2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there anyone here who can do something about this before it becomes an
even bigger wheel-war?
Yes, the Arbcom has done something about it. Specifically, it has
patted them on
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a
{{BLP-prod}}, where someone has a few days to put the references in.
OR THE ARTICLE DIES.
Added to the newly-opened RFC page:
Why don't we just delete Wikipedia? Then we won't have any of these
problems.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a
{{BLP-prod}}, where someone
2010/1/21 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
Why don't we just delete Wikipedia? Then we won't have any of these
problems.
* Only if we can delete Citizendium too. -
* And Britannica. -
* Can we delete Fox News? -
** You cannot kill that which does not live. -
* The devs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/01/public_data_free_at_last.html
Looks interesting. Are there tie-ups with Wikipedia or Wikimedia applications?
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Cunctator wrote:
Just restored a former prime minister.
Hi!
I just want to ask a question about this, and since I don't know the
article of which you speak, I can't judge its specific merits. This is
my personal opinion, and does not reflect
2010/1/21 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
As I understand it, a bunch of adminstrators deleted a bunch of
articles that they felt violated BLP aganist community consensus.
Community consensus isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact, not a personal
We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume
that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an
article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for
it, they figure.
If, on NPP, I find that an article has been recreated, it's usually
Ah, crap. I may need some advice soon.
I created an article some years back on a living person. Not that long
after he contacted me and asked if he could use the article as his
official IMDB biog. I asked the community (since I was worried about
licensing issues - IMDB controls content placed on
Arb Com at this point seems very willing to encourage arbitrary action
by administrators, when we really need to be be moving in the opposite
direction, of requiring greater admin responsibility and care. In this
case, care in deleting, to make sure that the material is not
sourceable. The mass
2010/1/21 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
Now, presumably if I use the IMDB biog as a reference I bet I will be
done for copyvio, even though our article came *first*.
So... what to do? Deletion looms.
Explain the situation on the talk page. Basically, you wrote the text
on IMDB as well.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Explain the situation on the talk page. Basically, you wrote the text
on IMDB as well. There is nothing wrong with this.
As a reference, it's now basically a first-party reference - it's a
bio approved by the subject. Not
It would be rather good if a list of the deletions arising out of this
cull were listed somewhere so we can see the extent and details of the
damage/change/improvement.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
2010/1/21 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
We're historically prone to having people (especially at CSD) assume
that an earlier deletion is itself a strong black mark - if an
article was deleted earlier, there must have been a good reason for
it, they figure.
If, on NPP, I find that an
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Community consensus isn't a valid reason to violate BLP. en:wp is a
top-5 website of massive impact,
Misuse of our BLP policy or any other is not a valid reasons for
admins to make a power grab.
not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to
Okay, I'm slightly inconvenienced, or relieved, due to being
currently blocked, so I'll make this suggestion here. Pass it on if
you dare be accused of proxying for a blocked editor. Caveat emptor.
See WP:PWD. This is a general solution for unreferenced articles, not
just BLP, but it would be
David Goodman wrote:
Arb Com at this point seems very willing to encourage arbitrary action
by administrators, when we really need to be be moving in the opposite
direction, of requiring greater admin responsibility and care.
As far as I know, the principle remains that admins are personally
2010/1/21 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.
Your argument that anyone on wikipedia enjoys something akin to
parliamentary privilege should be interesting.
Your
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2010/1/21 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
not a personal playground enjoying
something akin to parliamentary privilege 'cos it says so.
Your argument that anyone on wikipedia enjoys something akin to
parliamentary
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six months. Which sounds innocuous enough, but remember
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six
I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an
admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the
articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out
to be notable and sourceable. But it is reckless to delete without
checking first unless
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an
admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the
articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out
to be notable
Ryan Delaney wrote:
snip
But this is an argument that inclusionists always make to anyone who
tries to delete an article that is missing something crucial -- they
put the burden on other people, rather than themselves.
snip
Yes, there's something to this line of argument. Why are PRODs not
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Cunctator wrote:
Just restored a former prime minister.
Hi!
I just want to ask a question about this, and since I don't know the
article of which you speak, I can't
Gwern Branwen wrote:
I see a lot of mindless fetishism
of sourcing here,
Oh, and mindless fetishsim about content, too. Let's remember that
there is a definite mission, which is to write a reference work. It is
not a new idea that encyclopedic works should cite their sources.
but suppose
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:03 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/21 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com wrote:
silent mass deletions are now an acceptable admin tactic.
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
And what benefit was there *really*? I see a lot of mindless fetishism
of sourcing here, but suppose Cunctator resurrected an article and
stuck in a random newspaper article for the claim 'Foo was married in
1967.'
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed with David G. on this point. The general sentiment to keep up
with BLPs is ok, I think; but most of the time sources can be found
for most bios. (And yes, I do make an occasional hobby of sourcing
random BLPs --
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember also that The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the
article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every
It is not that 80% of the problem was the totally unsourced articles,
and we are objecting because the entire problem was not dealt with.
More likely, it's that only 10 or 20% of the problem was dealt with,
or less. Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to BLPs, are
full of unsourced or
Have you asked WMF UK?
-Lise
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/01/public_data_free_at_last.html
Looks interesting. Are there tie-ups with Wikipedia or Wikimedia
applications?
I *think* Mike Peel reads this list. I was about to do something else,
so maybe someone else could point this out to them? They probably know
already, but it wouldn't hurt to ask (I'm just not going to do it
right now).
Carcharoth
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
2010/1/22 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I *think* Mike Peel reads this list. I was about to do something else,
so maybe someone else could point this out to them? They probably know
already, but it wouldn't hurt to ask (I'm just not going to do it
right now).
Yes, we know already,
35 matches
Mail list logo
