On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other
rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of
evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about
a person, and that person
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take
part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief
email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has been
and your own
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other
rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of
evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about
a
Bod Notbod wrote:
So you quite commonly see people attributing a musical genre to a band
that other people disagree with, and some anonymous users have a fine
old time changing 5 articles per minute to state their FAVOURITE genre
simply *must* apply to every band they like, regardless of the
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Only three of those 24 articles, in my opinion, have moved much beyond
being a single line article or a few lines at most, even though
impeccably referenced. You might say go and help expand those
articles (and I
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to a degree. But what if they later say, in an equally
verifiable source, that that was a joke? Or if a verifiable source
says it isn't true? But yes, I wouldn't object to seeing that in an
article provided policy is
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Only three of those 24 articles, in my opinion, have moved much beyond
being a single line article or a few lines at most, even though
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in
context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous
libraries. The British Library, the Bodleian Library, the Library of
Congress,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
But still? A local library? I find it useful to look at things in
context with other similar institutions. So, I try and think of famous
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
And:
John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John
Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1]
{{bio-stub}}
Well, I guess you could invoke Wikipedia:UNDUE at that point :o)
Peter Coombe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take
part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief
email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has
2009/8/5 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Another thing which is rather more than annoying is that plenty of quite
unreferenced information is now placed in WP using these big
templates-as-surrogate-lists.
To tie this into the BLP thread, and give an example:
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was
bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the
negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported
information available? If I had ran across that as a new page
patroller,
Emily Monroe wrote:
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was
bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the
negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported
information available? If I had ran across that as a new
The Polish Wikipedia has hacked together a neat little pop-up tool for
reporting errors in articles. To see it, go to
http://pl.wikipedia.org/
click around, and follow the Zgłoś błąd link in the sidebar. If you
click the middle button, it gives you a form that you can use to
report an error with
I'd like it. Good for new page patrollers'.
(Maybe I need to do something other than new page patrolling...never
mind)
Emily
On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
The Polish Wikipedia has hacked together a neat little pop-up tool for
reporting errors in articles. To see it, go to
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I just noticed a new link appear next to the user page etc links at
top right (in monobook skin):
Try Beta
I haven't clicked it, but it seems to be a usability testing thing:
Special:UsabilityInitiativeOptIn
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/29/the-abcs-of-usability/
There's a more recent post to the tech blog:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/try-the-usability-beta/
Try clicking on it, don't worry it doesn't change
It does, however, automatically put you back to the Monobook skin, which is
clearly only an issue if you use something else.
~A
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 21:29, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Try clicking on it, don't worry it doesn't change the format or
anything unless you confirm it
What you're really saying is, Isn't there a way to be nice even to
people who aren't nice?.
If the only verifiable information on a BLP is negative, then that is
what the article should contain.
We shouldn't add unverifiable information simply for balance. That
sort of action would be untrue
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
And:
John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John
Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1]
{{bio-stub}}
Well, I guess you could invoke
What you're really saying is, Isn't there a way to be nice even to
people who aren't nice?.
No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred
blog posts and fifty newsletter articles about how horrible a person
is,
Blog posts fail our requirement that an author of a piece be previously
published by a third-party publisher. Blog posts are almost always by
amateur writers, regardless of how long they've been blogging. A true
writer, has true writing credits by reputable publishing houses.
Similarly
Now discarding those sort of sources, let's say we have five
newspaper articles, and two mentions in books about this person
positively, and 245 newspaper articles and 18 mentions negative.
What would you do?
I would put the weight on the negative. I just realized this.
The weight is
24 matches
Mail list logo
