Ken Arromdee wrote:
When they say that Wikipedia's proces for fixing articles is
opaque, time-consuming and cumbersome, they are *correct*.
Well, yeah, but. Right (sorta) conclusion, wrong reason.
It can always be improved, but I don't think our process for
fixing articles is *that* bad.
Fred, you say Roth is an elderly man googling and I am wondering if there
is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list
become unfit to drive?
Elderly or not, there is the issue of authentication. On the
internet, famously, nobody know you're a dog -- but nobody
This may be old news, but it's quite the life-imitates-Wikipedia-imitates-art
brouhaha, complete with Stephen-Colbert-instigating vandalism:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-possible-vp-picks-wikipedia-pages-locked-down-amid-editing-spree-20120808,0,6515256.story
Gwern Branwen wrote:
...Academics may have to adopt such an imposture, but I do not.
As long as my 'snark' does not change the results - as it does not -
I do not care.
Bully for you.
My view is that if such experiments are to be carried
out, it would be better if they were designed and
I saw that, too.
Michele Dowd, in
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html.
Although there's evidence at [[Talk:Callista_Gingrich]] that COI
policies are being observed.
Nathan wrote:
It was reported in the NY Times that the campaign manager has a habit of
, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that
her own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement
because
the reliable sources say otherwise
Ken Arromdee: wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Steve Summit wrote:
Even if Demi Moore is
perfectly reliable on the truth surrounding her birth name,
common sense tells you that a 140-character tweet (or two) is not
the sort of place where you can make nuanced distinctions...
The trouble
Ken Arromdee wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being her, says that her own
birth name is Demi. Wikipedians do not want to use this statement because
the reliable sources say otherwise.
And, per that talk page, they've got
It's still in Google's cache. It doesn'tlook so very bad,
that I can see.
The last entry on the talk page indicates that the page was
deleted (and, yes, supporessed) by Fred at 00:41.
George Herbert wrote:
Ok,
A. The assertion that he fails PORNBIO seems rather flat on the face
of it,
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that
you have no reason to believe the copy accurately represents the source.
I think
Anthony wrote:
The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part
to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting
requirements...
Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a failure. But if it is, it's
arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that
Abd wrote:
[400+ words that I didn't read all of and so won't bother to quote]
As a grave sufferer of logorrhea myself, it's tempting to write
several hundred words here myself, but I'll settle for fifty.
It doesn't matter how you justify a too-long screed; if its
length prevents people from
Carcharoth wrote:
I suppose the idea is that most people using that search box want
go functionality,
Many tech-savvy editors, perhaps, but certainly not most readers.
not search functionality, but seeing as Google's default is
search not go, I suspect more people are used to getting a list
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
I found three quotes quite interesting:
David Archer [...] remarked that he could tell
[the article on global warming] was not written
by professional climate scientists[.]
Among the
stevertigo wrote:
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
This dispute looks either like some combination of original research,
disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust
denialists.
I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like
some
Stevertigo wrote:
Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond
of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so
blatantly miss the distinction between looks like and is.
...I don't do wordplay. I do something quite
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
Carcharoth wrote:
...I've seen cases of HUGGLE and TWINKLE users reverting a
vandalised page to a still-vandalised state, and no-one else checking,
and such vandalised pages (now with the legitimacy of a revert
from an approved user) staying in that state for months.
Indeed. And I've seen
Carcharoth wrote:
I think what some people want is more a way to take a category such as
Famous animals and its subcategories, and run a dynamic query that
returns a list of all the members of those categories sorted by dates
of birth and death. A dynamic version of a list. I know I'd love it
Charles wrote:
The argument worth having is that reliable sources are a necessary
condition for the inclusion of a topic, rather than a sufficient
condition. (This is quite obvious, I believe, but one can go blue in the
face saying it with no effect.) No way is the presidential pooch going
fl wrote:
On Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:21 pm, David Gerard wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
The current introduction raised my eyebrows.
Bo Obama (born October 9, 2008) is the Obama family dog. Barack Obama
is the head of the household and President of the
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently a user can upload a photograph themselves to the Commons,
claim they are the author, and no proof is needed.
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing
people to the
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It rang perfectly true to me.
Our de-facto policy is that we utterly prefer having no photo at
all to having an improperly licensed one, and we utterly reject
any of the opportunities that fair-use law would easily
Durova wrote:
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would
publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that
doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their
eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't
WJhonson wrote:
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve Wikipedia in any reasonable
way.
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.
Sam Blacketer wrote:
This case is more about basic common sense...
Well, no. This case is about whether an editor at (in this case)
The New York Times can successfully collude with editors of other
major media outlets, for the best of reasons, to keep a certain
fact out of the media for N
So, in essence, many Wikipedia articles are another way that the work
of news publications is quickly condensed and reused without
compensation.
What the fuck. Is there a journalist in the last four years who hasn't
used Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder?
Journalists use each
Here's the New York Times in an article about Nikola Tesla:
Today, his work tends to be poorly known among scientists,
though some call him an intuitive genius far ahead of his
peers. Socially, his popularity has soared, elevating him
to cult status.
dgerard wrote:
Indeed. People speak of de:wp as more encyclopedia-like,
better-written, etc. than en:wp, but I've asked a couple of German
speakers about this and they tend to actually *use* en:wp as a
reference ... because it seems that in practice, breadth counts more
for usefulness than
Nathan wrote:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Alvaro Garcia alva...@gmail.com wrote:
Man, I'd never think everyone would be against me and insult me for a
simple question!
The argument over spoilers on Wikipedia is commonly referred to as
the spoiler wars - drawn out, contentious, with a
A recent recycling of Aaron Swartz's analysis of the difference
between who-makes-the-most-edits, versus who-contributes-the-most-content:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway
I think we all know the real story, but it's fascinating how much
traction
Phil wrote:
This should be required reading... The sense that our inclusion and
notability policies put us at odds with readers who are not major
parts of the community has always been there, but this troublingly
nails it: the population of people who write articles and people who
delete
Michel wrote:
Diffs or it didn't happen!
:)
I see the smiley, so perhaps I shouldn't come back with a serious
response, but this interests me.
It is very, very difficult to discuss a general issue on this
list. If you (1) provide a specific example, people immediately
dive in on the specifics
Will Johnson wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would
prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by
number of edits to the page (rather than listing
34 matches
Mail list logo
