On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:51 PM, AGKwiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the Night Jack
case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach pseudonymous editing with a
different perspective, now that the court has confirmed itself as unwilling
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Like Boiling a Frog, David Runciman.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html
From the last issue of the London Review of Books, a long and chewy
article about Wikipedia;
Cormac Lawler wrote:
I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness
the energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can
be more productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly
nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section does?
Of course
2009/6/21 Cormac Lawler cormag...@gmail.com:
I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness the
energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can be more
productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly nonsensical) than a
newspaper open comment
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars of a couple of
years ago, where one of
I was also absent during the BADSITES war, but... Anomnity is important.
--Unionhawk
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy,
Daniel R. Tobias wrot. e:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars
In a message dated 6/21/2009 3:02:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cormag...@gmail.com writes:
But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's book, the reviewer
singled out the collaboratively-written afterword as better written than
Andrew's book, which he found full of interest but
Ok, I don't intend on becoming a checkuser or other dignitary that
requires real name identification, so, I think I'm good in that regard...
--Unionhawk
Andrew Turvey wrote:
- Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Is anonymity important to
Story has now been updated:
A flood of criticism has prompted a Montana city to drop its request that
government job applicants turn over their user names and passwords to
Internet social networking and Web groups
A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
out a person's religion.
I think most of us would clearly be wary of it because you could find out
what sort of *porn/sex* I like. I don't care if you know my religion (I'm
the spawn of Satan.)
I mean just imagine if
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/21 Cormac Lawler cormag...@gmail.com:
I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness the
energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can be more
productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly nonsensical) than a
12 matches
Mail list logo
