I just heard about this from Keith Olbermann's show. Rush Limbaugh's
researchers apparently grabbed a story from Wikipedia about Judge
Roger Vinson and used it in one of his rants against health care. The
story, describing the judge as a keen hunter and taxidermist who hung
stuffed bear heads
As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer making a
bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits?
Personally, I started out making lots of small edits, but lately I've
been the opposite of that.
-MuZemike
___
WikiEN-l
I prefer one giant edit. When I write new articles, I usually write
everything in one edit - no matter if it's a stub or future good article. If
after that one edit I have to re-edit the article (typos, categories, ect),
I get annoyed with myself. Therefore I use preview button a million times. I
When using hotcat or eradicating a particular typo I make small or
minor edits. Otherwise I try to remember to save frequently, but a
couple of times I've been caught out and lost the odd hour or two of
work due to a computer problem.
I've also learned to save frequently when at newpage patrol or
On 17 September 2010 22:14, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote:
It's really bad for the edit
count, but that's my personal preference.
Pfft, who cares about that? Literally, I mean: these days the focus
(on enwiki at least) is on how many featured credits an editor has,
or variants thereof
Having been on Wikipedia since 2006 but with most of my significant work
being described by a handful of read, read, read, write, write, write --
edit overhauls or creating new pages, I'm always a little self-conscious
when non-Wikipedians ask how many edits I've tallied. Hundreds! OK, probably
a
I always mean to do less edits but end up doing more. I try to get a
new article *just right* and invariably find several typos, each after
I've corrected the previous one. Fixing typos in articles I'm casually
reading works much the same way.
- d.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer making a
bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits?
Well, I'm not sure my answer will be interesting to anyone other than
your good self but...
When
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:05 AM, William Beutler
williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm always a little self-conscious when non-Wikipedians ask how many edits
I've tallied.
*Non* Wikipedians are asking you about your edit count?
I've never encountered nor heard of people outside the community
Heh, well, among friends and associates, I'm the Wikipedia guy. (Notice
the British / WP period-outside-the-sentence... never did that before
Wikipedia.) I enjoy greatly trying to explain how Wikipedia works, but it
can be a tall, tall task.
Some of you here might know of my (occasional) blog,
Yes, it's all over the blogosphere too. The spin is all about how stupid
Rush Limbaugh is to be taken in by a hoax on Wikipedia, and not the least
about how a hoax could be on Wikipedia in an article about a living person,
complete with a forged/fictional citation. Apparently it is a given out in
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:57 AM, William Beutler
williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
I've had the notion to pitch a Complete Idiot's Guide to Wikipedia to
someone (actually tried, once; got a friendly note from an agent that it
wasn't for [him]). I do think there is one to be written, whether I
Reminds me of the situation last year where inflammatory but fake Limbaugh
quotes were posted to
Wikiquotehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quotation-attributed-to-rush-limbaugh-is-a-damnable-lie/
and
became a big deal in the U.S. political blogosphere. This was around the
time Limbaugh
On Sep 17, 2010, at 4:31 PM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer
making a
bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits?
When editing directly on the wiki, I like to save often, in case my
browser crashes or freezes
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:14 PM, crock spot crocks...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you cite a source for that Nathan? I'd like to read about that.
Don't be surprised if this whole thing turns out to be a hoax perpetrated
by
Limbaugh himself, and bites Wikipedia in the ass. This bears a striking
On 18 September 2010 03:07, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, I can cite a source.
Kit Carson, a spokesman for Mr. Limbaugh, said a staff researcher had found
the information in an article on the Pensacola newspaper’s Web site, and not
on Wikipedia. But Ginny Graybiel, the paper’s
On high-traffic articles, or one where you are making complicated
changes, it is often best to split things up and explain using edit
summaries. It helps other editors follow what changes you have made.
For new articles, or ones where you are the only editor or one of only
a few editors, bigger
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:14 AM, crock spot crocks...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't be surprised if this whole thing turns out to be a hoax perpetrated by
Limbaugh himself, and bites Wikipedia in the ass. This bears a striking
resemblance to something Rush has long complained about: sourced comments
18 matches
Mail list logo
