Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time? If his message didn't provide
enough details, then a polite request for clarification would be in order;
on the contrary, however, some of the replies to his post were just plain
rude. I do miss the days when we all played nice.
AGK
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, AGKwiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
snip
Brian, not Brion. :-)
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
2009/7/1 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, AGKwiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
snip
Brian, not Brion. :-)
I think people are giving *Brian* an unfairly hard time because he is
giving *Brion* (and the other
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
But
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current fractured state of play might be
Brian, not Brion. :-)
Oops - I misread.
My comment stands. ;)
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
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current
I've not involved in editing articles on fiction myself, but I often get
involved in notability-related discussions.
Am I understanding your point right:
At the moment, from my understanding, notability is defined through a single
guideline setting universal principles, supplemental by
2009/6/30 wjhon...@aol.com:
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?
You keep saying it was reported by Al Jazeera. It wasn't.
- d.
I'm suggesting nothing more than that the community work out how to heal
the fracture that exists. Wikipedia:Notability itself is not fully
accepted on Wikipedia as thing stands. I've got a long history and
involvement with notability on Wikipedia, and my guiding imperative has
always been to
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
Currently there is too much bickering and too
many people interested more in fighting the good fight than accepting
[[WP:IAR]].
There's a reason for this: In a dispute, the side who can point to a rule gets
to win. If there are two sides of a
1/
when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
2/
doing right is even more ambiguous of a concept than improving the
encyclopedia;
the reason we have actual rules is that people will not always
Yes, there's a slippery slope nearby. Welcoming ideas that would give the
soil good traction.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
1/
when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the
The best way is keeping this so exceptional that we do not even make
rules about it. People will always go outside of the rules if they
think there is a true emergency. Even were we to say, never do it,
yet people would if they think it justified.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
We arranged it so that rules are extremely important and must be obeyed at
all costs--otherwise we couldn't use the rules as a bludgeon against
troublemakers
Not for notability. We've never boxed ourselves in that much.
WP:N remains a guideline, and in fact says it will not always be applicable.
I hope that we at least get Waves instead of talk pages. Being able to play
back the discussion would be invaluable.
Ryan
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Sage Ross
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Steve Bennett
Agreed. We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to
the exception. That's the flaw found in too many organizing documents
(the constitution of the state of Oklahoma in the US comes to mind
immediately - they wrote it to the exception, ended up with several
hundred pages,
In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific
guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would
just
become a default guideline to be applied
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, David Goodman wrote:
1/
when people should be protected, is not self-explanatory. Some may
feel that
people are best protected by knowing the full truth in all cases.
But it would at least *say* it.
2/
doing right is even more ambiguous of a concept than improving the
First define right.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 9:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
**Make your
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, philippe wrote:
Agreed. We should legislate/codify/write rules to the norm, not to
the exception.
One of the suggestions I made was to fix IAR.
IAR is *entirely about exceptions already*.
And even with respect to changing WP:NOTCENSORED, what's so awful about just
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
First define right.
This is about IAR, you know. IAR is inherently about using personal judgment;
if we modify IAR so that IAR may be used to do the right thing, we should
*not* define right or even assume that it has one definition.
Isn't do what's right the same as assume good faith and assume the
assumption of good faith ?
The no-mans-land between don't try to inflict malicious harm and report
evidence-based statements is a big fat gray one.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Isn't do what's right the same as assume good faith and assume the
assumption of good faith ?
No, because in this context, do what's right means you may ignore rules for
reasons other than the ones just listed. (It only lists improving and
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
subject's life.
Much narrower.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 7/1/2009 12:11:52 P.M.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
subject's life.
Much narrower.
For IAR, it's
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible
Not that it matters, but over at WikiVoices we have only three rules.
They've served us well without modification for over a year.
1. Cluefulness is mandatory. If someone lacks clue, offer them one of
your spare clues. If clueless person refuses multiple offers of clue,
clueless person
There must be a page for predicting the three millionth article. I
can't find it. Where is it?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Looks like it was deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
We've still got the five million and ten million pools though.
- GlassCobra
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
There must be a
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM, AGKwiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
Um, why are we giving Brion such a hard time?
He posted without enough context, got defensive when that was pointed
out, then started snide remarks about developers not consulting the
community and therefore making bad decisions.
Ok, I've brought it back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
Place your guesses!
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Alex Sawczynecglasscobr...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like it was deleted:
32 matches
Mail list logo
