Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
uncitability. I suppose we could
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:54 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard
On 03/10/2010 07:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
in your opinion? Please be specific.
David, I think one of the reasons
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget
about it.
Which means that unless you happen to live with a library
that
includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend
a non
trivial amount of money you can't edit say [[HMS Argus
(I49)]] (which
cites Warship 1994).
Citing sources doesn't help because if Wikipedians don't
like the
sources, they want to know why we've chosen this source and
not some
other. No matter how canonical it is, it'll be questioned,
because
they don't realize it's part of the canon.
You can make an argument based on how well
Experts complain about uncitability - they complain
that common
knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into
journal articles
or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows.
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that
On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge
in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic
- Original Message -
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Much of what you say here is true, David.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states
something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal
articles, it
should still be possible to find it in basic
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 07:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior
knowledge in
Hello everyone, I'd like to remind you that existence of the mo. wikipedia
is extremely insulting for us from Moldova.
The one with the power, please take action and delete it.
causes Delete moldovan Wikipedia http://www.causes.com/causes/39775 has
5.140 members
Have a good day.
In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:04:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes:
Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an
arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture
in
Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, this is
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but
rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give
an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well.
Or at
On 3 October 2010 13:43, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget
about it.
Which means that unless you happen to live with a library
that
includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend
a non
trivial amount of money you
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but
rather an encyclopedia built
In a message dated 10/3/2010 8:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
Will, can you try and focus on the three questions and keep this
on-topic.
1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no?
2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:14, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no?
2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons?
3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
1. One of the foundational works that was used to create Wikipedia was
the
1911 EB. Wherever that
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular,
and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:47, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I can think of a very labour-intensive change -- a
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is
one of them again.
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html
I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about
argumentum ad
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This week the Foundation is excited to be releasing four separate videos shot
at the recent Wikimania Conference in Gdansk, Poland. The first video
'Username' is now posted on the WM Commons:
They're good! Very
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an
encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate. So
I must say, in
- Original Message -
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
In my experience by verifiability, Wikipedians mean published
somewhere, not verifiably
If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident.
Therefore you should not (drink and) drive.
Is that one also fallacious? It's still missing a step you should
not cause yourself to get into a car accident. But then, it also is
different in that there is no third party imposing a
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion within the
bounds of the rules of this mailing list.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 October 2010 18:23, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Geni:
However it fundamentally fails to explain why other areas of the
humanities such as those covered by
An'n 28.09.2010 20:50, hett Jay Walsh schreven:
Hi Marcus - thanks for the note. I'll be looking into this right away to see
if we can get the good work of the subtitlers/translators into the whole
presentation of the videos on youtube and Vimeo.
Thanks for the pointer. As soon as we
Yeah, I agree, that makes sense.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
An'n 28.09.2010 20:50, hett Jay Walsh schreven:
Hi Marcus - thanks for the note. I'll be looking into this right away to
see if we can get the good work of the subtitlers/translators into
Geni, would you like to describe how you research
sources?
Entirely depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes I start with
an article
and go looking for refs.
Okay. Assume that all I am saying is: when you go looking for refs, look first
whether there are any academic refs out there that
In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:59:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an
encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate.
Greetings All,
On Wednesday, October 6 from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC and Thursday, October
7th 04:00 to 05:00 UTC, I'll be holding office hour sessions on the
#wikimedia-office IRC channel. Exact times for the session in a range
of time zones follow.
The sessions will be focused on the Mediawiki
On 2 October 2010 18:13, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
And you've missed the point.
The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors.
Inasmuch as we have a mission, it is to create a world in which every
single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
We were talking
about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject,
and drive away specialist editors.
I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among the expert
as well as the
On 3 October 2010 22:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Seems to me you would not be the right editor to embark on this then. :) Best
to leave it to someone who speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what
scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese scholarly
I presume that there is some background to this request that we are supposed
to understand? If I had to guess (which I shouldn't), my supposition would
be that the post and petition relate to some dispute about whether Moldovan
is a separate language from Romanian? Is there any further
On Oct 3, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
And, something I should
already know the answer to but just realized I don't, who within the
foundation or community makes this type of decisions, anyway?
One of the key points that kept being reiterated in the Strategic
Planning process was
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
English Wikiquote? Once the decision is made, then it falls to the
developers to actually flip the switch or say the magic words, or do
whatever it is they do to close the project.
Philippe
It has already been
An'n 04.10.2010 01:59, hett K. Peachey schreven:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
English Wikiquote? Once the decision is made, then it falls to the
developers to actually flip the switch or say the magic words, or do
whatever it is they
Greetings,
We don't do this if the project is valid, just inactive and can restart
at a later date. But we usually remove projects entirely if they are
closed forever. See tokipona.wikipedia.org or tlh.wikipedia.org.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
The project was active, but judging by the
An'n 04.10.2010 02:13, hett Zachary Harden schreven:
The project was active, but judging by the comments made before and after the
closure, it was closed due to a political spat (like a lot of projects coming
from the Eastern Bloc).
Which ones exactly where closed? I don't think this claim
As mentioned, closure of a language version has its own page proposal
for closure of [that wiki] on Meta, so no needs to open an RFC.
If we consider A as a language or a dialect should be treated in a
scientific manner. In general if there is an language either natural
(like English, German ...)
We were talking
about very aggressive editors who know absolutely
nothing of the subject,
and drive away specialist editors.
I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among
the expert
as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not
necessarily
mean a devotion to
Seems to me you would not be the right editor to
embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who
speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what
scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese
scholarly literature.
err by that standard the person would have to be
Zachary, contrary to characterizations made by others on this thread,
that is exactly what happened. The Wiki was active, there were users
creating articles, but unfortunately political considerations took top
priority in a community vote that was held, which essentially pitted
Russians against
49 matches
Mail list logo
