On 04/07/11 11:37 AM, Sarah wrote:
One of the key skills that Jimbo brought to Wikipedia was knowing when
to be hands on, and when not. If you look through the early mailing
lists -- not just the very early ones, but the first few years --
that's the thing that shines through again and again.
On 04/07/11 2:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
On 04/07/11 4:13 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing
so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
On 04/07/11 5:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of
On 04/07/11 9:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
IMO, the next best thing will be whatever can come along and solve
our social and community problems technologically, while being easier
to edit.
Social and community problems cannot be solved technologically.
Treat assholes like bugs in the
On 07/04/2011 19:26, David Gerard wrote:
snip
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone
in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
Work like a startup. Wikipedia now
We already have several rivals, including the Chinese,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike and the largest online
encyclopaedia Hudong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudong At some
point in the near future translation software will improve to the
point that they can compete against us in
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:09, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Other options would be for a site that ended the
inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and
concentrating on verifiability or aiming for comprehensiveness. That
seems to work for IMDB but
The [[Fan service]] article on en:WP has for some time included an image
advertising Kogaru Diaries, a graphical work that features depictions of
child sexual abuse (erotic spanking of prepubescent girls).
The work is not notable; nor is its creator, beyond the fact that he is banned
from
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 04/07/11 9:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
IMO, the next best thing will be whatever can come along and solve
our social and community problems technologically, while being easier
to edit.
Social and community
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:26:41 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I confess that when my wife and I are sitting in front of the TV, and a
question arises from whatever we are watching, Wikipedia's relevant
articles become a first source of information on our laptops while we're
watching. When we do
On 08/04/2011 11:09, WereSpielChequers wrote:
snip
Other options would be for a site that ended the
inclusionism/deletionism conflict by abandoning notability and
concentrating on verifiability or aiming for comprehensiveness. That
seems to work for IMDB but possibly you need to restrict this
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:26:41 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I confess that when my wife and I are sitting in front of the TV, and a
question arises from whatever we are watching, Wikipedia's relevant
articles become a first
On 8 April 2011 15:17, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Notability has always been a broken and widely-misunderstood aspect of
enWP. My impression is that deWP, for example, sets the bar higher, and
has fewer problems: in a word, deletionism can work well enough.
On 08/04/2011 15:57, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 April 2011 15:17, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Notability has always been a broken and widely-misunderstood aspect of
enWP. My impression is that deWP, for example, sets the bar higher, and
has fewer problems: in a
With regard to the Chinese examples specifically, they may have a lot of
articles, but content-wise, they are a mess. And that isn't just me, the
biased Wikipedia editor saying that. A lot of Chinese people I've talked to
don't trust their content either, particularly Hudong, which is worse than
Tom,
The maintanabilty test strikes me as an interesting one, but I'm not
sure it scales. On Citizendium you had essentially one language and a
relatively small community, on Wikipedia you have:
*
* a much larger multilingual community so exponentially more difficult
to know if someone is
I've also suggested this, calling it '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much
relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring
WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of
barely notable articles in Wikipedia,
I've also suggested this, calling it '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much
relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring
WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of
barely notable articles in
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org
Date: 8 April 2011 20:35
Subject: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear community,
on the IRC board meeting at April 8th 2011 the board
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites
Jimbo runs?
Bob
On 4/8/2011 3:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 04/07/11 5:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to
That wouldn't solve anything, except further draw a hard line and create
an even larger rift between editors. If we strive to be an open
community where we bring people together, then we would collectively be
making it more closed by doing this.
-MuZemike
On 4/8/2011 1:26 PM, David Goodman
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites
Jimbo runs?
Definitely not.
___
Good :) I'd be embarrassed for whoever does run that site.
On 4/8/2011 6:08 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
A fork could
easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve
differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that
freely and independently do this would in fact put our own NPOV
25 matches
Mail list logo
