The 'deletionists' (and I use that word somewhat ironically, we don't have
meetings or leaders or even a philosophy beyond 'improve the encyclopedia')
vs the 'inclusionists' (I always thought that word was chosen as a catch-all
to cast the other side as slightly evil, much like you can't help but
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Does my memory deceive me? Or is it true that 2 of the 3 millionth
articles related to soap operas?
A Scottish railway station, and the Spanish TV comedy programme [[El
Hormiguero]], were what you were thinking of. If you regard Europe as
one big historical soap
Those crazy Europeans! Why can't they just decide on one language!
-Original Message-
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
This is all so interesting - thanks.
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:7c402e010908022342o8e581f3o566c6b7c610ac...@mail.gmail.com...
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I believe that you are mistakenly supposing that the list would discuss
*a
particular* case. I believe that the original
Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:5396c0d10908102142o3bde7373p735d8cc0a7705...@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I'd like it. Good for new page patrollers'.
+1 for neat little pop-ups and easy error reporting. Can we
I think this message is better directed at Amazon and other distributors.
Nothing is inherently wrong with mirroring Wikipedia on paper. And, I think
that belies some of the difficulties in selecting articles, doing a real
copy edit (that is manually re-typing it to make it flow, among other
wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message
news:8cbeab907c57f0c-390-2...@webmail-dz04.sysops.aol.com...
You said:
The publisher seems to observe the copyright (even includes full edit
history) so legal action seems impossible.
How can a book copy the full edit history without it being obvious that
Michael Pruden mikepru...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:515438.44185...@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
...pigeonholed (i.e. as an inclusionist or a deletionist when they are
actually in the middle).
Merjists are both, and they do not need to participate in any AfD
discussion, because the
Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote in message
news:2b0befcd-0e16-4086-9e45-954ceacea...@me.com...
The civility thread has got me thinking, but I didn't want to hijack
it, so here we go. This idea isn't fully formed, so forgive me.
I was going through wikipedia, when I came across a newer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TOOLS
Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote in message
news:fab0ecb70907290040r28db9048sca6ec928cd327...@mail.gmail.com...
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Magnus
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote in message
news:206791b10908110309j4ef2cca3l777b8fcb5e86c...@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Jay
Litwynbrewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote in message
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version Inevitable Postulate of
Version Control]
WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote in message
news:8b07072f0907230421w257405c9w9d411ec737e7c...@mail.gmail.com...
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit
Ever notice that people who get stuck in an intersection are running a red
light? Anybody who wanted to complain would hav a solid ten or fifteen
seconds to catch a crime in the act with a photo that includes a license
plate (maybe two) and a traffic light in the same shot. So, if you cannot
I updated the three millionth topic pool:
Answer: Beate Eriksen, an obscure Norwegian actress.
Winner:
Cryptic C62, Sarah Badel, an obscure actress.
Honorable mention:
Michael of Lucan, Norwegian post offices 1943-1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
On Tue,
2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk:
This is all so interesting - thanks.
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
Good question. I think it is
Cathy Edwards wrote:
This is all so interesting - thanks.
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
[[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] indicates some of
2009/8/17 Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
Ever notice that people who get stuck in an intersection are running a red
light? Anybody who wanted to complain would hav a solid ten or fifteen
seconds to catch a crime in the act with a photo that includes a license
plate (maybe two) and
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Keith Oldkeith...@gmail.com wrote:
Both see the other ruining Wikipedia, either by defeating the point of an
open encyclopedia, or by expanding its “pages” until the site dies from
irrelevance.
Wow. That's the worst characterisation of the
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
everyone will accept.
Hmmm, that seems to assume consensus
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
*What if the article on Mr. Darcy were written in an in-universe view,
in other words not offering the perspective with the fourth wall removed?
I think we've pretty much reached a consensus there. While some people
write from an
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
work, these days. However hard you try, you
2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk:
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area,
It's because they're special, because they can cause (and have
caused) damage to people in a way that other articles can't. (And the
same applies to material about
Kind of cool, really. Dunno about you, but when I write articles on
Wikipedia, I do it so that lots of people can read them and the
knowledge can be spread. I really don't care if someone is making a
quick buck.
Has anyone made a definitive list of them? It looks like I'm probably
published here:
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh mindspill...@gmail.com:
4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.
What exactly counts as consensus is another industrial-sized can of
worms. I think we slipped into rough consensus long ago, and are now
drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitute, with
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk:
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area,
It's because they're special, because they can cause (and have
caused) damage to people in a
2009/8/18 Brock Weller brock.wel...@gmail.com:
The 'deletionists' (and I use that word somewhat ironically, we don't have
meetings or leaders or even a philosophy beyond 'improve the encyclopedia')
vs the 'inclusionists' (I always thought that word was chosen as a catch-all
to cast the other
2009/8/17 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Summary: With the encyclopaedia being bigger and more complete, it's
less likely that a onesie's edit is worth keeping.
The 1% reversion rate for experienced editors was also interesting. I
doubt my edits get reverted at anything like that high a
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh mindspill...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh mindspill...@gmail.com:
This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
target.
Mmm. BLPs became special (a) in the wake of the Siegenthaler foulup
(b) when we became likely the top
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh mindspill...@gmail.com:
This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
target.
Mmm. BLPs became special (a)
You may want to take a look at the Guardian blog post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/aug/17/wikipedia-three-
million
and also a couple by the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia-
reaches-three-million-articles.html
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote:
snip
All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian Science
{{citation needed}} Monitor.
Really?
The Telegraph one was poor.
Although as I've said before WikiNEWS is for NEW not for old.
So where do you put old investigative journalism ?
In a message dated 8/18/2009 10:07:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
particularly when you have editors who confuse an
encyclopedia with investigative
On 18 Aug 2009, at 18:34, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net
wrote:
snip
All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian
Science
{{citation needed}} Monitor.
Really?
The Telegraph one was poor.
You do not need to mention all contributors.
A satisfactory attribution is merely a URL pointing to the Wikipedia
article and possibly one pointing at the history page.
By our inaction we've made it clear you do not need to directly mention any
contributors.
Will Johnson
In a message
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote:
snip
* The article describes Britannica as the oldest English language
encyclopedia. In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
English language encyclopedia.
Interesting. What was the oldest English language
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article
describe
2009/8/18 wjhon...@aol.com:
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:54, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
And that extends to even
having an article at all - for many subjects, having a Wikipedia
article can be a curse.
Not that that has ever stopped anybody from creating an autobiography
--
Jim Redmond
[[User:Jredmond]]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello friends,
I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
another English Wikipedia. It is designed for folks who may not
understand English very well, such as ESL users (English as a Second
Language), among other users. If
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917002,00.html
Time magazine ... can't get excited about the whole business really. But
why is Wales not James if Sanger is Lawrence?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
another English Wikipedia. [...] If this interests you, stop by for a
moment: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Uh... is this news?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
I feel like I've missed half the conversation here:
Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to
butress an argument with a block.
candidate for what?
- Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
From: Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote:
snip
* The article describes Britannica as the oldest English language
encyclopedia. In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
English language encyclopedia.
Interesting. What was the oldest
Dan Dascalescu wrote:
I just wanted to take a moment to put out there that we also have
another English Wikipedia. [...] If this interests you, stop by for a
moment: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Uh... is this news?
___
I hadn't notice this earlier, but I hope we don't have any candidates who
are its.
Candidate for the board Andrew, the elections we just had.
Perhaps Jay will be forthcoming in exact details.
In a message dated 8/18/2009 12:06:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.comwrote:
If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be
fully
protected?
Not all protection is in response to edit warring. First example to come to
mind: high-use templates.
-Luna
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then
2009/8/18 wjhon...@aol.com:
I just explained why. Some people would find three thousand articles on
Superman is be overwhelming.
It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway stop in
New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.
No, you just explained one side of the
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Lunalunasan...@gmail.com wrote:
Not all protection is in response to edit warring. First example to come to
mind: high-use templates.
FlaggedRevs would work better for that, likewise high-use images, of
which flags (in the heraldic sense, i.e. those which swing
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
snip
The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up. I've
just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]]
with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shipping :-(
The way I would phrase it, there are those who believe the policy pages
are given down from on high and there are those who understand that
those same pages were created from below. That is, I believe
tantamount not to rules can be broken but rather to rules can
change. I never advise people
OK the other side of the argument is Wikipedia is not paper. That
is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
which to describe whatever we want.
So if we want individual articles on each episode of Gunsmoke we
should have them. If we want individual articles on
Really? I can't see any legal justification for doing that. If they lied in
their candidate statement, perhaps, and it would certainly be relevant
information that voters might want to see before making up their mind, but
disqualification?
- wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
From:
Although correct me if I'm wrong, but part of GFDL is a kind of
inheritability. In other words if an editor (copyright holder) finds their
text being used in these books, they can require the publisher comply with
all the attribution requirements within GFDL, even if Wikimedia's
communities do not
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
OK the other side of the argument is Wikipedia is not paper. That
is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
which to describe whatever we want.
Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical.
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing
but research on it and misinterpret what they find? Puh-lease. To get
from that to It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward
Cunningham and Richard
Of course anyone is free to raise this legal theory in a suit. However
exactly what requirements the license has and exactly how you have to
comply with them, is a source of contentious debate even among those
who believe it's enforceable at all.
Personally what I would like to see is
Print journalism is so passe. Once Microsoft has market coverage for
their whole house computer we won't need to take anything into the
bathroom to read anymore.
Do you surf on your ipod while on the toilet? 45% of readers say
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
sob
You would delete all these articles I've created that no-one else has
edited? :-(
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Only if I can write a corollary, Any article 90 days old or more, with
a single editor should be deleted. That would be a ground-level
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I believe tantamount not to rules can be broken but rather to rules can
change. I never advise people to be bold *against* policy, but rather
to go to the policy discussion pages and see whether or not their
situation might be an exception that we'd like to include
2009/8/18 wjhon...@aol.com:
Only if I can write a corollary, Any article 90 days old or more, with
a single editor should be deleted. That would be a ground-level bar
on notability. And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
What about new page patrollers tagging and categorising?
I'd start with you first!
I've had a hard spot in my black heart for you ever since you deleted
my article on the Varying Shapes of Pikachu's Ears from 1989 to 1993
and Its Correlation to the Japanese Stock Market.
On a brighter note, I'm happy to report that I have *once again* made
the news
I just want to address this one quote.
You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary
and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.
I think this is a false reading of our intent.
The entire structuring of the rely primarily on secondary sources and
other discussion that
Ok... substantive change?
Discount changes that only shift text around, fix grammar, add cats and
so on.
Or maybe any article where the sole sources have been added by a single
editor.
Sounds a bit WP:OWNish doesn't it?
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Renata Strenataw...@gmail.com wrote:
It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing
that we ought to do something.
As others have said, I don't find this disturbing at all. It would be
good if a Wikipedian bought one of the books
Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a single
outmoded source, never really balanced and NPOV, and by now wholly
unreliable in almost all subjects, the ancient world included. About
95% of it was written over a century ago, and there is almost nothing
for which new information
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't
sufficient
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but the previous point was that a single
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why not scan them and store them at wikisource?
Lol. Indeed. Why not scan 200 volumes of an encyclopaedia? For fun, OCR it too..
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Agreed. Jay, the last time I went through the moderation queue, there
were 15 messages from you. Could you please send less messages, and
make them more relevant?
Thanks,
Steve (mod)
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have a point that is within
2009/8/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but
2009/8/18 wjhon...@aol.com:
Only if I can write a corollary, Any article 90 days old or more, with
a single editor should be deleted. That would be a ground-level bar
on notability. And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
I'm really not sure that prohibiting cases where only one
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Andrew
Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
I feel like I've missed half the conversation here:
Motion To Disqualify a Candidate if it supplied misinformation to WP:ANI to
butress an argument with a block.
candidate for what?
Well with the lack of
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I'd like it. Good for new page patrollers'.
+1 for neat little pop-ups and easy error reporting. Can we also do
something like this to report general
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
That we have a rule which says we can break rules makes for the
most perplexing conversations.
One problem is that the rule which says we can break rules is poorly worded.
If you didn't already agree that you can break rules (and therefore didn't
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't be against Wikipedia having its own range of print works
provided they were profitable and all funds were ploughed back into
the Foundation. But I certainly don't think it would be a good idea if
it were purely
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:46 PM, K. Peacheyp858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Well with the lack of information i'm going to stab in the dark and
guess were talking about community blocks/ban and other sanctions
which are generally disucssed at WP:ANI.
With the lack of information I'm more
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Cathy Edwardscathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
I'll offer two reasons:
1) Because
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:04 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
It can be problematic. I frequently edit as an IP when I'm at another
machine and can't be bothered logging in. The unexplained reversion
rate is *much* higher than when I edit logged-in, even though the
edits are exactly
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I don't get why there is any need for a dedicated Wikipedia browser.
I agree. For one thing, there's the issue of making it accessible to
Mac, Windows, and Linux.
But yeah, it's good for inspiration.
Yeah, so it's
84 matches
Mail list logo
