Re: [WikiEN-l] New way to discourage newcomers invented
Ryan Delaney wrote: That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of WP:BURO. No, I do not think it is a good thing - where did I say that? I think it is important not to be confused between discussions of what is really going on, within Wikipedia as it actually operates, and discussions at an idealised level (normally only backed up with some anecdotal if slight evidence). The other point I would like to make is that the problem really comes with people who think you make a bureaucracy work by being bureaucratic, when the opposite is true. WP:BURO is basically prescriptive, not descriptive (I'm against people who weasel by saying policy is basically descriptive not prescriptive whenever that suits them), and it tells us not to do that bureaucratic thing of using sensible procedural features in an obstructive fashion. 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
[WikiEN-l] Sidewiki
Sidewiki is from Google, is a toolbar feature they have come up with for commenting web pages, and is apparently launched tomorrow: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/help-and-learn-from-others-as-you.html So now the entire Web gets talkpages. Sadly this doesn't actually make the entire Web a wiki. 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] Sidewiki
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Oops, can't read/can't count at this time in the morning - was launched 23rd September (see [[Google Toolbar]]). Does anyone actually use this in ways relevant to WP? I downloaded the Google toolbar specifically to try out the side-wiki but the icon has remained greyed out whenever I've looked at it. I've heard reports of people giving it a go without such a problem, so not sure what's going on and I haven't really felt moved to investigate. I heard a radio show discussing side-wiki and one issue they raised was that it gave web owners no control over what people said about their site in the wiki (as opposed, say, to on-site comments). ___ 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] Sidewiki
Bod Notbod wrote: I heard a radio show discussing side-wiki and one issue they raised was that it gave web owners no control over what people said about their site in the wiki (as opposed, say, to on-site comments). Hmmm, and it would be a way of commenting on any site while keeping your IP number between yourself and Google, too. Not that I would expect a radio discussion to be as interested in privacy issues as we sometimes are. If this ever turned out to be popular, there would be a spam issue. Is Google's idea that if you spam on Sidewiki they nuke your pagerank on their search engine? It's a big shame they have attached wiki to something that isn't (is more in the blogging family of user-generated opinion content, if you ask me). I thought these guys were supposed not to be evil. 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
stevertigo wrote: So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is? Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box. ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
2009/10/22 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com: stevertigo wrote: So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is? Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box. You mean refactoring? Refactoring an ongoing discussion is usually very controversial and not worth the drama. Refactoring a closed discussion might make a more useful archive, particularly I'm not sure archives get read enough to be worth the effort. ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
Surreptitiousness wrote: stevertigo wrote: So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is? Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box. Refactoring talk pages being one of those things that work in theory but not in practice, I can see why it became less popular (perhaps is extinct). These days some pages with many talk archives could probably do with their own FAQ. 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Surreptitiousness wrote: stevertigo wrote: So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is? Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box. Refactoring talk pages being one of those things that work in theory but not in practice, I can see why it became less popular (perhaps is extinct). These days some pages with many talk archives could probably do with their own FAQ. Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below. The best talk page archives ones are accessible both chronologically, and by topic, and have a well-organised FAQ to pick out the main points for people new to the article. This does, of course, presume that lengthy talk page archives are needed for all articles (some need very little talk page discussion at all). Some subject are genuinely controversial (i.e. in the real-world as well as here) and need discussion. Others are more cranks or obsessives arguing back and forth endlessly. Or politically-active people soapboxing. Wikipedia deals with that very poorly. The best articles, unsurprisingly, are where a good team of editors and writers (and not too large a team either) work together to produce a great article. It would be great if that sort of teamwork happened on some of the messy articles, but the very existence of highly-charged emotions puts off some of the people that could help fix things. And some people are happy to just argue incessantly, rather than move forward and end up with a better article. Details are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshopoldid=311599558#Proposals_by_Carcharoth More links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Read_the_archives Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/FAQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/FAQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/FAQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Search for talk page FAQs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchredirs=1search=%22FAQ%22fulltext=Searchns1=1title=Special%3ASearchadvanced=1fulltext=Advanced+search Search for indexed archives: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchns1=1redirs=1advanced=1search=%22Archive+index%22limit=250offset=0 Talk page archive indexing bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot Examples of bot-generated indexes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran/Archive_index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Archive_index Example of manually maintained talk page archive index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_index How successful these approaches are, does need some looking at. 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] Sidewiki
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Does anyone actually use this in ways relevant to WP? I rather like the first (most helpful) sidewiki comment from the main page: Sidewiki provides what Wikipedia has long needed. A place for people to discuss an article or its topic without discussing the editing of it. This gives people an outlet without cluttering discussion pages with what amount to forum posts. I think we should have done this a long time ago ourselves, in the same way that Wikinews does it with a third tab after the article and the talk page for venting and non-editing-related discussion. But I haven't seen anything really compelling about sidewiki in particular yet. It seems like a crippled alternative to the blog comments Firefox plugin Google used to have but then disabled. -Sage ___ 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] Sidewiki
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Oops, can't read/can't count at this time in the morning - was launched 23rd September (see [[Google Toolbar]]). Does anyone actually use this in ways relevant to WP? Its a good question. There have been web annotation tools out there for a while, and while it would make sense for WP, there are caveats. The main one is that it does not make sense for anyone to just use one on their own - some coordination has to be involved, and if coordination is involved, some selection of which web annotation tool we use is necessary. In that context an open source tool like ShiftSpace will probably be of higher concern than a Google tool, but OTOH if Google made something that was extremely popular these concerns might be on the back board at least until something free and usable. It's long been my opinion that we need a web annotation system for WP, but someone will probably just retort with a comment like: *cough* 'talk pages?' The idea behind web annotation on WP is to basically have meta tweets about editorial points from an interface that's even easier than wiki editing of the article or talk pages. An annotation layer could do at least things that our current setup cannot: 1) It could be easier to make a quick editorial note 2) that note could point directly to a specific item of text. If we take this kind of functionality - a div layer with editable notes probably - and integrate it into our current system - automatic (redundant) posting to a new talk page section... Eh. I could go on. And Mr. Ross just chimed in ahead of me.. -Stevertigo ___ 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] Sidewiki
2009/10/22 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com: But I haven't seen anything really compelling about sidewiki in particular yet. It seems like a crippled alternative to the blog comments Firefox plugin Google used to have but then disabled. It reminds me faintly of google's searchwiki, which let people annotate search results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_SearchWiki ...and I suspect it may remain about as obscure. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below. Well, while I see the value in raising indexing as a process, I still have to point out that we aren't talking about talk pages and organizing them topically for later ease of reference (ie. WP:OBT) , but the refactoring of actual vote discussions wherein we have to make collective qualitative discernments about the merit of individual arguments. In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution, and we are now starting to talk about process methods for dealing with discussions in a meta way. At this point it requires mentioning that what we are really talking about is in part a rating system for comments integrated into talk pages, similar to a Scoop or Slash system. I'm not certain this is a current or even planned functionality in Liquid Threads, but in any case it seems that the LT project (or some better-thought out derivation) should be regarded as a high-priority (usability) project that we need to put more coders to work on. AIUI, keeping things still wiki - such that discussions still have basic wiki re-factoring capability seems (typically enough) to be both a high principle, and an obstruction. Aside from the rating component, we should consider comment length as a factor in how sub-comments are nested - some comments are just short votes of support for an above argument. Nesting those beneath a main argument seems necessary. In the wild, typically see four basic dimensions within a discussion: 1) long posts with lots of substance 2) short posts with lots of substance 3) long posts with little substance 4) short posts with little substance Simplistic, true, and its often hard to atomize long posts - substantive or not (which is why I like line-by-line replies). But ranking helps get rid of the bottom two kinds of posts. Proper nesting can deal with how the first two interrelate. After that, its possible to use the tool improperly, where ranking *can indicate which of the substantive arguments are dominant, but reliance on this can raise the voting fallacy issue all over again. But what of it? At least 3 and 4 are disposed of, and 1 and 2 are put in place. -Steven ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll give details below. Well, while I see the value in raising indexing as a process, I still have to point out that we aren't talking about talk pages and organizing them topically for later ease of reference (ie. WP:OBT) , but the refactoring of actual vote discussions wherein we have to make collective qualitative discernments about the merit of individual arguments. In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution, I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions? - causa sui ___ 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] New way to discourage newcomers invented
Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia has no management style because there are no managers. We should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word. That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that We are a bureaucracy, but if you cut some corners we'll look the other way. That's not what it says at all. It says We are NOT a bureaucracy and so Knowing where to go should be much, MUCH less than half the battle of contributing to Wikipedia. If you are right, that would mean that 1) Jimbo, 2) a Foundation that implements and prioritizes all new development, 3) a Board that does... something, 4) an Arbcom that tries hard (to tar and feather only the right people), 5) OFFICE, 5) and 6) a small army of sdorks/s administrators (empowered, apparently to make un-reviewable 2-week blocks)... 'do not necessarily qualify as managers.' On that basis its just simple logic that 'WP does not have' a 'management style' and 'WP is not a bureaucracy'. But we see cases all the time, though, where an entity says it is not something that it is, or is something that its not - North Korea for example. And that's to say nothing of the fact that *any entity that has *some notion of 'getting things done' likewise has some notion of 'managing things,' and thus has some certain concepts of management. Hence anything with 'some concept of management' will likewise have a management style. This is true regardless of how how chic (geek variation) it is to just say something 'there is no management style (there is only wiki).' (Note: The geekword wiki does not suffice in describing the Wikipedia's actual purpose, scope, or processes, let alone its systems). So while WP may not have any managers, nor does it implement a management style, it still has elements that at least very very strongly resemble each, though perhaps badly. And of course even a taco stand with one employee can develop some kind of bureaucracy issues, so I don't see the point in continuing any pretense that suggests otherwise here. In fact, according to the traditional canonical terminology, Wikipedia doesn't even have editors - it only has users. -Stevertigo ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
Note: Please excise quotes properly - the below quote looked as if it belonged to Charcaroth. Stevertigo wrote: In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions? Its not IAR that helps administrators 'use their own judgment' - its BRAINS. And resting an idea of proper action on IAR alone is doing nothing else other than saying BRAINS is a policy called IAR. Which isn't true. We may not like the idea that RULES BRAINS, but we already know that the BRAINS RULES conjecture doesn't fly. Even Einstein, aside from the being-off-planet thing, could not post any new insights into a Wikipedia article without violating NOR. NOR is one of those rules we are suppose to 'not ignore.' So while this BRAINS policy is a nice idea, without actually making any qualitative discernments about what's in those BRAINS, it just doesn't mean anything other than to exist as a BRAINY way to say that some people have them and others don't. It may seem ironic that a BRAINS policy would itself be quite uselessly simplistic and applicable in only a binary, one-dimensional way, but not really. Not if you think about it. So I prefer that we just stick to the arguments, and let the issue of BRAINS just sort of sort itself out. In reality the context here is not the success of IAR, but the simple fact that someone made an editorial decision and explained themselves in an detailed way that gave good faith to the arguments of the opposing side. In that context, the opposing side just let the issue go. I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later? -Stevertigo ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/10/22 Surreptitiousness: stevertigo wrote: So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid, arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is? Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate that into our tool-box. You mean refactoring? Refactoring an ongoing discussion is usually very controversial and not worth the drama. Refactoring a closed discussion might make a more useful archive, particularly I'm not sure archives get read enough to be worth the effort. Ooops! You're right; it should have been refactoring, and I should have responded accordingly. 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
Carcharoth wrote: The best articles, unsurprisingly, are where a good team of editors and writers (and not too large a team either) work together to produce a great article. It would be great if that sort of teamwork happened on some of the messy articles, but the very existence of highly-charged emotions puts off some of the people that could help fix things. And some people are happy to just argue incessantly, rather than move forward and end up with a better article. It's not uncommon for a wrong article to be viewed as a lesser evil than engaging idiots in persistent drama. 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Note: Please excise quotes properly - the below quote looked as if it belonged to Charcaroth. Stevertigo wrote: In that context we of course realize that IAR is not an actual solution, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote: I can't understand this. In principle, IAR itself cannot be a solution to anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think that administrators should be using their own judgment when making qualitative judgments in closing deletion discussions? Its not IAR that helps administrators 'use their own judgment' - its BRAINS. And resting an idea of proper action on IAR alone is doing nothing else other than saying BRAINS is a policy called IAR. Which isn't true. We may not like the idea that RULES BRAINS, but we already know that the BRAINS RULES conjecture doesn't fly. Even Einstein, aside from the being-off-planet thing, could not post any new insights into a Wikipedia article without violating NOR. NOR is one of those rules we are suppose to 'not ignore.' I have to say, I kind of love this thread. So old-school Wikipedia! In my own head, I've always sorted out Wikipedia guidelines, rules, and policies into two types: principles and procedures. Principles are things like: we're an encyclopedia and therefore don't publish original research; we're open to new contributors and are therefore nice to them; we want to give people correct, unbiased information therefore content should be neutral and factual. There are not many principles. They are pretty basic and intrinsic to what the site is. Procedures are things like: when you nominate an article for AfD, you should apply the right template, take a look around for sources and past AfDs, notify the lead author(s), give a good reason for deletion, and expect that if several people agree with you, the article will get deleted, and if they don't, it won't. There are a zillion procedures. They are responsible for most of the traffic of this mailing list, most of the Wikipedia: namespace pages, and a whole lot of our collective time. If there's confusion about IAR, I think it helps a lot to think of it as Ignore All Procedures. IAR doesn't get you off the hook for a non-NPOV article; it does mean that you can ignore whatever crazy procedures there are to fix this problem if they are unhelpful to you. (But if they are helpful, or you're not sure what to do, then by all means use them). My favorite version of IAR is the earliest one on en: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later? -Stevertigo It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't want to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of making the losers capitulate to us so that we don't get screwed? I really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think that policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that other people here don't share. - causa sui ___ 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] Can sweet reason still work on en:wp? Occasionally.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: If there's confusion about IAR, I think it helps a lot to think of it as Ignore All Procedures. IAR doesn't get you off the hook for a non-NPOV article; it does mean that you can ignore whatever crazy procedures there are to fix this problem if they are unhelpful to you. (But if they are helpful, or you're not sure what to do, then by all means use them). My problem with arguments critical of IAR is that they usually follow this formula: 1. Implicitly assume on the basis of a few one-off cases where IAR was invoked abusively that IAR is in any sense a get out of jail free card for abusive behavior, or that it's a free pass for anyone to do whatever he or she wants without having to explain why that was better for the encyclopedia or to ignore mounting consensus that what he or she did was in fact a Bad Idea(tm) 2. Reiterate the blindingly obvious and never contested fact that people need to make editorial decisions on the basis of good reasons instead of willy nilly 3. Conclude on the above basis that IAR should itself be ignored and that the only solution to the pressing problem of human autonomy and the inevitability of mistakes and disagreements is not discussion and dispute resolution, but instead a rigid formalized approach to policy that emphasizes firm rules that are to be followed at all times on pain of Death. Anybody who thinks that IAR is going to get them off the hook for abusive editing is a fool. We all know that. If there is someone out there who thinks they can invoke IAR to ignore social feedback from peers who are telling them that they should stop doing what they are doing, I'll be there to repudiate that. But what I can't grok is why this obvious fact is so often the basis for criticisms of an interpretation of IAR that is totally out of alignment with its fundamental message, and why we therefore lose sight of that message. The real message of IAR is fundamental to this project as it's covered in the fifth pillar: mistakes will be made, but they're mostly easy to fix; contributing to Wikipedia should be easy and fun; and so we don't need a rule to cover every possible eventuality. - causa sui ___ 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] Washington Post article on DC Wikipedian
Some more mainstream press coverage on an article focused wikipedian: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204715.html?hpid=topnews -- -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
Re: [WikiEN-l] FTC Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:03 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/9 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: The report on National Public Radio the other day stated it was unlikely the FTC would be very aggressive about this. Yet the piece's principal focus was bloggers. It'd be an interesting question how they'd handle the matter when it bleeds over to Wikipedia. About two seconds after the dedicated POV warriors add it to their alleged COI arsenal. Oops, was that a legal threat? *block* This should be reasonably self-correcting. -- -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
