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)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious
qualities), then
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
It's precisely the people that *think* they
understand the wikipedia that usually become deletionists or
inclusionists.
Read carefully:
...WP:CLUE in some ways more speak[s] to the spirit of things...
Same point.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in
principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
And of course, it is this portion of policy that causes us issues with
regards fiction. Since the work itself is a primary source.
We haven't yet worked out to what extent a article on a
FT2 wrote:
The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot
summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable
2009/10/1 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this
plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at
the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died
off a bit
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
FT2 wrote:
The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
quality sources. But what kind of sourcing
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, FT2 wrote:
To add to this, note that primary sources are stated to include
...archeological artifacts; photographs..
NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the writings about an
artifact are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are
categorized
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
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
which way.
Indeed. And we are broadly fine with that, to an extent. A number of policy
and project pages explicitly point out that not everything
Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote:
FT2 wrote:
The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
which way.
Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series
of quick hacks.
If you regard them as an immaculate stainless steel construction of
flawless
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Gerard wrote:
This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
which way.
Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series
of quick hacks.
The literal words aren't the only problem, though. Usually our rules are
2009/10/1 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of
definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability
(tl;dr). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can
spot improvements that others
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, FT2 wrote:
The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of
definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability
(tl;dr). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can
spot improvements that others haven't,
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Well, the last time I ran into this was the way IAR is worded. For such a
short rule it has a huge flaw: it says you can only ignore rules for the
purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The result is people
constantly claiming that
17 matches
Mail list logo
