Jon Q wrote:
snip
One observation I've made is that for a good part, the editors who regularly
review content seem to look down upon many different types of sources online
-- and while there are real world sources that aren't online, they don't
seem happy unless they can easily click on
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 18/07/2010, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or systematic
problem like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
given case,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
it's a working environment where things do not need to be
Fordist, and initiative and the guts to hold out for the right result
are to be encouraged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism
Which bit of
This is a point comon to all codification.
For those who have clue about wiki, yes. For the many who don't, are
learning, do not want to be bitten, might be over-aggressive in
adding/criticising/removing, or want clearer guidance, we have detailed
policies that capture key points.
So while
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
aanlktim1l3wdbbd8e3tdb4nm7x45rc1tmygrqkeoc...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
This is a point comon to all codification.
For those who have clue
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:43:05 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
en:wp does allow quite a few historic images under fair use. And no,
they're not safe. But we're in this for the long haul, not a pretty
page today.
If you post any fair-use images, you'd better be prepared to defend
them and jump
IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or systematic
problem like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
given case, large overall) that important information for an article may be
blog
I like the approach, but sources are more or less reliable, not
absolutely R or not-R. The factors you list affect the degree of
reliability, but where to put the bar so it can be used in Wikipedia
will vary with different subjects, and with different purposes. (for
example, the bar for
Can you explain and suggest what you mean here?
FT2
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
(Snip)
Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms
might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an
absolute sense things that need to be
1. the content is significant to the purpose of the article, or NPOV
would be compromised if absent;
2. the content is not published in a more reliable easily available source;
3. the author's details and the origins of the material
(authenticity) is not in significant good-faith question;
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, FT2 wrote:
So I would be okay with a solution that
extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example:
It's a nice try, but it still has the limitation to not being about third
parties. We clearly can't just do away with that completely, but it needs
to be relaxed somehow.
On 18/07/2010, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or systematic
problem like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
given case, large overall) that
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
snip
And even this excuse doesn't work for the Bradley example. Having only one
side of a dispute because one side of the dispute is a published author and
can more easily get her side published in a reliable source
On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the problems, though, is that the founding principle that
content must be freely licensed has resulted in large swathes of
images being declared forbidden (because you would need to pay to use
them and you couldn't
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
whatever. If
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the problems, though, is that the founding principle that
content must be freely licensed has resulted in large swathes of
images being declared
Carcharoth wrote:
It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
laws and regulations. But there is an element where Commons (and to a
lesser extent Wikipedia) is seen as acting like the copyright police,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
laws and regulations. But there is an element where
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the
On 16 July 2010 18:38, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
If your desire is to overturn a central plank of Wikipedia policy -
verifiability - then it would probably be wise not to present a joke
comic character and a fan fiction dispute as plausible grounds to
do so.
Indeed. Particularly
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Bod Notbod wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are shifting ground there, of course. It is true that in a sense we
have subordinated NPOV to RS, by saying we are not going to allow vague
assertions that there is more than one side to a story, only things we
can verify.
I'm disputing
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Fall_Off_Boy
Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character
who had the similar
My first instinct would be to ask what state of mind the comic writers
were in when creating these characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter-Eater_Lad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_Boy
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
like further reading.
The *character* is in a reliable
On 15/07/2010, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
when
it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a
reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's
something
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
like further reading.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
when
it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying if it's not in a
reliable source, there's nothing you can do misses the point. Sure there's
something you can do:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
whatever. If we wait until this
31 matches
Mail list logo
