At 07:59 AM 6/27/2010, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good.
One Size Fits All. (If It Doesn't Fit You, You get an F.)
Free Public Education for All. (Implicit: One Curriculum, Centrally
Decided. How?)
Free Encyclopedia: (One Brief Article Per Subject.)
I
At 05:06 PM 6/3/2010, AGK wrote:
On 3 June 2010 22:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Not saying this to try to prod him into stop posting here, but as a
genuine statement: I happen to enjoy Abd's commentary /when I have the
time to read it/. I'd happily read his blog regularly (especially
As usual, I recommend not reading this if allergic to Abd Thought.
Some of you are. Consult your physician.
At 08:37 AM 6/3/2010, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:18:03 -0400, Abd wrote:
Durova's history is a classic example. She was hounded by a screaming
mob when she made a
Original subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
- The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution
to the decline in their active numbers
At 03:46 PM 6/2/2010, quiddity wrote:
Abd, please take the time to make your thoughts more readily parsable.
Don't
experience, and it was rejected as too long.
Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to
skip two. This is part one.
At 03:14 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Actually, most people who
(continuation from Part 1, preceding.)
I never sought the desysopping of JzG, as an example, and didn't
argue for it for WMC. I argued for *suspension* until the admin
assured ArbComm that he would not repeat the use of tools while
involved. JzG's actions had been egregious, and still ArbComm
At 12:56 AM 6/1/2010, Durova wrote:
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious
liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls
to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia
At 09:07 AM 6/1/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 1 June 2010 05:56, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] It is hardly surprising that, in this weak economy, wise
editors have been declining offers of nomination.
This is IMO asymptom of there being insufficient admins.
Yes.
And again,
At 09:38 AM 6/1/2010, AGK wrote:
Derailing meta-discussion with criticism of specific users stinks of
axe-grinding.
I criticized an argument with an expression of concern about how an
administrator might apply that argument. That remains within
metadiscussion. I specicifically disclaimed any
At 09:57 AM 6/1/2010, Risker wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
There is a 20K limit. That's lower than usual, my experience. I think
it's silly, since it is easier to ignore one 30K post than to ignore
two 15 K posts. But, hey, I
At 10:01 AM 6/1/2010, you wrote:
On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to
skip two. This is part one.
Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :)
You could write the lengthy version of your
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length
limit on posting?
I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts.
They are annoying, but I may
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to
fix A, you'd
At 10:34 AM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
(1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree
that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is
what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going
At 01:49 PM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
But AGK is
an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost
always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect
that some of his work is less than
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
specifically (and as to on-line process, for over
At 11:19 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
[...] remedies - for a bigger picture
- have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of
time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a
complete view of the elephant.
Right. Sensible. There is a solution to
At 02:17 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
Abd has been beaten around the head by the arbcom on several
occasions, and so has an understandably negative view of power
structures on Wikipedia in general - since it couldn't possibly be the
case that he was ever actually wrong or anything.
My views
At 12:11 PM 5/31/2010, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:49:49 -0400, Abd wrote:
And I feel that I did. I've watched the community, in a few cases,
adopt as consensus what I'd proposed to jeers and boos, there is
some satisfaction in that
Maybe the initial reaction you get
At 05:51 PM 5/31/2010, David Lindsey wrote:
The key is not making it easier to remove adminship. This proposal gets us
closer to the real problem, but fails to fully perceive it as does the
common call to separate the functions of adminship.
Generally, Mr. Lindsey has written a cogent
At 06:11 PM 5/31/2010, David Goodman wrote:
The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the
consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin
would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per
the majority and closing per the strongest
At 07:34 PM 5/31/2010, you wrote:
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading.
No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get
annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell
At 01:58 PM 5/30/2010, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious -
result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any
circumstances.
Exactly. The big problem with
At 06:43 AM 5/30/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote: As
for the idea that we should move to Hi, I
noticed that you speedy-deleted some files
that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria;
your SysOp staus has been removed
At 08:14 PM 5/30/2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing
arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't
delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively
At 09:55 AM 5/24/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:13 PM 5/22/2010, Rob Lanphier wrote:
What this means is that there would not actually be a separate autoreview
group. Autoconfirmed users would be given the access rights. I made this
simplification because I wasn't able to find any
At 04:08 AM 5/23/2010, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
[...]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
At 01:44 PM 4/4/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
Carcharoth
(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
Not even to support a cause which, you might know, is not
representing itself well, and you could help?
Pure, ethics-free PR,
At 12:00 PM 4/4/2010, William Pietri wrote:
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit
that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
Well, that's one kind of PR. This negative view of PR is common, and
justified because that's exactly what
At 03:24 PM 3/28/2010, Fred Bauder wrote:
That is why I despise the war on external links and further reading some
editors seem to think is appropriate.
I don't think that some editors realize the extent to which the
blacklist, originally intended to control spam, is used to control
content. A
At 04:34 AM 3/7/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
What I'm seeing from
Mr. Matthews is an argument, that, no, the guidelines should prevail,
and we should not change the guidelines to reflect actual practice.
I'm certainly not saying that, and it doesn't represent my
At 05:25 AM 3/6/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken.
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses
At 09:04 AM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Structuring of content is an interesting question. Sometimes small
stubs are better than a list, as it is easier to link to separate
articles than to items in a list, especially if there is no real
unifying structure for the list. Sometimes it takes a while
At 11:39 AM 3/6/2010, David Goodman wrote:
We will never solve the problem of structuring--different
encyclopedias at various times have done it quite opposite.
That's a non sequitur. The solved the problem. Differently.
(Some
French encyclopedias have even consisted of 5 or 6 very long volume
At 01:10 PM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
I agree that something driven by reader choice would be good, but
still with editorial guidance.
With a print encyclopedia, there is a publisher who is in charge.
However, the publisher is dependent upon the buyers of encyclopedias,
who are generally
At 07:31 PM 3/6/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original vision, which was itself
At 05:53 PM 2/24/2010, Ken Arromdee wrote:
You shouldn't *need* to go through this level of debate just to keep a page
around when the notability rules could be fixed instead. Otherwise we're
no longer the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we're the encyclopedia that
anyone with an extraordinary
At 11:06 AM 1/28/2010, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers
phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Running a mass deletion does have the unfortunate effect
that there's no time for anyone to
At 06:05 PM 1/23/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use Pure Wiki Deletion. I don't
think
At 07:34 PM 1/21/2010, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion. Pure Wiki Deletion.
- causa sui
Pure Wiki Deletion.
Well, I'd add a note to the article. PWD deals with the problem
without destroying the work that was done on the article, it is there
for anyone to recover. The
Okay, I'm slightly inconvenienced, or relieved, due to being
currently blocked, so I'll make this suggestion here. Pass it on if
you dare be accused of proxying for a blocked editor. Caveat emptor.
See WP:PWD. This is a general solution for unreferenced articles, not
just BLP, but it would be
At 12:04 PM 12/21/2009, David Gerard wrote:
2009/12/21 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
The article was likely overstated. However, the editor involved did
have a substantial history of using administrative tools with respect
to global warming and related articles, as well
At 03:08 PM 12/19/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Now has a Slashdot story:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1137140/Climategate-spreads-to-Wikipedia
Which links to two articles:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
At 01:49 AM 8/14/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
An expert editor is not a source, the have to edit using sources, just
like anyone else does. Their personal opinions have and should have
nothing to do with building articles neutrally. Neutrality is not the
result of a single editor, it is the
At 02:27 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
I'm glad you finally agree with me :)
Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together.
Anyone can find a source stating that cats have retractable claws.
Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster.
I'm not really interested in an expert
At 08:41 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
*That* someone is an expert in field xyz is not a WP:COI, although some
may see it as a conflict-of-interest (in lower case). For something to
be a conflict of interest in-project doesn't just require that a person
has a strong opinion on it, or a history of deep
At 05:33 PM 8/12/2009, you wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says we
At 08:32 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
Just the opposite.
We want experts to edit the controversial bits.
Do you really want a swarm of amateurs who have little-to-no basis in
the field being the sole people editing the most contentious portions?
That just sounds upside-down to me.
Yes, I understand.
At 08:34 PM 8/13/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Please don't contentiously edit the article applies to all editors,
not just experts. So I can't see the need for this distinction you
think should exist. I'm still not seeing what you want here clearly.
I certainly hope you wouldn't be able to get
At 08:48 PM 8/13/2009, Carcharoth wrote:
It's striking a balance between experts who WP:OWN articles and revert
ignorant editors who don't know what they are talking about, and
requiring experts to carefully explain everything. Ideally, you would
tell both lots to edit based on reliable sources,
At 09:59 PM 8/11/2009, FT2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote:
Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do
you treat another human being?
The biggest clue isn't some civility standard - it's when some user
At 08:18 PM 8/11/2009, you wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the
experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in
it.
Also
At 01:57 PM 5/10/2009, Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
I meant that resolving the meatspace Israel-Palestine conflict is
beyond the capabilities of the Committee.
Certainly. But if Wikipedia potential were realized, though being
*better and more efficient
53 matches
Mail list logo
