On 29 March 2010 10:58, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
But I do believe that a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of
an article typically has negative value for the following reasons:
Yeah. 7-10 is IMO the absolute limit for non-reference links, and I
can hardly think of
On 29 March 2010 19:43, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Within any state, any public library will be able to assist
sufficiently on their own state's legislature.
Much of it isn't online and photocopies remain way pricey. Do
libraries generally throw people out for getting out
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients
March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised
to think twice before
Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what
they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia.
http://www.cpedia.com/
It's like Wikipedia read by Mark V. Shaney.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 13 April 2010 17:05, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what
they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia.
http
On 13 April 2010 23:06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
But the opposite approach is as bad or worse: If every issue must be
argued anew when someone brings it up then the ultimate outcome is
that by sheer pigheaded persistence you will eventually get your way
once everyone saner
On 16 April 2010 20:25, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I find Cpedia rather...hilarious, for some reason. I don't see the
point to it, otherwise.
You'll love this blog entry:
http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/13/cpedia-and-its-detractors
He fails to realise the *only* people
On 17 April 2010 01:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
That is a fair and thoughtful indictment of their approach. I have no
particular problem with the other comments in this thread either --
they weren't all substantial criticism, but that's fine as far as it
goes. A lot of other
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit to Citizendium:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics#Number_of_authors
Compare Conservapedia, which has 76 at the time I write this. The
difference is, the latter is pretty much a personal website run by a
gibbering fundie lunatic
On 17 April 2010 03:57, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
According to that stats page, the project added 7.7k words per day
during March 2010 - the most since September 2009. Unless I miss the
meaning of the words per day column, that seems to show that the
project is at least no worse off
On 17 April 2010 12:44, Eugene van der Pijll eug...@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Using
the CZ mailing list is discouraged (the blog post at
http://weblog.terrellrussell.com/2006/10/citizendium-a-study-in-momentum-killing
is interesting; rereading the mailing list articles from September 2006
show
On 17 April 2010 13:52, Eugene van der Pijll eug...@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Clay Shirky was right: CZ collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy:
http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/18/larry_sanger_citizendium_and_the_problem_of_expertise.php
Clay Shirky
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work and produce something people find
useful.
I'm not entirely sure
On 18 April 2010 21:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think how much people use something is a reasonable measure of how
useful it is. Maybe it is only useful for entertaining people or
useful for satisfying idle curiosity, but that is still a use. Perhaps
you mean how useful
On 18 April 2010 23:02, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, change all this and they still likely would have never supplanted
Wikipedia. Some sort of Wikiversity-like mission statement would have
probably been more achievable.
Heh. Wonder if they would have gone for a bunch of
On 19 April 2010 18:46, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if there might be a subtle bias playing into these reviews.
Perhaps if reviewers begin with the assumption that the article was
written by amateur hobbyists, that influences the outcome. If Lindsey
went back to them and let them
The Craig in Craigslist.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/newmark/detail??blogid=67entry_id=61605
http://www.cnewmark.com/2010/04/a-little-customer-service-for-wikipedia-bios-.html
This is good, actually, as it's making the news. As such, it will
bring to people's attention that there are
On 23 April 2010 15:54, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, Charles,
the human equation clearly eludes you.
translation: I have not even anecdotes to support my position, so
will resort to ad-hominem abuse.
- d.
On 23 April 2010 17:33, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, I will not present further to my remarks to Charles - they stand as
stated. But this website's defensive attitude and approach to serious
academics is well known. And that attitude goes back to its roots.
It's
Please cc: responses to sender.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Julia Kasmire j.kasm...@tudelft.nl
Date: 26 April 2010 12:45
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] infobox growth
To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Wikipedia Mailing list,
I am doing some research on the increasing
On 28 April 2010 06:43, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Wow. Hard-coded into the wikitext, I presume? The questioner might be
asking when the first templates were created, and might not realised
that the same thing can be done direct with using templates. When did
the template
On 28 April 2010 21:48, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 April 2010 10:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 April 2010 06:43, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Wow. Hard-coded into the wikitext, I presume? The questioner might be
asking when the first templates were
On 29 April 2010 00:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Talking of templates, I recent discussion I raised died a quiet death
(due to neglect more than anything else), and I was wondering what
people here think of what was said there?
On 3 May 2010 17:59, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
As the software currently stands, however, it generates some rather
obnoxious messages advising you that your edits won't be visible until
they've been reviewed... but I hope that we get rid of that before
launch.
I'm sure
On 3 May 2010 19:25, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
(I know I'm being repetitive on this point, but I'm going to continue
making it at least until people start arguing that it shouldn't be
done rather than ignoring it or mistakenly believing that it isn't
possible)
I'll say that
On 3 May 2010 19:56, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, simply giving the users a link to a page describing the
complete edit life-cycle, This page is [[protected]]., would be
fine as well... those who care could go get a complete understanding,
the vast majority who
On 3 May 2010 20:34, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of the notice part— it sound like you support making anons
see the draft version of a page (all pages?) after they've edited?
The two issues are somewhat separable— though I think a weakly worded
notice requires
On 3 May 2010 20:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't actively support it or consider it even slightly a showstopper
(it seems a bit of a cherry on top as far as feature priorities go),
but if you have high
On 3 May 2010 21:18, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
3. problem: we don't really know how this is going to pan out
3a. I see a lot of conflicting rhetoric about why we want flaggedrevs
and what its role is. Indeed, if the goal is to promote wikipedia as
more accurate (tm), then I
On 3 May 2010 21:37, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Okay, true. I just wanted those editors acknowledged. That was all.
I'd like more editors to remember them! They're the n00bs we need to
take care not to bite. I've met them too - people who to oh, I edited
Wikipedia once! and it
On 5 May 2010 13:31, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
As of today, I'm working as a contractor at Wikimedia Foundation,
helping out with several things, one of which being the Flagged Revs
rollout.
Welcome Rob. Everybody is eager to get FlaggedRevs finished and
installed, so the speedier the
On 5 May 2010 14:45, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
Not that deafening whinging when it goes live is not 100% guaranteed
no matter how much work is done first ;-p
Course. That's all but a given with our community, isn't it? :)
It's probably a feature. If not, we need to work out how to
On 10 May 2010 23:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I suggest that this is a piss-poor way to create Wikipedia policy. There's
a substantial contingent of policy wonks who take any blanket policy statement
as gospel and use it as an excuse to avoid even *trying* to figure out if
On 10 May 2010 23:39, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The problem there is the name. If you call it censorship (which it
isn't) then people oppose it. If you don't call it censorship, people
will still wave the not censored banner. The idea of Wikipedia not
See also the talk
On 10 May 2010 23:53, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On the talk page, I mostly see people calling it out for the
censorship stalking horse it was.
You can tag a goat a very special sort of chicken, but people will
see through that.
So you are saying anything labelled content
On 11 May 2010 00:12, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you explain why Wikipedia and Wikimedia tends to avoid having
explicit guidelines on such matters?
It's a gross NPOV violation.
My position is that a single sentence (Do not place shocking or
explicit pictures into an
On 11 May 2010 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
In that case removing private social security numbers or even dates of birth
is still censorship. Removing the Brian Peppers page is censorship. Even
removing illegal content is censorship.
The no censorship rule isn't, and never
Note special mention of user scripts on en:wp!
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Howie Fung hf...@wikimedia.org
Date: 12 May 2010 00:44
Subject: [Foundation-l] Upcoming Changes to the User Interface
To: foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Everyone,
As many of you already know,
On 13 May 2010 07:07, David Katz dkatz2...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, stagnation is far more accurate. Thing is, it used to be a
source of pride to tell your real world associates that you're a
wikipedia admin. You'd even put it on your resume. Now, it's a bit of
an embarassing secret and you
FYI. BTW, I didn't know the prototype wiki existed!
Also: Please try your weird, cheap and bad browsers on en:wp and the
prototype wiki as an anonymous user. There's been a string of problem
reports about older BlackBerrys and the PS3 browser, for example. The
more good bug reports, the better.
On 14 May 2010 21:21, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's a horrible, horrible bug in the search box.
To be honest, I think this bug should have gated the release; about
50% of the page hits go through this one box, and it's rewriting what
the users type.
Has it been
On 14 May 2010 21:29, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
[2] Except those of you who already have them. But for you, we have
a whole wiki that you can go wild on. You can even have a wheel war
if you want and we won't tell a soul.
Should you really encourage behavior such as wheel
On 17 May 2010 14:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
You could make an argument that the article might give an uninvolved
party a reasonable feel for the situation, but there still would be
effectively no way to incorporate the _facts_ from this article into
Wikipedia in a manner
On 17 May 2010 16:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I would say the point of the Fox article is the subtext: no one rules
the WMF, ergo they would have no way to comply with legal requirements
such as a take-down order. NB the subtle solecism free reign (for
free
On 19 May 2010 16:43, Michael Ritchey ritche...@familysearch.org wrote:
In which year of Wikipedia's existence did it start to really attract and
satisfy users? In other words, when did it hit a critical mass of good
content so that users searching for information on Topic X had a reasonable
Spotted by Matthias:
http://www.mightaswelldance.com/blog/2010/05/how-wikipedia-kept-me-out-of-jail/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On 20 May 2010 16:17, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, according to Google, there are somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8
billion internet users in the world. If we ignore those numbers and
say only 1B use the internet, then according to Alex wikipedia.org
No, I mean actual data
On 20 May 2010 17:56, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Might be of interest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm
Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube
because of its growing sacrilegious content.
On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
As for the idea that we should move to Hi, I noticed that you
speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria;
your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_. I've done
over 4,000
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with
the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue
how to deal with people who they see as being out of their
On 31 May 2010 18:49, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
But AGK is
an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost
always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect
that some of his work is
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So
my comments get long. If
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading.
No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get
annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the obvious, e.g. that
bringing interesting
On 1 June 2010 05:56, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious
liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls
to one's
On 1 June 2010 15:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't actually agree with Sue on that particular summary being
all that insightful. (Sorry Greg!) But a lengthy summary did in
fact please Sue in that particular instance. So making the moderators
bar posts like the one
On 2 June 2010 12:42, David Lindsey dvdln...@gmail.com wrote:
So, then, why are we trying? Why do the best Wikipedia articles look more
and more like (poorly done) journal literature reviews full of technical
terms and requiring substantial background knowledge to understand? I, for
one,
On 2 June 2010 14:10, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
We should undoubtedly stick to doing one thing well. And our thing
does appear to be collation. I'm happy for WP's cancer coverage to make
it into the same sentence as the NCI's. It argues that some very serious
On 2 June 2010 18:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise
some topics are just never going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for FAs
On 2 June 2010 15:27, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The best articles are the creation of algorithmic and
judgement-impaired FA/GA review processes. You get what you measure.
How to measure good writing?
What do
On 2 June 2010 18:51, David Lindsey dvdln...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
FAs are frequently all but unreadable to the casual reader. How
feasible would it be to add intro clear to casual reader? I realise
some topics are just never
On 2 June 2010 20:46, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote:
So /That's/ why we're so busy, and feel so alone sometimes!! :P
The busy policy talkpages, really (really) need regular input from the
old guard.
Watch[list]ful vigilance, is the still the best way to understand, and
influence,
Spotted by Mathias on the comcom list:
http://customslaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/cit-dumps-on-wikipedia.html
Precis: litigant brings up Wikipedia description, court rejects it
because anyone can edit Wikipedia. So pretty much in accordance with
our general advice ;-)
That said, the litigant
On 3 June 2010 16:48, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Underneath all this is a presumption that I have time to write more
condensed material. I don't, generally. When I do have the time, and
have a point to make, i.e., some message I consider necessary to
communicate
Signed by assorted luminaries around the world. Proceeds to WMF.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=110542897329
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=110542880973
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
We expect a publicity storm around pending changes. Jay doesn't
currently plan to do a press release as such, but we're definitely
getting ready with talking point sheets and Q+As and a blog post and
etc. For obvious reasons, this is best drafted in public.
Journalists are ssimple creatures/s
On 8 June 2010 20:24, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell the living people part isn't accurate.
O rly? New one on me. OK ...
Some of our pages are locked from *anyone* editing them. With this,
we can open those up so anyone can edit the draft version, which
On 8 June 2010 20:55, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
d) it only applies BLP articles
Can you identify the origin of this belief? It's not correct. If
there is some page still saying/implying this, we need
On 8 June 2010 21:34, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
No, I'm just wondering how quickly our 2,000 is going to get used up
with people playing with userpages ;-)
A coupla years ago we had 200 protected pages and 800 semi-protected
pages. What are current numbers?
(Having the
On 8 June 2010 22:18, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports you
will see some reports pertaining to long and indefinite protections. Some of
them are protected redirects and salted deleted articles so are irrelevant,
but it
OK, what we have so far:
* Vandalism is bad.
* Oxygen is good.
* I like Jello.
I'm wondering if that'll get garbled in the editorial process.
( http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1993-03-16/ )
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 12 June 2010 22:04, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
On 12/06/2010 18:13, William Pietri wrote:
Just for the sake of understanding better for next time, would people
have preferred that we launched later?
Personally, just launch the damn thing already!
+1
- d.
On 14 June 2010 09:12, Cenarium sysop cenarium.sy...@gmail.com wrote:
We could also implement as scheduled, but refrain from using pending changes
in mainspace until we're ready. This way, reviewers could start testing in
Wikipedia namespace before it's rolled out on articles. The issue of
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php
Spotted by Nihiltres.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
-- 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
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 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
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
On 10 July 2010 18:10, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I'm having trouble with the appearance of and, in some instances, gaining
access to various links on the WP site. The same thing is happening on the
Wiktionary site. This just started happening this morning. Every page I go
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-covered-up-on-Wikipedia.html
Nothing unusual and nothing saying we've erred in any way,
surprisingly and pleasingly - they put blame strictly on those making
the changes.
Last two paras:
There are no rules preventing staff
On 11 July 2010 13:33, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Thanks, Josh. I tried what you suggested but nothing changed. And this is
strange. I've been using Internet Explorer with the same skin (MonoBook)
ever since I started editing WP four years ago without a problem. I realize
On 11 July 2010 14:07, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
on 7/11/10 8:43 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
There should be a Toolbox thing with a little triangle in it at the
side. Clicking the triangle will expand it.
(Apparently, this is obvious to everyone
On 11 July 2010 14:33, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, so the layout is completely broken? Tch.
Do you know what version of IE you're using? I think the developers
basically decided
... to stop supporting old IE because it was ridiculously difficult to
do so. However, it *should
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
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 20 July 2010 20:22, Conor Wao conor...@gmail.com wrote:
I am interested in getting the Irish chapter up and running. I have a
particular interest in releasing more music into the commons. I would like
to apply for funding to provide educational workshops and demonstrations.
Have we got
On 21 July 2010 14:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/wikipediadown/message/2
Court: go away.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0609-3
(PDF)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l
On 24 July 2010 00:57, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 July 2010 13:53, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
rightly ridiculed by critics such as the WR crowd.
See, that's a sentence fragment that is intrinsically flawed. The WR
crowd in question was not critics, the
-- Forwarded message --
From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
Date: 1 August 2010 23:42
Subject: [Foundation-l] Global banners requests for comment
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi.
After becoming annoyed yet again at what I view as
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has
already been achieved or
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
in increasingly destructive ways, simply because perfection has
already been achieved or
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
As a concept, it bears thinking about. I'm not necessarily saying there
should be a hold placed on articles that have attained those statuses... OK,
maybe I am. Limit editing to autoconfirmed editors? Obviously when FAs
On 7 August 2010 17:06, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
This brings us back to one of the original standing orders of
Wikipedia way back in its early years
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Rules_to_consider)
of Always leave something undone. Personally, I reject
On 7 August 2010 18:04, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
But when an article is functionally complete -- where the record of known
facts and significant viewpoints is set, barring future developments -- then
I think something like flagged revs is a good idea. It's a small-c
On 8 August 2010 14:03, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree. Which is why such arguments should be kept private. I'm still
mystified as to why this ended up in a national newspaper. The bare
facts of the dispute could have been reported, but why publish those
two letters in
On 8 August 2010 14:22, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the WMF lawyer and PR person know more about the law and PR
than you do? Did you ask them?
No. Would you like to do that?
I feel no need
On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that Gerard is
more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement.
Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume
Cracked.com is definitely my favourite reuser of Wikipedia content.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18679_5-real-historical-death-stars-complete-with-baffling-flaws.html
Their best and funniest articles are almost completely historically
accurate. Because of us!
- d.
On 9 August 2010 20:26, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think all images relating to the FBI should be taken from and
sourced to their photo gallery. Seems the most logical thing to do.
The obvious steps would be:
1. Upload the best quality imagery you can from there,
On 9 August 2010 20:37, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The not-so-good articles can then be removed at leisure, without gaps
in the articles.
not so good images.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
501 - 600 of 947 matches
Mail list logo
