Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
You can add to the advantages that it can also produce a why did you
moderate *him*? response from list members. I got an e-mail from the
other user you placed on moderation, and I was
Steve Bennett wrote:
But you question whether it's even encyclopedic. Apply the specialist
encyclopaedia test: would a specialist encyclopaedia about skiing in
North America list this ski area? It ought to. So the answer is yes.
Hmm, could be wrong, here's a webpage says Kettlebowl:
The group itself should be able to have a voice in what is and what is not
policy for the group.
As well the group should be able to know what *policy-based* actions are being
taken and why.
Shining light on moderator actions, ensures that moderators take action that is
fair, impartial, and
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't ski. You are partly arguing that there should not be a
notability guideline for skiing sites. And partly that a specialist
skiing encyclopedia should be a directory of just about all skiing
sites.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the person you moderate
objects to it, and wants it announced on the list, you should do so.
Of course.
On that note, whjon...@aol.com has requested that I publicly confirm
that he is on moderation.
Steve confirm the *reason* you put me on moderation.
I'm sure that it will be quite interesting.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2009 1:30 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderation (was:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't ski. You are partly arguing that there should not be a
notability guideline for skiing sites. And partly that a specialist
skiing encyclopedia should be a directory of
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hmm, I feel that Wales' post is kind of at cross-purposes to the meme
he's trying to defeat:
1) Meme: Newbie editors who make edits to random articles will require
those edits to be approved before going live.
2) Rebuttal: Newbie editors will now be able to make edits to
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
WP:NOT says WP is not a directory, after all.
I think Wikipedia has progressed far enough and become unique enough
that WP:NOT is really not relevant anymore.
I
Charles Matthews wrote:
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm
somewhat concerned that a reliance on reader survey will indeed tend
to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the sake of
other stuff that is not too useful (e.g. I wish you'd
2009/9/22 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I seem to recall that in the notability policy there is also scope for
comprehensiveness. That is, if a certain number of a given category of
entities is denoted notable, then we include articles about *all* of
them, for
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for that set to
be well-defined
What I'd like to see, really, is a better focus of what sources confer
notability. For example, rather than the fact that we are not a
dictionary, we just don't use dictionaries as a source to confer
notability. Similarly directories, so on and so forth. I think this way
notability may be
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for
So put them in another space: call it directory space.
The problem is that having a distinct article is treated as a question
of merit--we word things this way ourselves: deserves an article.
Thus there is a continual pressure from spammers and hobbyists to
include a separate article for every
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm
somewhat concerned that a reliance on reader survey will indeed
tend to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the
sake of other stuff that is not too
2009/9/22 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
When the complaint is about being off-topic, then what exactly is
on-topic? Without a clear definition any moderation for this is
inevitably subjective, unless the individual insists on continuing the
topic ad nauseam. For Jay's post about music I
2009/9/22 wjhon...@aol.com:
The group itself should be able to have a voice in what is and what is not
policy for the group.
Absolutely. The WMF hosts the lists, so has a veto, but generally
policy should be entirely determined by the users. Mods interpreting
that policy can result in what is
Charles Matthews wrote:
Downmarket, in my terms, is slanting content
policy to favour in any way pages because they would be read often,
rather than serve the purpose of being a reference site.
Not sure I can understand the difference between being read often and
being referred too. But
David Goodman wrote:
So put them in another space: call it directory space.
The problem is that having a distinct article is treated as a question
of merit--we word things this way ourselves: deserves an article.
Thus there is a continual pressure from spammers and hobbyists to
include a
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. The WMF hosts the lists, so has a veto, but generally
policy should be entirely determined by the users. Mods interpreting
that policy can result in what is essentially new policy, though. (The
same happens in law - judges often create
A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold
focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base
knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring
concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually gets derailed.
Not derailed
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold
focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base
knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring
concerns to a wider forum the
Surreptitiousness wrote:
And I don't find anything in this to disagree with, and yet we
disagree, so obviously one of us or both of us are making
assumptions. I don't see reader input into what we do as a bad thing,
for starters. In fact, I thought the very ethos of Wikipedia was that
David, please reread the entire thread and view the eBay store of this
vendor. It's quite obvious that this vendor does violate copyrights: in the
middle of a section of mostly public domain NASA shots, a publicity portrait
of Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura. And a 1930s portrait of Walt
Charles Matthews wrote:
The question is
more whether lurkers should be stakeholders. Traditionally what is
respected is showing the better way, rather than compiling a wishlist.
The best way to solve whether lurkers should be stakeholders is to ask
them. Showing the better way would be
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in
search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers
over license violation problems.
That's a large statement, and it needs substantiation to convince.
Charles Matthews wrote:
At present we are still holding to some version of
the old idea that less is more: we don't allow articles that scroll on
for ever, and we try to have people adopt a concise style with good
focus. There will always be the argument that this is faintly
ridiculous,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in
search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers
over license violation
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace rather than
just type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think
it doesn't still work in principle.
I can't do now what I did then. IP's cannot create new articles, and
you have to wait
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
No David, I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
nonproductive. My previous attempts to clarify matters with specific
examples led to accusations that I
Surreptitiousness wrote:
And let's not forget that if we're looking at books, we have to take
into account appendixes, something you have to fight to justify on
Wikipedia. That list you want to split from your large FA? Hmm, is
it a notable list? That list you want to include in your
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
...I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
nonproductive.
On that note, you stated in the second post of the thread that The
During this thread things could have spun off in many more directions than
they did. Mainly because the assumptions of most posters were at odds with
my firsthand experience on multiple points. So I picked out a couple of the
most important ones and attempted to address them, but that turned out
2009/9/22 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com:
Am wrapping up a Google Document on another topic and planning a draft
outline right now. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses;
multitasking isn't one of mine. David's posts really looked like a bizarre
attempt to bait me into a flame war
Durova wrote:
David's posts really looked like a bizarre attempt to bait me
into a flame war just as the thread had reached its natural end.
As in: 'No no, you can't walk away. You started this thread and
I don't like what I think I understand and I'm angry at you about that.'
I'd
Durova wrote:
...But David, to construct a cherry picked insult is beneath you. With your
long
commitment to free culture, I really expected better.
Alright, enough.
Durova, your complaints about lack of literacy or comprehension appear
somewhat disingenuous, given that you very well know
Apparently the new cool thing to do is {{r|foo}} rather than ref
name=foo /. Works for me.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sure. I enabled your moderation flag because you keep posting large
numbers of low-quality posts, despite my requests to the contrary. The
specific event that triggered it was your posting of 4 very similar
messages to the Deletion of unreferenced living person biographies
thread, all quibbling
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently the new cool thing to do is {{r|foo}} rather than ref
name=foo /. Works for me.
Now we can {{note|foo}}^W^W{{r|foo}} like it's 2005!
But seriously, I find this discouraging - a sign of dysfunctionality.
All
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:59:06 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
I disagree, and I'd like to see file renaming opened up. It sucks
seeing a file with a blatantly wrong name sitting there for years.
Sure, the file names could be totally arbitrary (a882be8.jpg) or they
could be extremely meaningful -
42 matches
Mail list logo
