Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken. (Notability has always been a broken concept, but the real
question is
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Some of the more high-profile associated topics of
notable topic X can be mentioned in the article on X, but that doesn't
mean they are all worth a separate article. Such decisions should go
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode
dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush Limbaugh
isn't a reliable source.
Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush
Limbaugh does or says (which is
We will never solve the problem of structuring--different
encyclopedias at various times have done it quite opposite. (Some
French encyclopedias have even consisted of 5 or 6 very long volume
length articles, divided in an elaborate scheme to a number of
subsections. Recall that the print
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Something that has a Rush Limbaugh episode
dedicated to it is probably notable in any sane sense, even if Rush Limbaugh
isn't a reliable source.
Sorry, what if I say that I neither know nor care about anything Rush
Can you remember which French encyclopedias did that elaborate scheme.
It sounds interesting.
The difference with Wikipedia is the possibilities of linkage and
transclusions and differing formats available in a digital
encyclopedia, but the downside is the inconsistency in the solutions
devised
Hello, all.
The next IRC hours will begin at 4:00 UTC, Monday, March 8. The discussion
will be publicly logged and posted.
You can find the agenda here:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas
If you haven't been paying attention to the task force, you can find
Carcharoth wrote:
Can you remember which French encyclopedias did that elaborate scheme.
It sounds interesting.
The difference with Wikipedia is the possibilities of linkage and
transclusions and differing formats available in a digital
encyclopedia, but the downside is the inconsistency in
This is beautiful and true, and you must watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkF5o6KPNI
(I have been at a pub with a trivia quiz where the table of
Wikipedians didn't enter because it wouldn't be fair.)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Excellent!
Glad to be in the company of other quality snobs!
~ Eli
--Original Message--
From: David Gerard
Sender: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: English Wikipedia
ReplyTo: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Steven Walling: Why Wikipedians Are Weird
Sent: Mar 6, 2010 17:57
At 05:25 AM 3/6/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system is
broken.
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of
At 09:04 AM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Structuring of content is an interesting question. Sometimes small
stubs are better than a list, as it is easier to link to separate
articles than to items in a list, especially if there is no real
unifying structure for the list. Sometimes it takes a while
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete.
You aren't allowing
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original
Systematically arranged encyclopedias:
Well, checking my references, a little more than 6 vols., but on the
principle:
There were.
1.
Encyclopedie francaise, 1935-66 was published in 21 topical volumes. ,
with the contents in each arranged by topic, with an alphabetic index
to each volume:
At 11:39 AM 3/6/2010, David Goodman wrote:
We will never solve the problem of structuring--different
encyclopedias at various times have done it quite opposite.
That's a non sequitur. The solved the problem. Differently.
(Some
French encyclopedias have even consisted of 5 or 6 very long volume
At 01:10 PM 3/6/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
I agree that something driven by reader choice would be good, but
still with editorial guidance.
With a print encyclopedia, there is a publisher who is in charge.
However, the publisher is dependent upon the buyers of encyclopedias,
who are generally
At 07:31 PM 3/6/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
the original vision, which was itself
18 matches
Mail list logo
