-- Forwarded message --
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Date: 27 June 2010 12:05
Subject: [Foundation-l] Please help review [[Commons:Sexual content]]
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
As many of you are aware, Commons has been
Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good.
Fred Bauder
I have come across topics that are approached differently by different
groups and thought that parallel articles might be appropriate in
those cases. I'd like a wider view on the topic. Here is where I've
discussed it on
It pretty simple to manage. You just need to link to all articles on a
particular subject from the top of the page. Articles would need to be
limited to notable points of view.
Fred Bauder
You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like
a bad idea to me - the
No, it's a disastrous idea; it's inherently antithetic to NPOV. What
you'd be doing is creating articles that are deliberately non NPOV.
Content FORKS are never, ever desirable.
On 27/06/2010, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good.
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous
idea?
Fred Bauder
No, it's a disastrous idea; it's inherently antithetic to NPOV. What
you'd be doing is creating articles that are deliberately non NPOV.
Content FORKS are never, ever desirable.
On 27/06/2010, Fred
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous
idea?
It is, by far, the lesser of two evils.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 27 June 2010 06:47, Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like
a bad idea to me - the encyclopedia would shatter into an unnavigable
mess if every interest group were to split off their own versions of
articles.
I think
On 27 June 2010 17:34, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous
idea?
In practice, it's resulted in a site that seems to work.
We've done the experiment, as you know. The POV fork site is your own
site, Wikinfo. While
On 27 June 2010 17:43, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I think there's a valid issue here, but there's a balance to be struck
between:
* X as it occurs in one specific context
* X from the perspective of one viewpoint
So it would be legitimate to have an article on [[Economic
On 27 June 2010 17:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Where you draw the line, though, is quite tricky...
So should the various articles linked to from here be deleted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought
Economics was a bad example, perhaps :-)
That said,
On 27 June 2010 17:56, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
To take a prominent example, it's reasonable to have [[Jesus in
Christianity]] and [[Jesus in Islam]], but they need to both be
treated as subsets of the article on [[Jesus]], in the same way that
[[Historicity of Jesus]] or
On 27/06/2010, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 27 June 2010 17:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Where you draw the line, though, is quite tricky...
So should the various articles linked to from here be deleted?
On 27 June 2010 18:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. Forks should exist to deal with articles that would be too
long otherwise and for no other reason. You should be able to combine
all the forks together (replacing the summary in the main article with
the full
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, articles from diverse points of view would be good.
Fred Bauder
An open question, I think; the failure of your own Wikinfo* would seem
to suggest it's not particularly valuable.
*
On 06/27/2010 09:34 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
[Ian Woolard wrote:]
No, it's a disastrous idea; it's inherently antithetic to NPOV. What
you'd be doing is creating articles that are deliberately non NPOV.
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a disastrous
idea?
Just the
the stuff of
peace.
William
Who dictates the peace terms?
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 27 June 2010 17:34, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And war to control the content of the NPOV article is not a
disastrous
idea?
In practice, it's resulted in a site that seems to work.
We've done the experiment, as you know. The POV fork site is your own
site, Wikinfo.
On 27 June 2010 20:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It's never too late to do better. The experiment is Wikipedia doing it.
I remain entirely unconvinced. POV forks reduces strife amongst the
*writers*, but doesn't do much for the *readers*.
Many people have tried competing with
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27 June 2010 06:47, Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like
a bad idea to me - the encyclopedia would shatter into an unnavigable
mess if every interest group were to split off their own versions
From a reader perspective, someone who looks up a named topic is entitled
to a balanced view on that named topic. Being told they can't read a
balanced view on the topic, but they can read a choice of 3 articles of a
non-balanced type don't really do the job.
If the reader can (or should be able
don't? doesn't.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 27 June 2010 23:55, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
From a reader perspective, someone who looks up a named topic is entitled
to a balanced view on that named topic. Being told they can't read a
balanced view on the topic, but they can read a choice of 3 articles of a
non-balanced type don't
22 matches
Mail list logo
