This article is painful
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Warenne,_1st_Earl_of_Surrey_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Warenne,_1st_Earl_of_Surrey)
I can't believe someone did this.
Plateful of notes anyone? You can have seconds, we have lots to spare!
Will Johnson
and what part is nonsense: the list of estates os basic information in
historical geography, and I'm glad we 're including this. That
information is available for all Domesday landholders, and though
Domesday itself belongs on Wikisource, the material from it organized
in a suitable way likethis
The Nonsense is that this article is completely swamped by citations to
land holdings.
That's not a balanced treatment of the man's life.
This article is not supposed to be about his Domesday holdings which are
completely insignificant historically, it is supposed to be his biography.
We
Re-read it carefully: the key sentence is special attention to the
principles of neutrality and verifiability. This means that those
principles need closer observation there than elsewhere, but that
those principles are no different.
2009/4/23 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
I
David Goodman wrote:
and what part is nonsense: the list of estates os basic information in
historical geography, and I'm glad we 're including this. That
information is available for all Domesday landholders, and though
Domesday itself belongs on Wikisource, the material from it organized
in
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Right, Wrong, True, False, White, Black, and so on do not exist. They
don't. No existence. They aren't there. Nowhere.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/4/22 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
I'd say that the reader question is less pertinent for any start up
than the writer question.
I don't think the two questions can be separated. Without the feedback
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Perhaps useful is too strong a term, useful enough to rival
Wikipedia would be better.
I think so. If you set your standards of success in terms of Wikipedia,
there's simply no competition. Wikipedia has achieved
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/22 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
I think this is in fact a market opportunity for a Metapedia.
Careful, that's actually the name of a neo-Nazi fork of Wikipedia!
http://www.metapedia.org/
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:19:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Oh, I think the comment was prompted by the reference formatting.
Besides bypassing sofixit, targeting a constructive editor, bringing a
comment to the list for random reasons, showing
2009/4/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
If no one reads what you write, there is no point writing it. Is that
something most Wikipedians would agree with? There really ought to be a
Wikiversity course on this stuff. I think it's essential reading for anyone
who wants to be a Wikipedian.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The Nonsense is that this article is completely swamped by citations to
land holdings.
That's not a balanced treatment of the man's life.
This article is not supposed to be about his Domesday holdings which are
completely insignificant historically, it is
Listmods - please moderate Mr. Musatov. OTRS threats ended up in legal
queue.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:21 PM, m...@vzw.blackberry.net wrote:
Dear Wikipedia,
Best wishes, sorry it didn't work out. [P=NP] Signed, The U.S.
Constitution [[User:Martin.musatov]][[User:U.S.Constitution]] is a
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this
comment? What do you think the so-called feudal system was about if
not the holding of land, which made up most of the
2009/4/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Perhaps useful is too strong a term, useful enough to rival
Wikipedia would be better.
I think so. If you set your standards of success in terms of Wikipedia,
there's
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:00:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
Yes: that we don't have the luxury of eventualism - with BLPs (and
material on living persons in general), we really need to get it right
immediately if we're to have
On 4/23/09, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be
incorrect? I don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the
commonsense view is to word it something along the lines of:
A national newspaper in
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:47:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
not wrong?
--
I disagree that Right and Wrong have any meaning in a biographical
article.
Rather terms such as has no evidence, is cited to this source would
have meaning.
Right
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com:
I disagree that Right and Wrong have any meaning in a biographical
article.
Rather terms such as has no evidence, is cited to this source would
have meaning.
Right and Wrong are such fluid creatures that we actually have courtrooms
where they are debated all day
In the 1901 England Census, there are four Edward Doran's born between 1884
and 1894 inclusive, who state that they were born in Lancashire. If we
could know the names of his parents, in his Wikipedia article (I did not see
them listed) then we could pin it down to a single entry.
None of
On 4/23/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In the 1901 England Census, there are four Edward Doran's born between 1884
and 1894 inclusive, who state that they were born in Lancashire. If we
could know the names of his parents, in his Wikipedia article (I did not
see
them listed)
Using a trick I patented ;) I noticed that Ed was elected in 1931.
So scanning the incoming passenger lists I found this
_http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518path=Southampton%2c+
England.1934.06.Berengaria.6fn=Edwardln=Doranst=rpid=23697689rc=zp=50_
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:03:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes:
At the moment
though it does rather overwhelm the rest of the article, because of
the extent and the formatting. As a compromise, how about putting it
inside a hidey box, set to hide by
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Not the point.
This article is not about the feudal system, not about an example of a
person with a hundred plots of land. It's about one person, their life. Not
their land holdings.
By the way. I didn't target a constructive
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:03:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes:
At the moment
though it does rather overwhelm the rest of the article, because of
the extent and the formatting. As a compromise,
Don't we have a guideline on Census information and when and how to
use it? There are, as far as I know, advantages and drawbacks. I
vaguely remember some guideline about archive documents, but these are
public documents now, aren't they?
Great work!
Now, to play devil's advocate, at what point does this become original
research and synthesis? My view is that it depends on how reproducible
and verifiable the information and logic is. If someone else (the
reader) can trace the same logic through the same paperwork that you
did, is
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:12:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secon
dary_and_tertiary_sources
---
In this case that he is listed as age 15 is not an interpretation but a
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:16:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Now, to play devil's advocate, at what point does this become original
research and synthesis?
---
Original Research means that I am creating the
The other question to ask is why the other sources came up with 1892?
Until you find that out, there is a nagging doubt. Did they find a
different Doran, did they transcribe something incorrectly, or what?
Carcharoth
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com:
In this case, there are two pages (yes just two) of biography if you
will, and *six* pages of this nonsense. That's just a tad overweight I think
we can all agree on that point.
The solution is to add more bio, not to cut the land holdings.
- d.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this
comment? What do you think the so-called feudal system was
about if
not the
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:20:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
The solution is to add more bio, not to cut the land holdings.
--
If someone had any. I never suggested discarding the land information.
I suggested moving it to WikiSource or an
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this
comment? What do you think the so-called feudal system was about if
not the holding of
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:53:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
I think they do have meaning on an objective factual level. e.g. If
the NYT gets a birthdate wrong and this error is perpetuated, that
doesn't make it right however well cited it is.
But that's a
2009/4/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com:
In this case, there are two pages (yes just two) of biography if you
will, and *six* pages of this nonsense. That's just a tad overweight I
think
we can all agree on that point.
The solution is to add more bio,
Then Sam he is listed in the parish of Gorton All Saints as the 15-year-old
son [this is 1901] of Mary Doran age 37 who calls herself the Head of
the household although she is marked Married and I don't see the husband
listed here.
His brothers are John, William and Francis and a sister
The Domesday holdings are not significant to his biography.
We are not trying to build a land holdings database, we are writing
biographies.
I was not targeting any particular editor. I was targeting the article.
Will
**Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops!
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:23:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikipe...@zog.org writes:
Undue weight is not an issue either. The article is not asserting that
the
nonsense is more important than anything else in the man's life. It is
what it is: a reference list.
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com
The Domesday holdings are not significant to his biography.
We are not trying to build a land holdings database, we are writing
biographies.
We are writing a comprehensive written compendium that holds information
from either all branches of knowledge or a
2009/4/23 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:03:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes:
At the moment
though it does rather overwhelm the rest of the article, because of
the extent
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:27:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
So how do you minimise the risk of errors in source-based research?
That, is why we want experts in the project. Experts can correctly
interpret primary sources.
In this
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:31:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikipe...@zog.org writes:
We are writing a comprehensive written compendium that holds information
from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.
We are not writing a comprehensive written compendium
2009/4/23 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com:
First off all, this is not the place to bring this issue to light.
Articles have edit-buttons and talk-pages for a reason. If you feel
the article is poorly done, we have plenty of avenues for you to try
and do something about it. This
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com
The Domesday holdings are not significant to his biography.
We are not trying to build a land holdings database, we are writing
biographies.
We are writing a comprehensive written
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I have no idea of English geography. I couldn't tell you if Lancashire is
near Hampshire or on the opposite side of the island.
Surely you would, um, look it up in a convenient online encyclopedia? :-/
Remembering to check the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
For the record, they are a long way apart. Lancashire (House of
Lancaster - War of the Roses and all that) is in the North-East.
Er, North-West. Stupid edit button doesn't work on this mailing list...
2009/4/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
OK, this *is* off-topic now.
Again, I'd disagree. The topic would be how we do research effectively
on areas we don't know much about.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 3:54:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
I go to the reference desk... :-)
-
The what? Never heard of it.
Google is my only companion :)
Not sure how serious
It's already there. How do you think we get and check permissions for images
released by their copyright holders? The contacts for those get verified
too; exactly the same. Formalizing it wouldn't hurt but the point is we do
this already, enough to satisfy us that copyright's ok which is also a
2009/4/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
The other question to ask is why the other sources came up with 1892?
Until you find that out, there is a nagging doubt. Did they find a
different Doran, did they transcribe something incorrectly, or what?
This is why verbose discursive
2009/4/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/4/23 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I'll let you use p2pedia.org. :)
Suggestion: Distributed git-based backed for MediaWiki.
Usefulness: encouraging forks *and merges*. Now *that* could kick
Wikipedia's arse in useful and productive ways.
I
Competent writing, enforced by actual editors, volunteer or otherwise.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Thomas
In a couintry where importance wa rought proportional to the amount of
property one owned and where it was located, a list of the propertyies
is highly relevant. There are multiple books discussing in detail the
landholdings of individual proprietors and the pattern of landholding
in general. This
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/4/23 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I'll let you use p2pedia.org. :)
Suggestion: Distributed git-based backed for MediaWiki.
Usefulness: encouraging forks *and
2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/4/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/4/23 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I'll let you use p2pedia.org. :)
Suggestion: Distributed git-based backed for MediaWiki.
Usefulness: encouraging forks *and merges*. Now *that* could kick
2009/4/23 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Competent writing, enforced by actual editors, volunteer or otherwise.
The evolved Wikipedia house style does seem to be where good writing
goes to be mummified. At least it's easy for not so good writers to
contribute usefully. Given the choice,
[cc'ed to mediawiki-l]
[from wikien-l - discussion of git-backed MediaWiki]
2009/4/23 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
As it happens, I've thought about this before and have a little
expertise in the issue. I'm one of the developers of a wiki called
Gitit -
In a message dated 4/23/2009 5:00:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
It's already there. How do you think we get and check permissions for
images
released by their copyright holders? The contacts for those get verified
too; exactly the same. Formalizing it wouldn't
I would say the place for a discussion of each piece of land he owned,
would be in individual articles detailing how a piece of land passed, hand to
hand, family to family, over the medieval period perhaps.
That alone would cover several pages, with copious footnotes, for *each*
property.
2009/4/23 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 1:34:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Sorry, you hold what qualification in medieval history to make this
comment? What do you think the so-called feudal system was about if
not the holding of
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/22 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
You need to offer a writer something very different, if you are to
motivate him to write in the early stages when readership will be low.
Or indeed, you have to attract the type of writer who would be wholly
disinterested in
In a message dated 4/23/2009 12:16:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakqu...@gmail.com writes:
Similarly, if a businessman were famous today for being a
businessman, it would make sense to list the companies he has been a
CEO of.
As David said above, it is a short article, so his
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So we come back again to the same point. If the subject is so lazy they
are not even willing to post some sort of rebuttal, then apparently they
don't care enough to do something so simple.
Even if you word it as they won't refuse to jump
When someone says that permission was given for an image under GFDL on
commons, by its copyright holder, how do you verify that was correct and not
an impersonator? You don't. You take the OTRS volunteer's word that they
have indeed checked the person granting permission was in fact checked and
In a message dated 4/23/2009 2:16:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
You take the OTRS volunteer's word that they
have indeed checked the person granting permission was in fact checked and
ensured they were the copyright holder as they claimed, or their
representative.
Absolutely.
--Falcorian
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution is to add more bio, not to cut the land holdings.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
Whilst Googling for some information, I've just come across this:
http://www.wajoop.com/James-Robertson-Justice
which is clearly a machine translation of our
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robertson_Justice
I'm particularly fond of The Blow of Blow of Chitty of Chitty in the
filmography.
That's true. Confirming they are the person they claim to be, is highly
important. The manner of that confirmation may well need to be private
though.
Examples: - they might need to provide personal information to do so that
has no place on the public wiki. It may relate to smear, stalking, or
I don't feel comfortable with a statement like the Foundation chooses what
sort of method they want. That sounds an awful lot like structure coming
down from on-high instead of up from the community.
If this is to remain a community-driven enterprise, then whatever decisions
are made,
It might be of interest to someone that pseudonymous Guardian writer
Erwin James, who wrote articles on prison life while serving a term,
was outed using Wikipedia. He was released in 2004, and had chosen to
remain pseudonymous. Published in today's Guardian, he an article
formally revealing his
It is my opinion that you cannot defame a person by telling the truth.
This, like libel, is simply a way to try to use a hammer.
You can't libel garbage by saying it stinks.
Simply using newspaper archives does not constitute original research.
So there must be more to your story than is
2009/4/24 wjhon...@aol.com:
It is my opinion that you cannot defame a person by telling the truth.
This, like libel, is simply a way to try to use a hammer.
You can't libel garbage by saying it stinks.
Simply using newspaper archives does not constitute original research.
So there must
In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:14:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakqu...@gmail.com writes:
At the time, the basis of identifying
him was putting known facts about the pseudonymous author (date of
imprisonment, French Foreign Legion membership), against an old
newspaper article containing
2009/4/24 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:14:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakqu...@gmail.com writes:
At the time, the basis of identifying
him was putting known facts about the pseudonymous author (date of
imprisonment, French Foreign Legion membership), against an
In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:33:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
oldakqu...@gmail.com writes:
What if there had been more than one person imprisoned that
year who had been a member of the French Foreign Legion? This is not
inconceivable, since many people are imprisoned every year, and it is
Just in case anyone wants to gloat and say See them too...
_http://knol.google.com/k/krishan-maggon/knol-site-metrics/3fy5eowy8suq3/42_
(http://knol.google.com/k/krishan-maggon/knol-site-metrics/3fy5eowy8suq3/42) #
Will Johnson
**Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and
77 matches
Mail list logo
