Steve Bennett wrote:
Most well known or
best known? Whichever one is currently in the article. Focus your
efforts elsewhere.
Hey, this is an amusing topic ...
Example for a beer-tasting FAQ (about American lagers):
*Budweiser, Coors, and Miller are the most well-known bad examples of
Apoc 2400 wrote:
On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
discussion?
Is it really good to propose the
Carcharoth wrote:
I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
ask the deleting administrator about those first?
I think an admin
David Gerard wrote:
So making a
drama-free clean up afterwards procedure was considered the least
worst way of dealing with things.
Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
revived a notable-seeming Indian politican lady from the dead. If the 10
ton weight drops on
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
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
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
For a change, something on English usage. A trawl through some usage
books tells me nothing much about most well known, which I'm convinced
is a solecism, and should be best-known. The hyphenation I think is
standard anyway. Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for
most well known
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Charles Matthews schreef:
Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for
most well known on enWP, and I'd prefer none to be in article space.
Yes... I guess there must be a few style guides that allow
that phrase, but most well known style guides
Bod Notbod wrote:
One of the proposals on the strategy wiki has recommended an
adjustment to talk pages. I added that perhaps the tab should be
called discussion/feedback to encourage people who are primarily
readers to let us know what they thought of an article without it
necessarily
Risker wrote:
There are some opportunities to improve practices here, and to really take a
look and decide which articles (and rarely, article talk pages) need this
indefinite protection. At the same time, I really do believe that if an
admin is going to reduce protection on a page with an
I was away and missed the FR discussions, but I have to say this: the
vanishing point is nowhere in sight!
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/5/09, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I was away and missed the FR discussions, but I have to say this: the
vanishing point is nowhere in sight!
FR?
(Racks brains).
I assume you mean flagged revisions?
Got it in one! Oh
Gwern Branwen wrote:
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 Google Book. There is a thing
called proxy or super proxy or something of that sort, which
So Google Knol moves into hosting? Will there be ads?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Carcharoth wrote:
How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do
mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding
to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or
do they automate it in some way?
Google apparently pays peanuts
Carcharoth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics
The only remaining task on Variation and selection is integrating
references, probably to their own authors' pages. That page is still
up for historical interest and to finish small amounts, but for all
intents
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html
Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way
through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service.
But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information
available does a lot to
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Does my memory deceive me? Or is it true that 2 of the 3 millionth
articles related to soap operas?
A Scottish railway station, and the Spanish TV comedy programme [[El
Hormiguero]], were what you were thinking of. If you regard Europe as
one big historical soap
Cathy Edwards wrote:
This is all so interesting - thanks.
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
[[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] indicates some of
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
everyone will accept.
Hmmm, that seems to assume consensus
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917002,00.html
Time magazine ... can't get excited about the whole business really. But
why is Wales not James if Sanger is Lawrence?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Steve Bennett wrote:
The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a rate.
Yes, the mean here might tell less than the median. (I.e. you'd expect
to see very different figures for controversial and
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
Carcharoth suggests. There are two meanings for reliability.
Reliability in RS, I claim, depends solely on the publisher, and
reliability in this sense is about notability, and certainly not
about
Soxred93 wrote:
Despite the fact that this guy has many of his facts are wrong, he does
have some element of truth.
Not only Technically Incorrect, but actually incorrect, and sloppy
too. It would be a pernicious meme, that you can't contribute
successfully to Wikipedia by getting an
Hmmm ... a mail with seven unedited wikien-l footers, and two
contra-flow top posts on top of around four going down the page. What is
more, the content includes two replies by people who provided wrong info
off the top of their heads. I'm going to sound grumpy, but this list can
do better
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to
take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin
toolbox and flag.
Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other problems
(in the spectrum of stress to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
middle is a debate struggling to get out: is the volume of reversions
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'd offer the view that an admin who gets involved as one party in a
long series of trolling may not be suited to the role either. It could
be taken to suggest the admin has an issue with knowing when to step
back, or possibly even too much self-belief in their own
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Thinking of teh community as a community, it suddenly makes me realise
I have no idea who the community leaders are.
snip
The episodes and characters arbitration cases
were instances crying out for facilitation, not arbitration, and the
arbitration that resulted
Surreptitiousness wrote:
At some point the arbitration committee is going to have to make tough
decisions, if only to see exactly where the chips fall. If the
arbitration committee is sometimes afraid of acting, what hope have we
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'm not
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you
felt it was too much jargon.
No - I felt
Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This
Sage Ross wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
commenting, and everyone
Marc Riddell wrote:
The bottom line here is: what can we passengers do about it when we aren't
the ones driving?
Well, I co-wrote a book of 500 pages expressly designed to help newbies
participate and understand the culture. You? Do you blog, at least? I'd
like to know who you think is at
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith
Ken Arromdee wrote:
There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real
life by just about everyone who's thought about them.
Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered
short-sighted by people who have seen it tried.
Charles
Emily Monroe wrote:
I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not
as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your
attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving.
Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you
Emily Monroe wrote:
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively
refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the
wiki are actually made. They aren't made here.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history.
You can be fairly sure that the people on whom
Marc Riddell wrote:
Two words in
your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's
culture: It varies. To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
That seems to be twaddle. I work,
David Gerard wrote:
snip
Great - now my turn - David, cool it.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
snip
To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
To work, to create, at their full potential, a person
Andrew Gray wrote:
Well, here's an odd thought. If Wikipedia dies, something to do with
our community will probably be the reason.
Nearly a truism these days. BLP issues coming 100 at a time in a sort of
class action suit could do it ...
Odder thought - mailing lists and newsgroups look
George Herbert wrote:
I have found that in the case of admins behaving badly, the typical
problem is more the backlash against the admin cabal getting in the
way of focusing on the actual abuse, than admins or arbcom or anyone
else standing in the way of warnings or sanctions against the
Bod Notbod 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
Steve Bennett wrote:
I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount
to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger
made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo.
Debatable. But I think the way Sanger systematically misunderstands the
virtues of WP, and
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/8/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
So all the biographies of women could be tagged woman? That would
work, but only if the woman tag wasn't applied to other things as
well. Maybe you would have to have woman + biography? Even then,
it might not be exact.
Carcharoth wrote:
And I
shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It
would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5
people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as
verified.
Hmm, in my experience the majority of finds of inaccuracy in
Bryan Derksen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it
gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a little skeptical that this is any of the real reasons, given the
fallibility of human memory, and never seeing anything like this
mentioned in materials from the early days - but this would be a great
reason, because this doctor is not described as publishing
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Note the tension between you can edit this page right now,
which is part of the credo, and you can verify this fact right now,
which isn't...
...unless it's a BLP, right?
David Goodman wrote:
A much more serious problem is the availability of this material in
the less-developed world, which includes a great many people who rely
on the English Wikipedia--many of whom do not have practical access to
any good library.
Quite. But then the traditional solution has
Bod Notbod wrote:
So you quite commonly see people attributing a musical genre to a band
that other people disagree with, and some anonymous users have a fine
old time changing 5 articles per minute to state their FAVOURITE genre
simply *must* apply to every band they like, regardless of the
Carcharoth wrote
The annoying thing about some of these redlinks, is that when you go
looking for other pages where they are linked from, you run into
problems if they are linked from a template.
Another thing which is rather more than annoying is that plenty of quite
unreferenced
Carcharoth wrote:
snip
I seem to have let my keyboard run away with me there. Sorry! :-)
It is interesting, though, to speculate whether there is a mature
dynamic that is or should be taking over. There would be a few
different sides:
- (focus on metrics) Article count - average length
-
Carcharoth wrote:
Anyway, what I wanted to know was whether there are places on
Wikipedia where such approaches to lists and checking links is
documented? I do remember something about various lists of entries
from places like the DNB.
Ah here we are:
Carcharoth wrote:
Where is the current activity on the DNB project? It's something I had
kept in mind and wouldn't mind getting involved with at some stage.
It's supposedly organised around [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing
encyclopedic articles/DNB]]. Being just a subproject of the missing
Carcharoth wrote:
Picking a page from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:DNBFooter
I can't quite see which of the lists need work, but I'll just pick any
one with out the ticks and stuff on them, and start work there. Any
way to mark one of the 63 pages when it is finished?
David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
So first you need to show that there is an obligation to do anything
[[pro bono
Ben Kovitz wrote:
The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able
to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it.
By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered
82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety
Bod Notbod wrote:
If you can give me a link to a specific (project) page that you're
thinking of with regard to unsourced claims, please do.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup]]
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup]]
stevertigo wrote:
horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a
committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing
how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the
wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was reached.
stevertigo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to
assume that it is ground of your
stevertigo wrote:
And I am not really forcing the issue - just getting
the road cleared is all.
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all that.
The thing
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you?
(See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone?
*Splutter.*
You had very
Carcharoth wrote:
I recently came across this page, on another wiki, where they compare
themselves to Wikipedia.
Interesting or not? What good points do they make?
http://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Groupprops:Groupprops_versus_Wikipedia
You realise that User:Vipul has contributed
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/922216/BBC-Radio-4-launches-Wikipedia-parody/
LONDON - BBC Radio 4 is launching a broadwebcasting show parodying
the internet by mocking pop-ups, search boxes and other aspects of
online activity.
Listening now - utterly realistic
Sage Ross wrote:
To me, the data is really encouraging. Take a look at the charts for
New Wikipedians vs. Active Wikipedians. We knew before that both of
those peaked in early 2007. But now it seems that the decline has
more or less stabilized, and the decline in active Wikipedians was
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text, a reference
or two, an image or an infobox, being
Steve Bennett wrote:
RfA is supposed to be purely a
risk management exercise: we subject prospective admins to a couple of
tests to reduce our risk that they go feral.
I thought it was mainly an exercise to see if you cared enough to look
up the standard acceptable answers to the standard
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/14 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I think you're probably right that a new departure needs to be made:
we're at best mediocre at devising new recognition mechanisms. How
about a project aimed (since we are coming up to three million articles
Ian Woollard wrote:
It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the
curve is bang on that, but we might make 4 million *eventually*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth#Logistic_model_for_growth_in_article_count_of_Wikipedia
We'll know
geni wrote:
We'll know more around the beginning of 2010. In my view something is
likely to change in the direction of people valuing lists of missing
articles more, when it is clearer that drive-by creation is getting
drossier by the month (which is what that model implies). Of course I
sineWAVE wrote:
Redlinks are likely to be a poor estimate of numbers of missing
articles anyway. Some will be to articles that would be non-notable,
and redlinks tend to be removed - in other words links that would be
present if we had the article aren't there as redlinks.
Who are these
Ian Woollard wrote:
If it does finally plateau half the days will be negative of course;
and they'll become more common before we reach the plateau just due to
randomness. But if we start having negative weeks, stick a fork in
her, she's probably done!
Do we have any plans for when we'll be
R E Broadley wrote:
The only link I've been given so far is the [[Wikipedia:Disruptive
editing]] link. Have you seen any others, because I have certainly
not.
I think you can reasonably ask the ArbCom about this. Disruptive
editing is only a behavioural guideline: it mentions This
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular
Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to
convince Raul654 of anything.
I did like the bit in the Signpost where he complained that Andrew Lih's
book only mentioned FA twice.
Charles
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular
Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to
convince Raul654 of
Fred Bauder wrote:
And people with shared computers will continue to engage in these minor
faults. So what! There is no general need to make such an exaggerated
fuss about it.
Ec
The fuss is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_news
Nathan wrote:
On the contrary, my guess is quite a few
articles about individuals and companies of mid-level fame were created by
fans, friends, associates, employees, etc. Perhaps a deep review with
WikiScanner will allow us to identify some of these suspect articles, and
delete them because
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
As far as I know, motivation is still a bad argument at AfD. The
basic
conflict of interest point is not that motives should be pure
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard
to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command-
line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with
Macintosh computers.
Interesting to think what one
Nathan wrote:
I'm not sure how blocking someone for conduct admitted from some years
ago, that doesn't appear to have hurt anyone or caused any disruption, is
the right thing to do.
The account is blocked, because the problem is with the account. There
are obviously good grounds for an
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually read Charles' message, or just stop after the first
sentence to fire off a reply? He wasn't saying why on earth would
Wikipedia be citing the BIBLE?!, he was saying that you need to
Carcharoth wrote:
Since the rest of this thread is threatening to descend into a long
discussion about theology, atheism and agnoticism, I'll chip in at
this point where people are making theological jokes involving
Wikipedia.
I think Wikimedia needs a new deprogramming language, myself.
Matthew Brown wrote:
It strikes me that in the current Wikipedia template-programming
system that we've managed to create a perfect storm, a worse
solution for everyone. We're in, at least, the easy situation in
which almost any alternative would be better.
To be fair, there are tens of
stevertigo wrote:
feed the corrupted ent?
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly obscure.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Do I understand this to be a personal invective directed at me?
It's a Tolkien reference, but I suppose if Carcharoth didn't get it, it
is fairly
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sure. But not in a good way.
I graciously accept your apology.
So what's your KGS ranking?
It's a new account, but I can give you one stone.
Well, settling it
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver
tool I hacked since
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then
wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with
the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway.
Obviously the current
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would
Guettarda wrote:
Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you
pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in.
The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation. So
while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script
this
once (from a different angle):
http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/149/charles-matthews-on-notability
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
Ian Woollard wrote:
Can I ask what policy this was done under? While I generally approve
of the action here, it seems that the admins involved were not
entirely following the letter or really entirely the spirit of
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So how are they not
technically rouge
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern: see the Ken Hechtman example above. In 2001 a Canadian journalist
who was held by the Taliban did have his life endangered by news coverage.
-Durova
Yes, I read it. I don't think
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_suppression
The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the
right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia
article. It
David Goodman wrote:
would the news media have acted equally to protect someone kidnapped
who was not part of the staff of one of their own organizations?
preventing harm is the argument of all censors
That may be the case; but saying that acting to prevent harm makes one a
censor is not
AGK wrote:
I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of bickering ;-))
that a proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the
intractability of this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal
is successful (i.e., whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most
401 - 500 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
