Nathan wrote:
Obviously it would be an impossible task to study all potential
sources and make a proactive determination of reliability. We hope to
some extent that folks citing academic sources have vetted them in
some way as to their credibility, but with mainstream news sources
even that
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told FoxNews.com. When asked who was in charge now, the source said,
'No one. It’s
Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told FoxNews.com. When asked who was in charge now, the
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Shmuel Weidberg ezra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, ...
'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
told
On 17 May 2010 14:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
You could make an argument that the article might give an uninvolved
party a reasonable feel for the situation, but there still would be
effectively no way to incorporate the _facts_ from this article into
Wikipedia in a manner
David Gerard wrote:
The article is basically not even wrong. And that's because they
really don't care, and literally just made up some shit:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/16/jimmy-wales-fox-news-is-wrong-no-shakeup/
Sources of this type, even if owned by a large media company, need to
be
On 17 May 2010 16:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I would say the point of the Fox article is the subtext: no one rules
the WMF, ergo they would have no way to comply with legal requirements
such as a take-down order. NB the subtle solecism free reign (for
free
David Gerard wrote:
On his SharedKnowing list, Dr Sanger notes he's just joined Wikipedia
Review and heartily recommends it to all.
Yes, an ideal place to complain about getting blocked from enWP for
editing [[Talk:History of Wikipedia]] on the assumption that Wikimedia
Commons is part of
On 17 May 2010 16:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On his SharedKnowing list, Dr Sanger notes he's just joined Wikipedia
Review and heartily recommends it to all.
I can almost hear the screeching of his axe.
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Sun, 16 May 2010, Nathan wrote:
Obviously it would be an impossible task to study all potential
sources and make a proactive determination of reliability. We hope to
some extent that folks citing academic sources have vetted them in
some way as to their credibility, but with mainstream news
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If riddled with errors means has more (frequent) errors than other
sources, then this makes some sense.
If riddled with errors means has errors that we have recently had our
attention called to or has errors that happen
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
preserve, less obviously-compromised motivations, and _significantly_
greater circulation
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The article is basically not even wrong. And that's because they
really don't care, and literally just made up some shit:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/16/jimmy-wales-
fox-news-is-wrong-no-shakeup/
Sources of this type, even if owned by a large media
On 17 May 2010 20:45, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
when he plainly
said in about as many words this was a symbolic gesture to diffuse and
refocus criticism
Mhrm, that's arguable. The flags that Jimbo relinquished meant that he
could no longer do such things as delete Commons images.
AGK wrote:
On 17 May 2010 20:45, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
when he plainly
said in about as many words this was a symbolic gesture to diffuse and
refocus criticism
Mhrm, that's arguable. The flags that Jimbo relinquished meant that he
could no longer do such things as
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy isn't the president of the Wikimedia foundation.
True, and that's the one really egregious error.
Continuing the pattern, A majority of the non-trivial statement of
fact in the article are incorrect.
has
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Wow, so he's able to delete content on *one* of the 200+ languages of
Wikipedia. I'd still say the statement is substantially correct. He used
to have unlimited power on every project to do anything. Now he's
administrator
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
ISTM that Enwp users are quite comfortable with Jimmy playing
an important role as he has traditionally
The changes over time in the role Jimmy plays on en-wikipedia is an
interesting question. There is far more
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Wow, so he's able to delete content on *one* of the 200+ languages of
Wikipedia. I'd still say the statement is substantially correct. He
used
to
19 matches
Mail list logo
