Fred Bauder wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
Any responsible journalist will.
That
Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
Interesting, as there is a consensus. It just isn't written down. Do no
harm; any problem with that?
At the very least consensus can't be said to
George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derk...@shaw.ca wrote:
At the very least consensus can't be said to be obvious on this, IMO.
The we should conceal information that could potentially harm people
argument didn't hold much weight in the
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
It may not actually be as clear cut as you assume.
Psychological tests may for instance be crucial in
deciding issues in criminal cases, and as such may
have a very remote chance of affecting life and
death
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Indeed, PROD is good. The two main problems are:
a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start. A lot of
people seem to make the mistake of thinking B-Class is nearly A-Class.
We haven't got to that stage yet.
Carl (CBM) wrote:
It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit
their own objectives.
Yes, this happens quite often. It's partially a consequence of certain
policies, such as WP:N, directly referring to secondary sources,
even when this is not the right
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their computer with
either smiles or
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap thing
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start. A lot of
people
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Only obvious out of process deletions. What counts of obvious? Hard to
say but it would be inadvisable
Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just
geni wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the
Fred Bauder wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
Any responsible journalist will.
That
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:40 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Only obvious out of process deletions.
And even if do no harm really _was_ a universal principle that we all
followed, it's still open to debate whether reporting information like
this actually does cause harm.
Such matters are a question of judgment. Information about potential harm
needs to be accurate and common sense applied.
We already have {{oldprodfull}}, which many add when they remove a PROD tag
already. If AWB, Twinkle, and the like don't already, it might be worth
having them automagically add it to the talk page when PRODing articles,
just to make sure. Cheers.
lifebaka
From: Surreptitiousness
2009/9/10 Bryan Derksen bryan.derk...@shaw.ca:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
Something I'd like to know before considering this as a potential
compromise is whether the Foundation would simply censor WikiNews in
exactly the same way.
Did the
Surreptitiousness wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their
That's a very nice interpretation, and in retrospect, I think that's
what Will meant.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Emily wrote:
How does
Fred Bauder wrote:
I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press won't
sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it
I picture you as a sort of Rachel Welch, with thigh-high boots and a
whip in a minidress
Huh boy. I'm flattered.
Firstly, your email icon is a kitten is it not?
Actually, it's a bully breed (ie bull dog) type dog tilting it's head.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:38 PM, wjhon...@aol.com
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
because even though the prod would get removed from the article since
the article had been prodded before, the template would remain on the
talk page. The only extra hurdle would be getting admins to restore talk
oages when
On 9/10/09, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/10/09, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good
Jonathan Hughes wrote:
We already have {{oldprodfull}}, which many add when they remove a PROD tag
already. If AWB, Twinkle, and the like don't already, it might be worth
having them automagically add it to the talk page when PRODing articles,
just to make sure. Cheers.
Good idea.
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot easier if we had a coded hook to
check for the existence of a talkpage, and flag up a reminder to
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture of
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, you see, with respect to news of the Taliban's doings, they
probably are much more reliable then other media.
I was about to say... you earlier commented about Iranian news
source and its reliability. You framed it as a question, is [source]
Previous post correction diff:
-commented about Iranian news
+commented about an Iranian news
-about all of familiar sources
+about all of our familiar sources
-tabloids and the slowly
+tabloids and then slowly
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/9/10 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans
will produce a bomb that will
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't, our A-bomb plans
will produce a bomb that will barely
In a message dated 9/10/2009 3:36:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes:
Didn't they link
to the situation and its resolution? How would that not be a consensus?
I have no idea how linking creates a consensus.
So I can't really address this.
Will
In a message dated 9/10/2009 3:42:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes:
I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does
write the how to make a H-Bomb article.
I would like to thank all the little people I stepped on, on my
In a message dated 9/10/2009 5:48:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't,
Just to repeat by way of
In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:26:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
That is what the Foundation does in such cases, they pass information on
from outside sources that are knowledgeable about the situation.
Or, at we've seen, outside souces which create false
In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:34:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
To a certain extent this
conversation has been about, Common sense, what's common sense?, I don't
want no stinking commons sense, I'll work to rule and, if harm results,
tough!, Harm to Wikipedia?,
In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
That's right your honor. We beat the various innocent family members of
the criminal senseless in order to
In a message dated 9/10/2009 8:56:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a
small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia?
Only if we have reliable, well-researched, and peer-reviewed
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot easier if we had a coded hook
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:21 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
To tie this to the topic. We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
reporters held captive by the Taliban, and
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Delete on sight is unwiki, and violates several of our core
policies that supercede BLP including NPOV and CIVIL and their
subordinates.
True, but I see a lot of articles at new page patrol that also violate
NPOV,
That's funny your link got it's final character cut off in my email box so it
didn't work.
Testing whether this link will work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_%28U.S._politician%29
-Original Message-
From: Keith Old
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm
Fred Bauder wrote:
I seem to have missed the detailed plans and blueprints on how to make
an A-Bomb. Care to link me? Or do you really think that the press
won't
sensationalise the minute it is realised someone learnt something bad
from Wikipedia? I'd rather send Mr Gerard out there if it
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
snip
I have a list of 12 articles that are either unassessed or need
re-assessing, if anyone is interested in using that as the basis of a
discussion about ratings. The
A Wikipedian troll had a few observations too.
http://hamletprinceoftrollmark.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-writes-history.html
;)
-Durova
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
That's funny your link got it's final character cut off in my email box so
it didn't work.
Testing
Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
A Wikipedian troll had a few observations too.
http://hamletprinceoftrollmark.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-writes-history.html
Editor's note: Watch out for removals. I manually reverted a whole
section removal by a new user on the [[Rob Wilson (South Carolina
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
I manually reverted a whole
section removal by a new user on the [[Rob Wilson (South Carolina
politician)]] article.
My bad. Should be [[Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)]]
-Stevertigo
This is really a Commons question, but...why is so little effort made
to promote bulk upload tools like Commonist? I've wasted countless
hours struggling with the crappy web forms, when it's so easy to do
using the right tool. None of the upload pages make the slightest
mention of these tools. Is
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I guess you knew that all already, actually, but I wasn't sure if you
were joking when you made the 'doctor' comment above. Medical
analogies, eh? :-)
Just a comment on the amusing juxtaposition. Like last week when
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:36 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Dude, you just posted 7 consecutive posts to the same thread. That's
at least 5 too many. Worse, none of them were longer than 3 lines.
Please refrain - why not collect your thoughts into one more
substantial post?
Thanks,
Steve
On 9/10/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
That's right your honor. We beat the various innocent
Are you equating the phrase out of process to the word speedy ?
I don't see those two as being the same thing.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
54 matches
Mail list logo
