I've found it very difficult to test out the VE because so much of what I
do involves, one way or another, templates (which don't work yet in VE).
Manipulating anything to do with a source, for example, is out. Adding tags
to an article is out. Infoboxes are out. And so forth. I suspect once
On 13 May 2013 05:38, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
As I think I commented elsewhere, the lack of references is a deal
breaker for me, even for testing. A couple of times already I started
making an edit with the VE, then went to add a reference...and hard to
start over in the
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This is all the Visual Editor edits in en:wp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangestagfilter=visualeditor
It's not many. So please switch it on (you can still click Edit
source to do references
2013/5/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
This is all the Visual Editor edits in en:wp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangestagfilter=visualeditor
It's not many. So please switch it on (you can still click Edit
source to do references and templates) and give it a
On 11 May 2013 22:08, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Mmmm... so I know that it's the English Wikipedia mailing list, but I
suppose that this won't hurt:
In the Hebrew Wikipedia several people tried the VisualEditor. I
counted seven newly reported bugs as a result of this,
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to
http://dods.co.uk/
It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about
relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...).
I can't remember who I
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
I like this question ;O)
For my part I have been considering my actions during time spent on
Wikipedia and actually adding content to articles has gone by the
wayside!
On 12 October 2011 10:26, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I have mainly been reading articles and making minor edits, generally
to little errors such as no space after punctuation or where someone
has accidentally repeated words or phrases. I suspect there's a gadget
out there that
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much what I've been doing of late - just proofreading as I graze.
I have set myself the task of reading every article on current sitting
UK MPs (whilst also keeping bookmarks of stuff to read after that,
such as
All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to
http://dods.co.uk/
It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about
relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...).
Currently the images are licensed as freely usable with a non-commercial
clause,
On 11 October 2011 16:41, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
[[Jacobus Verheiden]] turned out to be much more rewarding than it promised
to, when I just had a name. Spinoff from [[List of participants in the Synod
of Dort]], which is a
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I came across the idea of cigarette card collections of portraits on
[[List of legendary kings of Scotland]], and here it is again, earlier and
in another form.
There is a long and venerable history of
David Gerard wrote:
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
- d.
I assume you're addressing this to those still able to do so. I, for my
part, am beavering away on Commons trying to sort out the mess that is
[[Category:Rivers of England]]. Category maintenance seems to be
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
- d.
Well, yes,
I discovered the answer to the mystery of why Mao adopted Stalinism and
put it into History of the People's Republic of China (19491976)
A lot of people have wondered where he got those ideas. Turns out they
came from
If you're into mythology/cryptozoology, I did some translation from Old
Norse and Old Icelandic this summer to put together what is probably the
most complete syntheses (in any language) of [[Hafgufa]] and [[Lyngbakr]],
two legendary sea monsters.
Bob
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Fred
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
- d.
Mostly cogent notices on talk pages, hoping that years from now somebody
with more in-subject expertice will address those concerns. Eventualism isn't
fun but it
On 1 Oct 2009, at 03:33, Steve Bennett wrote:
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really care if there was some other
way to identify anonymous users, but raw IPs? Ick.
Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink)
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 10/1/09, Michael Peel wrote:
Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) account is
treated, and an IP account is treated? Perhaps using the former would
give an indication to how the latter is treated? I tend to treat both
as equally suspicious
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
Quality is just the default.
Draft(unflagged) Checked Reviewed, perhaps?
I suspect it's actually important to get this right first time - on
en:wp, policy formation is by someone making up a makeshift apparatus
off the top of their head, then
On 9/30/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I reiterate that all experienced editors should try editing as
an IP for a while. See how well our propaganda matches the way we
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels
Draft Checked and quality, but this is under active discussion.
Quality
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
keep track of, the absolutely lousy articles people often pass over
without notice, or
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
The place
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
The process can and should be made mostly invisible to casual editors.
Like I said, you don't want the process to be 'invisible'
to casual editors, you want it to be *transparently
2009/9/29 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
The place where the comparison to NPP falls short is that NPP doesn't
*do* anything, except coordinate with other people using the
feature and people don't use it because it doesn't do anything
snip
To
David Goodman wrote:
If enWikipedia has only 4,000 active editors, and we don't do better
at this than, we are going to keep up with only a very few articles.
The plan will work , though, for the most watched articles,
fortunately where they are needed, because that's the ones where
people
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
UI fail.
There is no reason for you to know or care that your edit isn't being
displayed to the general public. It's being displayed to you, it's
being displayed to all the other
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
backlog
2009/9/27 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
to keep an eye on it. It is possible that having
2009/9/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
2009/9/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
and the conclusion I meant to add: patrolling will, potentially, be
able to supplant RC patrol as we know it now; because
patrolled-revisions is basically a tool for avoiding RC duplication
and for making revision-management easier. It will
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
Well there are several different types of things that people do, and
2009/9/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
Well there are several
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
But RC-patrol and review flagging are very similar and can both be
done by endless slogging.
Slogging is slogging. Slogging is not editing.
I just understand that there are better ways to do it, (whatever
that means), ways to do it better, and
2009/9/27 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
But RC-patrol and review flagging are very similar and can both be
done by endless slogging.
Slogging is slogging. Slogging is not editing.
I disagree, but I don't see the relevance anyway. Whether you
On 26/09/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check the history. I'm not
Yes, I sincerely hope that we don't use it more than we use protection
now. That's the promise we've all been making outside the community
for a long time, I don't think we should prove the reporters right. :)
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
submitted a form to a completely opaque
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
backlog builds up and it takes a few
2009/9/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/9/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
editing dead.
No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 100%
2009/9/26 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is
that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To
some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged
revision some kind of counter
2009/9/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Markierungsstatistik
Those numbers would be a disaster. This I think is why the trial is so
limited.
5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
too many people say Oh, I'm not
PPCD:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
- and unfogiveable only entered
+and unforgiveable only entered
- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
+but from a logical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
-a logical limitation on the usage of the
Your edits have been submitted for review.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
PPCD:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
- and unfogiveable only entered
+and unforgiveable only entered
- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write
2009/9/26 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
The fact of the matter was then, remains so, and will remain so, that
some articles are just not as notable, and therefore won't get seen
and won't get checked on anyone's schedule.** There is no issue of
unforgivability' involved at all, even if we can
2009/9/27 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
On 26/09/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
editing dead.
You'd think so, but that's not what the german
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
You'd think so, but that's not what the german statistics say- the
anonymous still edit at about the same rate.
Do we know how many anonymous editors made more than one edit anyway?
Perhaps most of the people that made multiple edits registered
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. I don't see why notability should be a factor.
Notability might be the wrong word. 'Degree of interest' is perhaps
the more accurate term. No interest = no page views = no checks
for... topical completeness, bland writing, wandering
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
30% does the other
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:06:45 -0500, Keegan Paul wrote:
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is
for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced
labor.
Do they
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether
we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]]
is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this
becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the
current version (and, if
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote:
See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place.
Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to
force people into a
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/28 David
Message-
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
After all, I can email a suggested
change to them and probably get a reply.
Actually, I've done this (before their recent contributions stuff),
and got a reply within 2 days. I was quite surprised.
So I suppose we should adopt
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Apoc 2400apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Remember also that later edits build on the latest draft. There is no
branching so a new persons edits cannot be left unflagged while the regulars
keep editing.
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
edit this
2009/8/27 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the
future some time. What's the policy going to
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
made in between the time they loaded and read the page, and clicked
edit this page? To avoid this, you
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
If the regulars editing have some auto-flagging to approve their own
edits, surely they risk approving someone else's changes that were
made in between the time they
2009/8/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I'm guessing this is an opt-in system, and we'll have to encourage
people only to use it on low-traffic pages. Hmm.
Sounds like it. Unless we are breaking new ground to what de-wiki did.
My understanding is that the two systems are just
Good questions. Here's my personal view:
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
The press story (particularly in Britain) seems to be along the lines of:
Wikipedia, founded on open editing has been forced to restrict editing as
their model has failed
This
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Andrew
Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No. People have been talking about all living person articles, although the
community may of course decide to roll it out to all articles in the future,
or
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be available?
Emily
On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:58 AM,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
This is one reason I asked for an edit filter to be set up to monitor
how often people add and remove this category and how often vandals do
this (either intentionally, or as part of another edit). Of course,
2009/8/27 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Controversial articles must not be constantly backlogged because
reviewers are afraid of getting drawn into an edit war.
I get the impression from this statement that traditional full dispute
protection will still be needed. Will this still be
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
4) Is there any automatic flagging?
I think the idea was all entries with [[Category:Living persons]] would be
automatically flagged.
No, no. Flagged protection will be applied to - well, articles we
choose to apply it to, in the same
2009/8/27 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
Full-flagged protection allows anyone to edit, but only admins
(*not* reviewers) to approve; I would assume conventional
complete-lock will remain for stuff we don't *want* edited, such as
the main page.
Jimbo has said he'd love to have
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
stop edit wars.
I think it'll
The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any
page at all can be open to improvement by anyone.
Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of Well, it isn't
*really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being
constructive here.? I envision a
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Members of the user group Reviewer. All Admins will automatically be
given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
[[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
threshold of number
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that?
If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is
resurrected - I'm sure there'll
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
that?
Inference ;-)
Thus, it is proposed to enable patrolled
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
- Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
that?
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions
As I thought the poll was, we were approving a trial limited in all
respects to BLP only. We were also discussing a trial on one thing,
not a simultaneous trial of several different proposals. in trying to
see how a complicated new routine works, we should be testing either
flagged revision or
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday.
On monday, what would be
2009/8/27 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
{{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it
Ok, Erik's post answered some of these:
So, quick questions:
1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No, BLP's and some others.
9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions?
Yes.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
There is probably some truth in that. Most people who deal with online
identity have to deal with the online disinhibition effect (ODE), and
many of us have certain experience of expressing ourselves using
less-than-ideal concepts.
But that's no less true for the few partisans trying to turn the
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
It's coverage in the actual media rather than blogs isn't very
widespread. It is however cheap and easy to write so there is a
significant incentive for media organisations to pick it up.
And the media loves to talk about the
2009/3/11 Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
It's coverage in the actual media rather than blogs isn't very
widespread. It is however cheap and easy to write so there is a
significant incentive for media organisations to pick it up.
This one is funny:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/03/09/postscript-to-world-net-dailywikipedia-editorial
Can't say I've ever heard of WebProNews before, but this columnist is
revising an earlier piece criticising WND. He also says I tend to think
philosophies are prisons robbing us of any
geni wrote:
2009/3/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://gawker.com/5167585/right+wing-writer-invents-his-own-obama-wikipedia-scandal
- d.
Doesn't really matter. It's been picked up by larger and somewhat
respectable right wing sources (Telegraph) so the truth of the matter
2009/3/10 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Interesting ... last I heard the world economy was in meltdown, there is
no free-market solution in sight yet, and state intervention is running
out of zeroes. And what really interests the media is stories about
other smaller parts
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So much for the Obama scandal
This one is funny:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/03/09/postscript-to-world-net-dailywikipedia-editorial
Can't say I've ever heard of WebProNews before, but this columnist is
revising
95 matches
Mail list logo
