On May 21, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 21 May 2010 04:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is not a reply specifically to what Greg raises, it
is a fact that we aren't just giving the cold shoulder to
silent knowledge, but also stuff written down
On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Permission, however, does not anywhere close to adequately translate into
execution. We do not exclude non-English sources on a policy level, but on a
social level, we heavily do.
Well, the last guy I saw removing non English refs
On May 21, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Permission, however, does not anywhere close to adequately translate into
execution. We do not exclude non-English sources on a policy level, but on a
social level, we heavily do.
On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but the last guy I saw adding them was...
Umm...
Right, there's the issue.
What issue? We don't want people removing valid references. In many
cases references are the most important bits of the whole article.
Note that sock
On May 21, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but the last guy I saw adding them was...
Umm...
Right, there's the issue.
What issue? We don't want people removing valid references. In many
cases references are the
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
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
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
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
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
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,
On 21 May 2010 04:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is not a reply specifically to what Greg raises, it
is a fact that we aren't just giving the cold shoulder to
silent knowledge, but also stuff written down in a language
not our own, when it happens to exist.
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 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
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
Risker wrote:
On 15 May 2010 21:40, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But every opinion can be put
in a measured manner: that is not, generally, our way either, but I
think the advantages are apparent of _not_ using language like this:
By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
There were quotes from Foundation-L in the article, which is, I believe,
what Charles was referring to. It's time to recognise that anyone,
including reporters, can read those mailing lists; one doesn't even have to
Carcharoth wrote:
Next thing you know, journalists will be reporting from blogs by
Wikipedians and Wikimedians, Wikimedia blogs (some of those are
semi-official at least) and even (gasp) from Wikipedia or Commons
discussion pages! Some of the attitude displayed on internal project
pages is
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, I was keeping various things in mind. In our very own inane
jargon, WP:BOLD is qualified by Often it is easier to see that
something is not right rather than to know exactly what /would/ be
right, which is something of a plea for
There is no centralized place here for ruling on the reliability of
particular sources. Competitors and sites like FactCheck.org suffice
in most cases, and people deal with sources as they come up.
To my knowledge the particular news source you cite is generally not
regarded as reliable on
On 15 May 2010 15:12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/exclusive-shake-wikipedia-porn-pressure/
From the unflattering photograph of Jimmy wearing a vacant expression
and with his mouth open, I suspect the article will be of the same
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted)
who mouth off about the doings in the usual hyperbolic terms that we get
used to on mailing lists, might have to reconsider their approach to
commenting so freely in
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Emily
On May 15, 2010, at 8:16 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think the conclusion should be that admins (such as the one quoted)
who mouth off about the
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the
very least they would have to find an official cabal member.
-SC
On 15 May 2010 21:40, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
with the public.
Well it's journalistically
Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
It's time to recognise that anyone,
including reporters, can read those mailing lists; one doesn't even have to
subscribe for some of them, I believe. So it is advisable that people think
carefully about what they are saying, and to be aware that the
29 matches
Mail list logo
