On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/5 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
Charles a few things.
You do not need to be in the US to read a
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:14 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I like that. Make Google Books just one of the options. I can see a
potential problem if we're trying to cite a convenience link directly to a
page number and the book has multiple editions. We'd need to know the
ISBN. If the
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/5 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
Either Google or the publisher/author of the book you viewed. People
get sued for
Reminder: Strategic Planning office hours will happen at:
04:00-05:00 UTC, Wednesday, Sept 9.
That is:
Tuesday, 9-10pm PDT
Wednesday, 12am-1am EDT
We'll meet in the channel #wikimedia-strategy on IRC. More details
are available at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours
We will
On Friday 04 September 2009, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Would it be possible for you to do a comparison with Wikipedia just
before semiprotection was enabled? I've long wanted to know whether
the argument that semiprotections would replace full protections holds
any water.
This would also seem to
2009/9/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Ok, so it would be publisher or author, then.
And how are they going to find out about it?
The same way file sharers get caught when they share lots of music and
films? It is not likely that anyone would steal enough books in this
manner to make for a
- Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/09, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I took a quick look the other day at the categories of unsourced
articles, which go back to December 2006; to be honest, I don't currently
have the time or will myself to trawl
Andrew Turvey wrote:
However, many editors think that neutral unreferenced articles shouldn't be
PRODed or AFDed unless the proposer has first made an effort to find sources
themselves (see guideline [[WP:BEFORE]]).
But PROD is good for this. If you want a systematic sweep, PRODs on
older
2009/9/8 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
Working with some other editors, I started [1] to go through older unsourced
living people biographies (BLPs) and either add references or propose for
deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), the proposed deletion
process
2009/9/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Gut it of all unreferenced material, per WP:BLP. Leave it a day. PROD
it. See if it survives.
BLP doesn't actually let you do that. It only allows for removal of
unsourced contentious material. Mass proding will likely get you
blocked under the
2009/9/8 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the problem? I would remove
potentially
http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2009/09/wikipedia-
ludicrously-sexist-and-racist-part-ii.html
Just another person complaining that Wikipedia is s POV in this
way... and that way, wikipedia is full of idiot writing useless
articles, and it's horribly sexist and racist!
I
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/8 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the problem? I would remove
potentially harmful unreferenced material per WP:BLP and leave it at
that.
2009/9/8 Soxred93 soxre...@gmail.com:
http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2009/09/wikipedia-
ludicrously-sexist-and-racist-part-ii.html
Just another person complaining that Wikipedia is s POV in this
way... and that way, wikipedia is full of idiot writing useless
articles, and
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there a problem with unreferenced BLPs? Potentially harmful
information in a BLP should always be referenced, but if there isn't
anything potentially harmful then what is the problem? I would remove
potentially harmful unreferenced material per WP:BLP and leave it at
- Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andrew Turvey wrote:
However, many editors think that neutral unreferenced articles shouldn't be
PRODed or AFDed unless the proposer has first made an effort to find
sources themselves (see guideline [[WP:BEFORE]]).
But
On 9/8/09, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Gut it of all unreferenced material, per WP:BLP. Leave it a day. PROD
it. See if it survives.
BLP doesn't actually let you do that. It only allows for removal of
unsourced contentious material. Mass proding
Andrew Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
Clearly whether we allow deletion on sight or require proposers to improve
articles first makes a big difference to whether this backlog will ever be
cleared.
A couple ideas:
1) Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
That way, the people who want to remove presently unsourced articles
would
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
They could also try suing Google (again?). Not sure if the terms of the
settlement requires Google to actually keep non-US people away or if it just
requires them to kinda try to keep non-US people away.
Or maybe the
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Ok, so it would be publisher or author, then.
And how are they going to find out about it?
The same way file sharers get caught when they share lots of music and
films?
David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I would support making it a requirement before taking any article to
AfD on the basis of lack of references to first make a bona fide
appropriate search for them, and to say so--this is already
recommended at [[WP:BEFORE]]
That way, the people who want
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I suppose, as in matters of internet deportment, civility, we must also
accept the burden of maintaining the standard for English usage, global
English usage. It is a grim and dreary business, but I must admit it is
our
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Contract violation *is* illegal.
Actionable != illegal. The big difference is that you could walk into
a police station and tell them that you broke a contract or terms of
service, and they'd tell you to have a nice day.
And I'd like to add contract violation *may* be illegal, there are
loopholes large enough to swim an elephant through, which is why
lawyers like contracts. No such thing as an unbreakable contract.
You may have heard about these lawyers that are suing mortgage
companies because they didn't
You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their
writings.
So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic spectrum,
and isn't neurotypical nor psychotic?
I know this is off-topic, but well, it's interesting.
Emily
(bias: recent diagnosis of PDD-NOS)
On Sep 8,
on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve
(Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their writings.
Marc
Folks,
From the Sonora Union Democrat.
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2009090897749/News/Local-News/Wikipedia-vandal-trashes-Sonora-in-online-posts
*Sonora has entered the debate over the accuracy of Wikipedia. *
*For two days last month, the city’s entry on the user-edited online
encyclopedia
What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our
first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter
what their source was.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:44 pm
Soxred93 wrote:
http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2009/09/wikipedia-
ludicrously-sexist-and-racist-part-ii.html
Just another person complaining that Wikipedia is s POV in this
way... and that way, wikipedia is full of idiot writing useless
articles, and it's horribly
31 matches
Mail list logo
