Steve Summit wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
What's a one-sentence statement of the compelling reason from each
side, stated from a neutral point of view?
A reader typing in Ireland (or an editor linking [[Ireland]])
is almost certainly thinking about the country, not the geological
Michael Everson wrote:
On 27 Nov 2008, at 12:05, David Gerard wrote:
2008/11/27 Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We haven't proposed that. We proposed Ireland (state).
That has a slight smell of neologism - is the term used anywhere
outside Wikipedia?
It is no
Al Tally wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Thomas Larsen wrote
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
...
I think
Carcharoth wrote:
The ideal is a mix of lots of tertiary and secondary sources. We need
to use multiple and independent sources to avoid over-representing or
copying a single source (in the sense of 'light rewriting' or 'close
paraphrasing'), and to produce something that is distinct and
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/8 Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end
handed her a very strong
Nathan wrote:
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of
Alec Conroy wrote:
On 12/21/08, Thomas Larsen wrote:
I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
forbid, _misunderstood_.
My experience
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I David am not the one who threw WTF in the face of a serious contributor as
if I was a complete idiot.
I do not appreciate that type of hostility, to a serious point of
contention, for which no evidence was produced, and will respond with equal
hostility
when
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image. That does NOT give me a
copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged. If I take a
picture of the
Alec Conroy wrote:
Either way, this entire issue is moot.
We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or
actually
asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
Exactly. If a text is under copyright it can't be on Wikisource. If
it's PD, it can be.
misapprehension. This doesn't at all
sound like the kind of thing I would do.
For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal
Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]
Ec
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens
and price of working with
JSTOR and others is still far removed from a proposal to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
Ec
On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
submit the pd works to wikisource *you
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a
lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b)
clearly
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid
posting any information whatsoever.
Drastic, but it works. Killing the patient is an established strategy
for getting rid of the disease.
This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages,
Soxred93 wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an
artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This
enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start
reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
Brian wrote:
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it
contradicts it. You say it plays into his turf, but as I pointed out, the
method pits him against himself.
The future of vandalism bots on Wikipedia is *certainly* machine learning
techniques. The question
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated sainto...@telus.net writes:
Many new ideas are tangential to a general education about a
subject, but are no less important to the advancement of knowledge.
Textbooks are instruments for parroting the party line of received
wisdom. They do
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:40:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cbeckh...@fastmail.fm writes:
If by community you mean WP policy then no such decision has been
made. It is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from
primary sources. Indeed,
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
The reason why it is not ok in this case is because the admin in
question posted text that he does not own the copyright to. Provided
the text is not a copyright violation on its own, this admin has
violated the GFDL by not giving credit to the original author.
This
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
Hence why I put provided the text is not a copyright violation in my
prior post.
Regardless posting text that he does not have the copyright permission
for, regardless if it is from the GFDL or from a third source... This
admin has crossed a certain ethical line.
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I am concerned, this is a minor, if rather stupid, abuse of
the tools. Trout-slapping, rather than arbitration, seems in order.
I agree; also the fact that it seems to have taken place
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Sam Korn wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
To ray, you have a point, if it is a 3rd parties copyright, it is
their fight. Generally though I don't like the thought of that ability
being used to undelete
Wilhelm Schnotz wrote:
Bah forgive me, I was trying to be sarcastic. Did not work so well :S
People here can sometimes be victims of their own literalism. One thing
about lynch mob members is that they believe they are ridding the world
of scum. Such true believers do not understand
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of
White Cat wrote:
In general when a proposal achieves the state where it does not face serious
opposition by the majority we consider that a general agreement. In
general votes are given a month or so to go on. It depends on how many votes
are casted.
The key problem is people are sick and
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The ruling did *not* repeal sweat-of-the-brow.
True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the
first place.
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2009 11:49:40 A.M. writes:
It would be legitimate if copyright law permitted it. In that case it
likely does not. What case law we have suggests that photographing a
three-dimensional object requires a sufficient amount of creativity to
Carcharoth wrote:
The point here is that the availability of PD items (the actual items
themselves, not the scans or copies of them) varies. There are also
quality control and provenance issues as well. What would you prefer?
A quality scan from a respected museum that has confirmed the
geni wrote:
2009/1/16 wjhon...@aol.com:
Not a good example.
The building owner is not working your camera, you are.
You own the photographs you take, not the person who owns the object being
photographed.
Your US bias is showing. Consider French law.
Still if you want a US law
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2009 9:57:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Absolutely!
Are you willing to do it? That's the next question.
All of this is academic if there is *no one* willing to test this theory by
actually executing it.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2009 8:45:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
True enough, because you can't repeal what was never in the law in the
first place.
---
Whether or not it was part of Common Law is exactly the
The Cunctator wrote:
Funny how it supposedly closes tomorrow but it's already done and archived.
I've never liked the idea that a poll should ever be closed. It would
be enough to make the subject matter implementable when certain
pre-defined thresholds are reached. If at some later time
Gwern Branwen wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2009 larsen.thoma...@gmail.com writes:
What evidence do you have that an encyclopedia must be free?
Society has existed for a few thousand years without a free encyclopedia.
A statement trivially true. Society has also existed for a few
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
For instance that simian society has always had ways
of restricting access to intellectual property, not
limited to intentional obfuscation, initiatory methods
of knowledge access, and going all the way to the level
of intentionally making the information
David Goodman wrote:
The combination of user generated content, user-based editorial
control, and free content is our characteristic. That doesn't mean
it's the best way for all purposes, or even that it will always be us
that implements it best.
It is perfectly possible that if there were
the wub wrote:
Also fom the article:
He said the encyclopedia had set a benchmark of a 20-minute
turnaround to update the site with user-submitted edits to existing
articles
That'll probably be faster than us once flagged revisions is switched
on (compare with the German expeiment, where
Keith Old wrote:
In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting
the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be
rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net writes
I had sent him a scathing email denigrating him for not allowing direct
user edits.
For some time, they allowed you to *email* them additions and corrections,
and I pointed out how ridiculously last
geni wrote:
2009/1/29 Ray Saintonge:
So what if it takes 3 weeks? So what if there are backlogs? Even
accepting the premise that EB can maintain such a breakneck speed,
whoever defined this as a race to do things more quickly?
Our readers and our content writers. Speed of updates
Durova wrote:
Their main advantage in the current market is that their content is vetted.
Question is whether they can afford the staff to keep up with submissions,
and whether that value added is worth the price they charge for it. The
market seems to be saying no. And if they walk away
Patton 123 wrote:
Well after the recent lengthy discussion and civility etc on this
list, and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBackslash_Forwardslashdiff=270554330oldid=270553832comment,
I've been thinking about a solution for incivility.
, Ray Saintonge wrote
Patton 123 wrote:
Well after the recent lengthy discussion and civility etc on this
list, and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBackslash_Forwardslashdiff=270554330oldid=270553832
comment,
I've been
Nathan wrote:
I say, let them congregate on Citizendium. We should have a template
{{trycitizendium}} that we can post on the pages of our more aggressive POV
pushers.
The template need not limit itself to Citizendium, though the symbolism
of having it in the template name has a certain
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this:
Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama.
The more movies you rate, the better your recommendations will be.
My first thought was that they were going to start suggesting areas
of Wikipedia
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show
Durova wrote:
Regarding block duration, extremely short blocks tend to backfire. Human
nature is that people usually become less grumpy after a good meal and a
night's rest. Nearly everyone will eat and sleep within 24 hours, so my
threshold for civility blocks was 'Did this go far enough
Kevin Wong wrote:
But is it a tragedy or a comedy?
That depends on your proximity to the events. From within it is high
gothic; from without it is pure slapstick.
Ec
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
So what would you do with this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stuart,_Duke_of_Kintyre
That is one of several articles where the child seems to be notable
because they were born into nobility or royalty
David Gerard wrote:
2009/2/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
David Gerard wrote:
There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only
noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The
hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce -
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Need? No, not at all. The political career makes her notable, and if she
is notable enough that someone has written her biography, including those
details, then we can include them. We don't need to include them. If
the
only sources commenting on her children
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On another note, wow. I hadn't realised how much stuff was in our
infoboxes. The five lines of government I can understand, the two GDPs
ditto, but do we really need a quick-reference for proportion of area
which is
Durova wrote:
Two words: interlibrary loan.
-Durova
This is in the Outer Limits of Sam's complaint. For someone who can't
get to his local library to find what is already there the notion of
interlibrary loans is an unfathomable mystery.
Ec
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Sam
Phil Nash wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
2009/3/4 Durova:
Two words: interlibrary loan.
That gives me an idea. Some users live in rural areas far away from
large book repositories, with little capacity to check off-line
resources, while other users live in metropolitan
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/4 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Getting access to existing collections and permission to make copies
of them (county archives will generaly photocopy stuff for you but
they won't let you point a camera at the stuff) is a more significant
issue at this point.
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
However, I also think the web should not be hostage to IE6/IE7
forever. Some designers have declared war on IE6 for this reason:
William King wrote:
Fox News has a story on the controversy regarding Barack Obama's Wikipedia
entry:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html
Your thoughts?
Are Fox's archived pages accessible? It would be great to have more
insight into their editorial processes.
Ec
stevertigo wrote:
Durova, perhaps taking some cue from Gwern, wrote some poetically
critical and even ugly things above. But while Gwern mostly attacked
the concept of poetry on wikien-l (oh-so-cleverly I might add), Durova
appeared to have made it personal, and, for lack of a better word,
Durova wrote:
There was no prior conflict as far as I know. Just good faith
misunderstanding.
Excellent
All in the pursuit of good doggerel.
Caterwaul in pursuit of doggerel bites its own tail.
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The problem with extending the use of square brackets to cover sarcasm,
tongue-in-cheek and incredulity is that square brackets traditionally mean
this
context is being added and was not previously present in the quoted text.
I.E. The Prime Minister stated,
I don't spend a lot of time on on Wikipedia itself these days, but when
did the project start censoring talk pages, or is
[[User:Faithlessthewonderboy]] just going ahead and making up his own
rules. This came up at [[Talk:Larissa Kelly]] about the /Jeopardy/
contestant. Her Wikipedia article
Alex Sawczynec wrote:
Also, it seems to be rather bad form to not only name a specific user to
accuse of bad practices, but to also title the thread with his name. Gives a
much different idea of what the intended message is.
Why shouldn't a person making such outrageous deletions be named?
Durova wrote:
Durova's evil guide to plagiarism:
Don't copy from the live version of the article. Copy a historic version
from a year ago. Your teacher doesn't understand how Wikipedia page
histories work and won't find the text on a Google search. The older
version will appear more
doc wrote:
More seriously, I have primary age school-kids, and I would not allow
them to read nevermind edit wikipedia. I can't be alone in that. When my
daughter showed an interest, I went out and bought Encarta and
Britannica - which she loves and which are great for school.
My son is now
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Why shouldn't a person making such outrageous deletions be named? Are
you denying that he made them?
Well there were others too. You could just as easily complain about
RayAYang or Cocktotheface.
http
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Kill the messenger!
Does anyone have a mob of peasants with torches standing around handy?
Perhaps someone will write an article about the legendary Wikipedia
riots of April 1, 2009.
Ec
-Original Message-
From: Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon,
doc wrote:
That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in
a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue,
perceptiveness, or diligence.
Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith.
The problem with widespread flagging is that in
doc wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all
established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to
unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a
certain edit count or length of stay or something
Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful
model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically
adopt
Charles Matthews wrote:
I ought to be used to this by now; but I have just found a 1911
Britannica article we have not imported or covered (see [[William
Stewart of Houston]]). These almost always crop up when the
disambiguation of common names, such as William Stewart, was not
exhaustive
David Gerard wrote:
I have a nasty feeling I pressed the button and just moderated
*everyone*. I'll just try to plunger the blockage ...
Some days it just seems like everybody's full of shit. ;-)
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
2009/4/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
complaints...
Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that
wouldn't be
Delirium wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever
was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been
optimistic.
I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently
operating with
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia.
I've found the to improve Wikipedia clause in various rules to be an odd
loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: that helps
the
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:46 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If the author who is placing their material PD, not by age, doesn't
like what people do with it, they shouldn't have made it PD. I mean
you can't give away your cake and then claim that it shouldn't be eaten.
Charles Matthews wrote:
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Criminal sanctions takes it a step higher of course, but it's a tool open to
us and I think we should consider using it when we can and when it's
appropriate. You're probably right that this isn't exactly the right case -
but I still think
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 21/04/2009, Scientia Potentia est wrote:
I'm not too concerned. Their notability standards seem to be very loose, and
they have few of the trappings that we emphasize: BLP, neutrality, reliable
sourcing, brilliant prose, etc.
That's exactly the kind of thing
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/22 Ray Saintonge:
I wouldn't be too concerned about it either. This is a volunteer project
so, unlike with the folks at EB, nobody's livelihood depends on it.
That's not entirely true. Very few people's livelihoods depends on it,
but we do have some paid
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/22 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
You need to offer a writer something very different, if you are to
motivate him to write in the early stages when readership will be low.
Or indeed, you have to attract the type of writer who would be wholly
disinterested in
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes
This is a wonderful idea! It could even make sense to have Metapedia
as a Wikimedia project...an explicitly curatorial project that
attempts to sort different kinds of content and evaluate strengths and
weaknesses.
Having this
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;)
Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors
not displaying the license link?
The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they
geni wrote:
2009/4/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided
that
they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by
anyone else provided
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;)
Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors
not displaying the license link
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
In the long run, it my opinion, that no one is actually going to care how
the content is used with or without the license, enough, to actually hire a
lawyer. Of course someone could *mention* to those who take the content that
they should
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is disingenuous. A letter sent by a law firm to outline our legal
concerns which uses legal language and tells a site that they will
settle
matters amicably if they meet a demand is a legal threat. It may not
actually
include the words or we will sue you, but trying
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/25 Charles Matthews
Which rather ducks the point that where
you go to graduate school would still matter enormously. Why _are_
people hired in the basis of MBAs?
I have a friend who's discovering that MBA is the degree after Ph.D if
you don't want to be an
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
The matters of principle in the Jacobsen v. Katzer appear to have been
decided for the moment, but the denial of a preliminary injunction
suggests that the practicalities are far from clear. While it's true
enough that someone may have
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership. The two approaches
remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would
not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it
nevertheless taints legal ownership
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
EC, you agree to the terms of service when you sign up. If you fail to
actually read them, you alone are at fault.
You would have to show something like the contract is so confusing that no
sensible person could understand it. It's not the point of whether you can
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:52 AM, geni wrote:
2009/4/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided
that
they state where they got it
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Creating_Copyright/Ownership_Factors/Joint.php
---
I do not recognize some random webpage, regardless of being on a UW site as
being authoritative on this matter. This
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The Rachel Marsden article is out-of-date. There is no ending material on
the ebay Auction for one thing. It just says items were put up for
auction. How much did they get? Who won them? etc.
The initial listing, when prices became silly, was cancelled by eBay
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust
website makes it notable. We have many cases where things are mentioned
in this or that place and yet that thing is not notable the way we use the
word. It would be up to the author to
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources.
Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply
because they exist.
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those
sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our preferred
sources are reliable is
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR
and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken
with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates
that it was built in 1791, built
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
--
By you and you're are you referring to me myself?
If not, then to what do you
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not
about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles
attached to somebody's name.
I agree that credentials don't necessarily
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified
stevertigo wrote:
Listers,
I've submitted a suggestion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Burials
with regard to how burials can be referenced in more encyclopedic language
than currently used.
Comments and criticism welcome.
The distinction that you make is unlikely to be
1 - 100 of 290 matches
Mail list logo
