it this way or I think you can see by now that your original proposal, as framed, doesn't seem to fly. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Jimbo Wales For Speaker Of House Of Representatives 2012!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10309840-71.html? Despite the fact that this guy has many of his facts are wrong, he does have some element of truth. Oh, Lordy. It's just like the Senate, isn't it? The bigwigs know best, control the most important committees, and generally swan around in limos with the finest companions of the day and night. All the while, the junior senators toil for influence, beg for their voices to be heard, and dream of becoming senior senators. -X! (And for those who don't understand, the subject is based on the caption of Jimbo) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
