On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
snip
And even this excuse doesn't work for the Bradley example. Having only one
side of a dispute because one side of the dispute is a published author and
can more easily get her side published in a reliable source
On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the problems, though, is that the founding principle that
content must be freely licensed has resulted in large swathes of
images being declared forbidden (because you would need to pay to use
them and you couldn't
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Why is this any different from any other kind of arcana? And do people
really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
whatever. If
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of the problems, though, is that the founding principle that
content must be freely licensed has resulted in large swathes of
images being declared
Carcharoth wrote:
It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
laws and regulations. But there is an element where Commons (and to a
lesser extent Wikipedia) is seen as acting like the copyright police,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
laws and regulations. But there is an element where
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the
On 16 July 2010 18:38, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
If your desire is to overturn a central plank of Wikipedia policy -
verifiability - then it would probably be wise not to present a joke
comic character and a fan fiction dispute as plausible grounds to
do so.
Indeed. Particularly
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Bod Notbod wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
You are shifting ground there, of course. It is true that in a sense we
have subordinated NPOV to RS, by saying we are not going to allow vague
assertions that there is more than one side to a story, only things we
can verify.
I'm disputing
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think the key norms are universally accepted.
Take No personal attacks and civility as two examples. Differences may
exist whether a particular matter is or isnt an attack or uncivil, whether
to act or ignore it, and a
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have
13 matches
Mail list logo
