2008/12/28 wjhon...@aol.com:
All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a
primary source.
A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source.
That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a
secondary source.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on
a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has
been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it,
On Dec 28, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
Perhaps a simple exemption to the NOR page to cover the described
problem?
I suppose. Though truth be told, the described problem is going to be
the vast majority of notable specialist topics - any time you have
multiple sources on a
On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer
snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on
a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that
has
been
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on
a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that has
been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it,
because it's consensus.
Have you tried
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a
lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b)
clearly original research to declare as
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a
lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a)
On 28 Dec 2008 at 00:44:00 EST, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
What I said is that subjects speaking about themselves have a wide latitude.
If the New Bedford Post (newspaper) reports that Britney Spears was born on
Mars and Britney in her personal blog reports that I was not!, we can
report
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:18:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
This is generally speaking both a poor description of primary sources
and of our internal definition of them.
Okay and I say Not !
Which is as useful a rejoinder isn't it :)
The sole useful
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, David Gerard wrote:
clearly original research to declare as spoiler
I can't believe you're still saying this.
It is, of course, an example of exactly the kind of specious objections that
still had to be addressed and added to the controversy. A spoiler warning
is a
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
Can't see the word spoiler in the subject line here...
No, it's about a rule abuse which combines the status quo rule with the need
for consensus to make changes: you're not supposed to make a change for which
there is no consensus, but if you manage to do
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:27 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and
counter-report are secondary sources.
The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work,
doesn't make
their words primary for that, it depends on the
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a
lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b)
clearly
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I can point to articles that source statements and claims to Tolkien's
letters, or quotes from those letters. The articles should probably,
more technically, point to secondary literature that uses those
letters as a source, but there always
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I can point to articles that source statements and claims to Tolkien's
letters, or quotes from those letters. The articles should probably,
more technically, point to
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Please get to WT:NOR promptly.
Will you and Phil (and others) join me? :-)
Already there, and trying to discuss it with people who would rather
break 3RR with blind
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid
posting any information whatsoever.
Drastic, but it works. Killing the patient is an established strategy
for getting rid of the disease.
This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages,
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That was actually one of those rare instances where a mailing list
campaign worked.
I forget, are mailing list campaigns supposed to be good or bad?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Sure but in this case, to what you actually refer, is an refutation by him,
of his position on some philosophical point, etc etc.
That's not really about him per se, in the same vein that say I was born
in Topeka is about him.
If he, as a Topekian, engaged in an long-winded argument with
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable
nonsense.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
Can't see the word
If true, then we couldn't and shouldn't even try to summarize what he wrote.
If his writing was deliberately inscrutable nonsense, then we would probably
do better just to quote part of it, showing that, and move on.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:31:13 P.M. Pacific
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:30 AM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable
nonsense.
What's that sound of ghostly laughter I hear?
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:30 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately
inscrutable
nonsense.
Were this true, it would indeed be a problem.
However, not only is that not true, it is also not relevant, as this
problem exists in a general case that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just want to throw this onlist *before* doing anything on wiki to
see what kind of thoughts are out there.
I would be interested in an extension of the BLP policy to go as far
as, those who explicitly op out, can have their biography removed for
What would we do if say George bush asks. I don't think you can do
this as a broad all blps can do this.
On 12/28/08, Jon scr...@datascreamer.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just want to throw this onlist *before* doing anything on wiki to
see what kind of thoughts
I see your point. Perhaps along the same lines, hard criteria for
marginal notability, something we can all live with. And for those
marginally notable by our standards, an explicit opt out?
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
What would we do if say George bush asks. I don't think you can do
this as a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Jon scr...@datascreamer.com wrote:
I would be interested in an extension of the BLP policy to go as far
as, those who explicitly op out, can have their biography removed for
the duration of their life.
It was suggested before -
In the end, BLP is not one of our five pillars. The fact that we are an
encyclopedia is.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Sun, 12/28/08, Jon scr...@datascreamer.com wrote:
From: Jon scr...@datascreamer.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Jon wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just want to throw this onlist *before* doing anything on wiki to
see what kind of thoughts are out there.
I would be interested in an extension of the BLP policy to go as far
as, those who explicitly
Are you claiming that every author has at least one critic who states that
they wrote deliberately inscrutable nonsense?
That would be a hard proposition to evidence.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 5:40:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
However,
In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:36:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
newyorkb...@gmail.com writes:
But this
response really does not sufficiently take into account the profound impact
that our coverage has on the subjects of our articles.
-
And the counter-argument is, if
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living
person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an
extreme step, not as extreme as my first suggestion.
I'll agree, that it is their life, and their choice to make it public.
But must we be the agents of
Perhaps we just need stricter criteria on what makes a *person* notable?
On 12/28/08, Jon scr...@datascreamer.com wrote:
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living
person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an
extreme step, not as extreme as
Someone might be able to write some js as a user script that does what
you ask. Perhaps ask around on WT:BOT, or WT:SCRIPTS
On 12/28/08, Mackan79 macka...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone floated the idea of a second diff' button on Special:Watchlist
to cover a slightly longer period?
I was just
That's true, although I was thinking more of the systemic benefit than
strictly for myself.
I'd just been reading an article, actually, which suggested that every page
averages two watchlists, and that this ensures that articles are constantly
monitored to uphold quality. I'm guessing that this
Ugh, is this a tool I would install myself? I'm pretty sure my SVN commits
got run through the dryer, if so.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
You mean something like Extension:CodeReview for Wikipedia edits? :)
If we permit opt out, we will have a situation where we have, for all
medium-level people who are somewhat less than famous, favorable bios
only. There is no possible way to have both NPOV content and
subjects owning the articles on themselves. Whatever way we solve the
difficulties with BLP,
I mean that you are are correct:)
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
No No :) I am simply pointing out that the developers (the tool was written
by Brion) clearly think the OP is correct.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Mackan79 macka...@gmail.com
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Scientia Potentia est wrote:
In the end, BLP is not one of our five pillars. The fact that we are an
encyclopedia is.
Fortunately, Ignore All Rules also applies to the five pillars.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
In a message dated 12/28/2008 7:52:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scr...@datascreamer.com writes:
Is it really, *our duty* to report it? And at what cost to a living
person? I think that for those marginally notable, an opt out is not an
extreme step, not as extreme as my first
40 matches
Mail list logo
