On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up.
Jayen466 has a long history of harassing Cirt, an editor who has created
dozens of featured articles on a variety of topic. He has engaged in
widespread forum
Fred Bauder wrote:
The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to
Wikipedia policies.
This is true, however it is also true the editing which conforms the
article to WP policies might fail to resolve the matter.
The revival of Gore Vidal's technique of some 50 years ago,
Presumably we are evaluating the arguments that are not /ad hominem /on
their merits, rather than on the /ad hominem/ basis that their author
elsewhere makes /ad hominem /attacks?
RMF
On 25/05/2011 22:38, David Gerard wrote:
See, at this point you completely blew your credibility in this
Actually I'm evaluating them on their appropriateness for a mailing
list. A discussion that would be perfectly in order on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions
looks more like off wiki canvassing to me.
May I suggest that we
On Wed, 25 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human
waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term,
descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts).
No, I am not. I am conflating what the article says and
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
As a matter of fact, it would help Wikipedia if the article were retitled,
[[Dan Savage Google-bomb campaign against Rick Santorum]].
The fact that it would help is exactly why it's not going to happen--all the
people who are promoting the article
This is a mistaken understanding of what unbalanced means with respect to
Wikipedia.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
If there weren't a tea party movement, we wouldn't have an article on
the tea party movement.
The tea party movement isn't mainly an Internet campaign, and even the aspects
of it that are Internet-based don't involve attempts to increase its search
engine
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
[...]
You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in any
real-world sense.
I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a
person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
[...]
You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit. Not in
any
real-world sense.
I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a
person is compared to shit. We can and in my opinion we
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:47, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
We aren't doing anything wrong here. We could, but the actual
coverage in the actual article is NPOV and does not show Santorum
himself in a negative manner, because we show Santorum's reasoned and
mature response
On 26 May 2011 00:52, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The common element is promoting a POV.
But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here; I don't see signs
of breach of NPOV.
Andreas appears to have a vendetta against
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net
wrote:
[...]
You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This
article appears to be the starting and the ending point. Sometimes
less is more.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This
article
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Part of the process of improving articles involves editing them, and
that includes removing stuff as well as adding stuff. There are many
cases of articles at the featured article process (and sometimes at
the good
On Thu, 26 May 2011, George Herbert wrote:
The *term* shows him in a negative light, but the *incident* actually
shows him responding maturely and responsibly.
This is an artificial distinction that happens to fit Wikipedia rules, but not
reality. Spreading the term automatically shows him in
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(Proposed general rule: if you launch your complaint on Wikipedia
Review, you're already wrong.)
This is going on my user page.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Your arguments fail to account for the fact that the article is curated
by
biased anti-Santorum contributors,
Well, you lost me right there.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment is
false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show that the
article is curated by at least one, and probably several,
Message-
From: Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu
Sender: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:44:41
To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my comment
is
false (not to mention that it is a slur). It should be easy to show
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I believe you will have a hard time justifying your claim that my
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Brian J Mingus
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:50 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rob
On 23/05/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Google's search results are entirely their business.
Actually not entirely, we do have quite a bit of control.
In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not
suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it).
But google
:
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 7:53
On 23/05/2011, geni geni
You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.
This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by
interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on
wiki-en.
There is a on-wiki discussion and there will be more, but this:
By the
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's main
author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum
announced he might run for President, and then added to
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take
into account
that even talking about the article on this list might
affect ranking.
What is needed is to improve the article; it
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just delete articles we don't
like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than
Googlebombing) purpose to list santorum in a nav template of 100 political
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google
searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty
sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack
templates and are practically orphans.
Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an
, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 20:21
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware
of it.
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't
aware
of it.
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem
though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather
than
neutral observers and reporters, in the political
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't
aware
of it.
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem
though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google
searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty
sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack
templates and are practically orphans.
Nor am I surprised that someone who
With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or
came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion
started here.
Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not
have consensus that there is in fact a problem requiring being solved
here.
On
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a
wider problem
though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as
participants, rather
than
neutral observers and reporters, in the political
process.
I'd
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 21:56
I'm skeptical that we should have
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 22:38
On 25 May 2011 11:34, Andreas Kolbe
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Again - you do not have consensus (here or there) that it
violates the policy.
We know YOU (and
On 25 May 2011 22:53, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is
about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style,
complete with a blue call-out box:
Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box -
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably
balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced.
The
On Wed, 25 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:
Except you did not say PR style, with call-out box - you said gay
porn company, as if those three words were enough to make your point.
You lose.
In this context, gay porn company is legitimate, because it implies a
COI.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably
balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
rumor (as
On 25 May 2011 23:25, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr.
Santorum. Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the
real world is rather explicitly Not the Point.
Indeed. And attacking the author is
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Then you've missed the point. The point is not that
[[Corbin Fisher]] is
about a gay porn company. The point is that it's
written in PR style,
complete with a blue call-out box:
Except
On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ
You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms
On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ
You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious.
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 23:40
On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard
Kudos to Andreas for notifying Cirt so quickly after my suggestion,
but may I suggest that we review the rules for this mailing list?
Currently neither
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l#Rules nor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette which it links to
via a
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
George,
Can you please address a couple of points that I believe have been brought
up in this thread. You may want to read the previous emails that more
clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are as
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
George,
Can you please address a couple of points that I
believe have been brought
up in this thread. You may want to read the previous
emails that more
clearly
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
I don't agree with either statement.
The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects
on
Santorum) is
notable. It's covered in
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
I don't agree with either statement.
The event (Savage coming up
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
The common element is promoting a POV.
There's absolutely no ban against that.
NPOV is a property of the Wikipedia and articles, not editors.
In other words, users adding a POV to an article or articles in the
Wikipedia in general
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
The Santorum controversy... article has 2 sentences on Savage and the
neologism, no coverage of the consequences on Santorum's career,
Santorum's comments regarding it, or critical
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about
Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there was
no
anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word
about
Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there
was
no
anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
No question the subject is notable. The question is how to handle it
appropriately.
Think outside the box and merge it to the article on Dan Savage?
One criticism I have of the article on the neologism is that the
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably
balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably
balanced.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be reasonably
balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
rumor
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be
reasonably
balanced is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere
gerbil
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
None of the examples you cite are living people.
This reminds me again about a somewhat common misinterpretation of
BLP. BLP is not really motivated solely by the fact that a person is
alive, To the extent that WP:BLP
On 26/05/2011, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced;
it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many
disclaimers
we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit.
Well said. That's the
On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH gmbh0...@gmail.com wrote:
From: GmbH gmbh0...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11
On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
You've got one word right, our. You are responsible for this.
No, he (and we) are not. Dan Savage is responsible for this.
--
-george william herbert
Huh?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote:
Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
You've got one word right, our. You are responsible for this.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at
that
level. It's so offensive on one level that academics
and political
commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than
addressing the
rather deep Hey,
There's also this:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html
*Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum
Becomes
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get
itself represented
twice, with two different titles (one of which
redirects to the other).
Personally, I think redirecting the
On 23/05/2011 03:56, geni wrote:
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the
second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it
Words coined after the names of then-living people:
*Orwellian
*Chauvinist
*Boycott
*Bowdlerize
and countless others. Wikipedia can't ignore significant cultural trends for
the sake of censorship and super injunctions. Nor should it be used to
promote those trends. So long as we stick
On 23/05/2011 03:56, geni wrote:
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the
second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it
On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
I take it Fred means this article or this campaign: if the latter
that's obvious enough. Given a mainstream piece of coverage such as
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
I take it Fred means this article or this campaign:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Many of the things we report on are unfortunate. An IMF
candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid
snip
Candidate? Last I looked, he was Managing Director of the IMF at the
time the story broke (he is now former
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
that the situation with Twitter and a UK footballer
I was looking at the wrong article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_super-injunction_controversy
This one is more specific:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Many of the things we report on are unfortunate. An IMF
candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid
snip
Candidate? Last I looked, he was Managing Director of the IMF at the
time the story broke (he is now
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
that
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Many of the things we report on are unfortunate. An IMF
candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid
snip
Candidate? Last I
We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it
accurately. Many of the things we report on are unfortunate. An IMF
candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89
plus people, a terrorist attack in Pakistan and several ongoing and
incipient wars,
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it
accurately. Many of the things we report on are unfortunate. An IMF
candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89
plus people,
I'm skeptical that we should have an article.
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of
I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I'm skeptical that we should have an article.
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter
On Mon, 23 May 2011, geni wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this Wikipedia article is the
second result. This means that people who are looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it right away - instead we are
going to feed them information about a biased
On Mon, 23 May 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of
I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.
My God! Larry Sanger was right!
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this
Wikipedia article is the
second result.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 21:56, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a
Hi all,
I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently
brought to my attention via Facebook.
My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability
guidelines. The article goes out of its way to cite lots of sources, but I
do not believe that being
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently
brought to my attention via Facebook.
My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability
guidelines. The article goes
Hi all,
I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently
brought to my attention via Facebook.
My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability
guidelines. The article goes out of its way to cite lots of sources, but
I
do not believe that
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Hi all,
I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently
brought to my attention via Facebook.
My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability
guidelines. The article
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I'm not sure about the history of this article, but it it was recently
brought to my attention via Facebook.
My take on this article is that it is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability
guidelines. The article goes
99 matches
Mail list logo
