In a message dated 12/12/2008 3:44:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
snowspin...@gmail.com writes:
Which is part of the problem. There's a lot of stuff that, in
academia, we just consider too obvious to publish.
We already handle Is the Sun hot?
Our policy allows common sense
Diffs or it didn't happen!
:)
Michel
2008/12/11 Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com
Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article...
I've been getting into a fairly nasty feud on a popular culture
article in which I added an academic criticism section, summarizing
articles I
There's a limit to how much I can comment if you don't want to give
the specific example (your summary of the events will undoubtedly be
incomplete and biased by your opinions - that's always the way with
this kind of thing). What I will say is that the important principle
here is that of
Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article...
I've been getting into a fairly nasty feud on a popular culture
article in which I added an academic criticism section, summarizing
articles I could find on the subject.
This seems to me well-supported by numerous policies. But it
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
Diffs or it didn't happen!
Have the folks on the lists forgotten how to use contribs:
You can easily find examples in Phil's contrib history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tori_Amosdiff=prevoldid=257127013
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
2008/12/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
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
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article...
Not knowing what article you were talking about, (which is helpful in
some situations) my expectation in a reader-role with wikipedia is
that articles would have
2008/12/11 Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org:
After seeing the diff linked, and the fact that this is the Tori Amos
article, yes, I think your audience/local-editorship for this article
is probably significantly non-standard, more opinionated, and
motivated than most subjects. Tori fans are
On 12/12/08, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Scholarship in the arts is not primarily opinion, but analysis
based on study of the primary sources, the same fundamental approach
used on all other subjects.
[/snip]
You're right--and I guess this issue brings us down to the
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Thomas Larsen
larsen.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/08, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Scholarship in the arts is not primarily opinion, but analysis
based on study of the primary sources, the same fundamental approach
used on all other
In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:00:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
That's all I'm asking in this general discussion, recognition that there
is a problem.
--
In the articles I've worked on, and I mostly work on biography and a little
on
12 matches
Mail list logo
