Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:25 AM 3/6/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken.
At 04:34 AM 3/7/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
What I'm seeing from
Mr. Matthews is an argument, that, no, the guidelines should prevail,
and we should not change the guidelines to reflect actual practice.
I'm certainly not saying that, and it doesn't represent my
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken. (Notability has always been a broken concept, but the real
question is
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Some of the more high-profile associated topics of
notable topic X can be mentioned in the article on X, but that doesn't
mean they are all worth a separate article. Such decisions should go
We will never solve the problem of structuring--different
encyclopedias at various times have done it quite opposite. (Some
French encyclopedias have even consisted of 5 or 6 very long volume
length articles, divided in an elaborate scheme to a number of
subsections. Recall that the print
Can you remember which French encyclopedias did that elaborate scheme.
It sounds interesting.
The difference with Wikipedia is the possibilities of linkage and
transclusions and differing formats available in a digital
encyclopedia, but the downside is the inconsistency in the solutions
devised
Carcharoth wrote:
Can you remember which French encyclopedias did that elaborate scheme.
It sounds interesting.
The difference with Wikipedia is the possibilities of linkage and
transclusions and differing formats available in a digital
encyclopedia, but the downside is the inconsistency in
At 05:25 AM 3/6/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken.
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of
At 09:04 AM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Structuring of content is an interesting question. Sometimes small
stubs are better than a list, as it is easier to link to separate
articles than to items in a list, especially if there is no real
unifying structure for the list. Sometimes it takes a while
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete.
You aren't allowing
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original
Systematically arranged encyclopedias:
Well, checking my references, a little more than 6 vols., but on the
principle:
There were.
1.
Encyclopedie francaise, 1935-66 was published in 21 topical volumes. ,
with the contents in each arranged by topic, with an alphabetic index
to each volume:
At 11:39 AM 3/6/2010, David Goodman wrote:
We will never solve the problem of structuring--different
encyclopedias at various times have done it quite opposite.
That's a non sequitur. The solved the problem. Differently.
(Some
French encyclopedias have even consisted of 5 or 6 very long volume
At 01:10 PM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
I agree that something driven by reader choice would be good, but
still with editorial guidance.
With a print encyclopedia, there is a publisher who is in charge.
However, the publisher is dependent upon the buyers of encyclopedias,
who are generally
At 07:31 PM 3/6/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original vision, which was itself
At 05:53 PM 2/24/2010, Ken Arromdee wrote:
You shouldn't *need* to go through this level of debate just to keep a page
around when the notability rules could be fixed instead. Otherwise we're
no longer the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we're the encyclopedia that
anyone with an extraordinary
George Herbert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Perhaps this contains the
germ of an idea: a process Drafts for mainspace, a review debating
unuserfying. The Bizarre Records solution to our problems - just what
sthe
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Perhaps this contains the
germ of an idea: a process Drafts for mainspace, a review debating
unuserfying. The
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, George Herbert wrote:
Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the
sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a
closing admin would make of it... :-)
You shouldn't *need* to go through this level of debate just to keep a page
George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the
sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a
closing admin
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Perhaps this contains the
germ of an idea: a process Drafts for mainspace, a review debating
unuserfying. The Bizarre Records solution to our problems - just what
sthe world/s Wikipedia needs,
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The present rules at Wikipedia are so many and
contradictory that it is possible to construct an argument with them to
justify almost any decision--even without using IAR.
I'm trying to figure out if you're arguing with
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we have no really universally agreed vision of what the encyclopedia
should be, almost any decision is the result of compromise [...] Personally,
I
think that's the worst way to find a
I thing compromise IS the solution.
I said that the sort of compromise by deciding the individual cases half one
way half the other on a more or less random basis is the worst way to do a
compromise.
I didn't go into the best way to form a compromise. The way that works in
the outside world is
This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve
to have articles; so they argue for non-notability.
Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be
an abuse of the rules.
That's an example of a fairly common human prejudice against new
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
This is of course true too. People don't think video game composers deserve
to have articles; so they argue for non-notability.
Whether this should be the case is another story. I consider this to be
an abuse of the
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Interesting comparison with historical antecedants! This is more the
sort of level of debate I'd like to see at AfD. I wonder what a
closing admin would make of it... :-)
You
David Goodman wrote:
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However, as is
The existing situation is of great assistance to another species: the
wiki-barrister, expert is using whatever legal processes are available to
achieve equity. . If such a person intuitively think an article should be
kept, they will find arguments to keep it, and vice-versa. For essentially
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Goodman wrote:
The existing situation is of great assistance to another species: the
wiki-barrister, expert is using whatever legal processes are available to
achieve equity. . If such a person intuitively think an article should be
kept, they will find arguments
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
be said in an article that has
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However, as is
common enough in this (endless, unresolved) discussions, you are not
doing so accurately enough. Firstly, [[Wikipedia:Notability]] is only a
guideline, not an official policy for
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are paraphrasing from [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. However, as is
common enough in this (endless,
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
I would look up
some sources, but I really hate those pseudonym in another language
in an obscure and emerging genre (video music) cases. You really
can't make much progress with those unless someone actually goes and
writes a book about it, or you know
Ken Arromdee wrote:
I never understood, why does notability require a reliable source anyway?
Doesn't - urban myth put about by people with a kindergarten version of
logical positivism. But no reliable sources means nothing can actually
be said in an article that has any content. X is
Actually our notability guidelines foster bad music articles.
Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that
have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed
independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably
notable.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I stumbled into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kinuyo_Yamashita
My personal summary: Notability
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I stumbled into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kinuyo_Yamashita
My personal summary: Notability requirements shown to be utterly broken for
popular culture topics.
Yeah. It's
40 matches
Mail list logo
