Nothing of substance done to refute the Hattersley rubbish. Jimbo claimed to
be in conversation with the paper - in truth, the paper dismissed him and
Wikipedia's PR trembled from the sidelines.
Giano
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I can't
Really Charles, you mentioning Greg Kohs to prove your point - you must be
truly desperate, is he not another of the many dissenters that you, Jimbo
and Co have suppressed. Anyone who does not toe the Jimbo line has to be
driven off or banned and shut up. I correspond with many and listen to their
The Future of Reputation: gossip, rumour and privacy on the internet
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/
Chapter 6 has a few pages on the Siegenthaler incident (as well as
Wikipedia more generally), but a lot of the second part of the book
deals in more general terms
Giacomo M-Z wrote:
...and so your pattern of rubbishing dissenters continues, I see,
Charles. Oh well, some things never change. In spite of the fact
Blacketer, or whatever he is calling himself, was a little devious (I
don't blame him changing from his real name), his edits to David
A direct link to Chapter 6:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text/futureofreputation-ch6.pdf
In a commentary of the Seigenthaler incident, the book reads,
Ironically, Seigenthaler had previously founded a center to protect the
First Amendment right to free speech.
Charles, please try and obtain some proportion, Wikipedia is one of billions
of internet sites, changing one's name and/or concealing one's identity from
the masses who surf the internet is not a major breach of trust -
swindling one's Granny in real life out of a million dollars is a major
breach
I don't think speaking in absolute terms is a helpful way of looking at the
matter. Sam's actions weren't heinous nor terrible, no, Giano—and yes,
his work as an arbitrator, as I have commented on-Wiki and elsewhere, was
largely solid; I always thought of Sam as one of the more decent
arbitrators,
Giacomo M-Z wrote:
Charles, please try and obtain some proportion, Wikipedia is one of
billions of internet sites, changing one's name and/or concealing
one's identity from the masses who surf the internet is not a major
breach of trust - swindling one's Granny in real life out of a
I must confess to growing weary of this bickering. Perhaps you both could
take your differences off-list, lest you render this thread useless?
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
2009/6/10 AGK wiki...@googlemail.com:
I must confess to growing weary of this bickering. Perhaps you both could
take your differences off-list, lest you render this thread useless?
Indeed. Cool it, please.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Andrew Grayshimg...@gmail.com wrote:
The Future of Reputation: gossip, rumour and privacy on the internet
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/
Chapter 6 has a few pages on the Siegenthaler incident (as well as
Wikipedia more
We are all free to contact our congressional representatives, but
professional lobbyists are much more effective, as professional pubic
relations representatives would be with respect to Wikipedia content.
Fred
Regular editing is problematic to some degree as well. What we lose is
flattery we
I don't have a congressional representative, thank you very much...
Nor do I. :)
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/6/10 AGK wiki...@googlemail.com:
In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of editing
to not be problematic to some degree; the nature of the business world is
such that paid editing would almost certainly not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV
policies. Consider this: if
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/6/10 AGK wiki...@googlemail.com:
In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of editing
to not be problematic to some degree; the nature of the business world is
such that paid editing
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Sam Kornsmo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
2009/6/10 AGK wiki...@googlemail.com:
In practice, however, it would be exceedingly rare for that type of editing
to not be problematic to some
Actually we also get bookspam. The classic version of this is an IP turns
up at a watchlist making one edit to an article to add an item to the
references section. Check the IP history and it makes one edit each to a
lot of different articles, each adding a book reference but not building the
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Stephen Bainstephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Incidentally, NOINDEXing requires no developer assistance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NOINDEX
One good use of the NOINDEX template, IMO, is to hide userfied drafts
of BLP articles. When undeleting an
18 matches
Mail list logo
