I've created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Notability_and_fiction
regarding notability and how it applies to fiction has been created in
order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is
most appropriate.
All editors are invited to present
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current fractured state of play might be encouraged to heal itself.
But
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
As a result of the recent RFC on Notability and Fiction, I've drafted an
essay at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_and_fiction.
Feel free to edit and engage to reach a consensus on the issue, so that
the current
- Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com
To: charles r matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, English
Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July, 2009 12:44:36 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain
I have access to a newspaper library through my library card, don't
other Wikipedians have a similar access, or at least realise such things
exist? This idea that newspapers will lose utility as a source if they
go behind pay-walls is a non-starter as far as I can make out, because
that would
This conversation seems to be getting a little steeped in attack mode,
doesn't it? I mean, if we take a step back, do we verify everything we
read ever period? The fact that you just read this email seems to
suggest no, actually we don't. So my question at this point in the
debate would be
Carcharoth wrote:
Tags and categories are different. Ideally, you would have both, or a
clear of idea of what would be primary tags (what we call
categories) and what are descriptive tags.
I asked about flickr tags years ago, but never understood the replies I
got, see:
Emily Monroe wrote:
This conversation seems to be getting a little steeped in attack
mode, doesn't it?
That was an honest, legitimate hypothetical question of mine. I
addressed it primarily to Will, and secondarily to everybody. I never
mean to attack anyone. I wouldn't live with
Jay Litwyn wrote:
Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message
news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com...
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -
Mark
Twain
In book called They never said it!, that is
Jay Litwyn wrote:
Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message
news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com...
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. -
Mark
Twain
In book called They never said it!, that is
for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5
pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet.
;-)
On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Jay Litwyn wrote:
Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message
Fayssal F. wrote:
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same
yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary
Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly
governs the professional lives of millions of
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
I think the same thing applies to
our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start
blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter
what the provocation.
Do this and you've
Emily Monroe wrote:
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others.
I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary.
and following dispute resolution and
one party is not.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Surreptitiousness wrote:
Fayssal F. wrote:
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers
the same
yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA
David Gerard wrote:
There's a lot to be said for deleting the Wikipedia: space in its
entirety and starting the community over ...
Didn't we block Ed Poor for trying something like that. I always
thought he was on to something with his deletion of afd... I think the
wiki has moved past the
, on the other hand, may have their
privileges taken away. If you are in such a position, you're in a
position of not just trust, but *trust*. Incivility takes away that
trust.
People may disagree with me, though. I get that.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote:
Emily
Emily Monroe wrote:
the arbitration committee have tended to take the view that
incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin toolbox and flag.
Oh, I get it--precedent interferes with my idea.
No that's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that while I agree
with you,
George Herbert wrote:
But admins who go too far overboard need to be reigned in, as do users
who go too far overboard. And it does happen.
Not as often as it should, unfortunately. Nowhere near.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to
take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin
toolbox and flag.
Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be
insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil.
I think you're talking about assertiveness, not aggresiveness.
Semantical, I know, but still.
I think
Charles Matthews wrote:
I can't go into private discussions I know about, obviously. I've
several times made public my view that we should give admins plenty of
discretion, and balance that by a small number of de-sysops. So I agree
pretty much with what you say. Sympathy needs to be in
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Thinking of teh community as a community, it suddenly makes me realise
I have no idea who the community leaders are.
snip
The episodes and characters arbitration cases
were instances crying out for facilitation, not arbitration
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of
the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe
David Gerard wrote:
Forkability is IMO a drastically important thing to preserving all our
work here. My blog post from two years ago on the subject (update
numbers per Moore's Law):
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/
I agree entirely with this
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'm not
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you
felt
FT2 wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This would possibly help collaboration, ensure only credible articles get
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
FT2 wrote:
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
I think if we abolished deletion and rather moved articles to draft
space, you'd see it used a lot. Obviously, really bad articles would be
deleted, but most of those are
FT2 wrote:
Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles getting deleted due to quality
issues? That would be a reasonable resolution. On the other hand if they
aren't really fixable or they're not encyclopedic, if they haven't much
chance of surviving AFD even if edited a bit more, then it
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards cathy.edwa...@bbc.co.uk:
To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interview a UK
Wikipedian. We're looking for a passionate Deletionist - someone who
identifies with the goals of Deletionism to create a high quality
encyclopaedia,
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I believe tantamount not to rules can be broken but rather to rules can
change. I never advise people to be bold *against* policy, but rather
to go to the policy discussion pages and see whether or not their
situation might be an exception that we'd like to include
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just want to address this one quote.
You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary
and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.
Let's say that you have the tertiary (shudder) source EB 1911,
Cleopatra. You are aware that an enormous number
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Indeed, PROD is good. The two main problems are:
a) PROD is not allowed for any article that has already been PRODed or AFDed,
which means you have to go through the history first - making a 5 second job
a 10 second job (an issue if you plan to do 50,000 articles by
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start. A lot of
people seem to make the mistake of thinking B-Class is nearly A-Class.
We haven't got to that stage yet.
Carl (CBM) wrote:
It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit
their own objectives.
Yes, this happens quite often. It's partially a consequence of certain
policies, such as WP:N, directly referring to secondary sources,
even when this is not the right
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture of thousands of Wikipedians sitting at their computer with
either smiles or
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap thing
Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just
geni wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 9/10/09, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Someone else probably caught this, but anything which has been deleted
out of process can be restored by any other admin.
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good
Jonathan Hughes wrote:
We already have {{oldprodfull}}, which many add when they remove a PROD tag
already. If AWB, Twinkle, and the like don't already, it might be worth
having them automagically add it to the talk page when PRODing articles,
just to make sure. Cheers.
Good idea.
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot easier if we had a coded hook to
check for the existence of a talkpage, and flag up a reminder to
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We are supposed to be community-driven.
Where is the community consensus on media blackouts?
Link please.
I'm amused by the idea that you can link to community consensus. We need
a picture
Carcharoth wrote:
Actually, I think people end up picking the articles they are most
interested in, or which have the most potential. The vast majority or
article languish unless people systematically work through them. As an
example, look at how successful the plan to bring all the WP:CORE
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
Andrew Gray wrote:
When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
to reinstate talkpages would be a lot
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'd put it this way: the business of flagged revisions indicates a
feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a first
draft, and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
Yeah, that's kind of where I
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Mind, it could be an idea to have as standard a message posted to
relevant WikiProjects when an article is up for FA.
There is already an expectation
David Gerard wrote:
I think the shock was realising this is the product. Yes, that live
working draft is the actual product. And this may actually be a
feature.
Distributions of Wikipedia content turn out to be secondary - the
working site turns out to be the actual product.
Flaged revs
Don't fully pretend to understand this, but given there was stuff about
a WikiJournal on the list recently, I thought this article might be of
use to some of the participants:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/last-fm-mendeley-victor-keegan
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on moderation now.
I think perhaps I'd ponder if we needed to be told on-list that someone
was going on moderation. Is it productive or counter-productive to
publicly announce that fact. I suppose if there was an argument to
Charles Matthews wrote:
Amory Meltzer wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call that post nice. It reads to me like just
another person complaining.
Actually this is not so much an example on bullying, but on _precisely_
why we have WP:COI.
The hill has five rope tows and seven ski runs.
Carcharoth wrote:
If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you
truly restored it? Or have you created something new?
Aren't we in the my grandad's had the same broom for twenty years
territory? (He's replaced the head four times and the handle twice.)
Apoc 2400 wrote:
A question for the admins here: When you come across an article wrongly
tagged for speedy deletinon or prod, do you check up on the user who tagged
it? What do you do if their deletion tagging is no more accurate than
picking new articles at random?
When I tackled NPP
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/21 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
I'd really like some decent surveys conducted which let us
know exactly what our users and readers want us to be, because without
that, we're just blowing hot-air.
+1
Suggest
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
WP:NOT says WP is not a directory, after all.
I think Wikipedia has progressed far enough and become unique enough
that WP:NOT is really not relevant anymore.
I
Charles Matthews wrote:
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm
somewhat concerned that a reliance on reader survey will indeed tend
to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the sake of
other stuff that is not too useful (e.g. I wish you'd
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for that set to
be well-defined
What I'd like to see, really, is a better focus of what sources confer
notability. For example, rather than the fact that we are not a
dictionary, we just don't use dictionaries as a source to confer
notability. Similarly directories, so on and so forth. I think this way
notability may be
Charles Matthews wrote:
Downmarket, in my terms, is slanting content
policy to favour in any way pages because they would be read often,
rather than serve the purpose of being a reference site.
Not sure I can understand the difference between being read often and
being referred too. But
Charles Matthews wrote:
The question is
more whether lurkers should be stakeholders. Traditionally what is
respected is showing the better way, rather than compiling a wishlist.
The best way to solve whether lurkers should be stakeholders is to ask
them. Showing the better way would be
Charles Matthews wrote:
At present we are still holding to some version of
the old idea that less is more: we don't allow articles that scroll on
for ever, and we try to have people adopt a concise style with good
focus. There will always be the argument that this is faintly
ridiculous,
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
2009/9/22 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Some you would expect there to be enough material for this sort of
treatment. Others less so. I like the idea of doing this sort of
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Now we can {{note|foo}}^W^W{{r|foo}} like it's 2005!
But seriously, I find this discouraging - a sign of
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote
I don't really know what you do with early life articles. I'm still
working out how you define early life.
Case-by-case, I should think.
Feel free to chip in at [[Wikipedia:Case-by-case]], seems to be needed
stevertigo wrote:
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
adjudicating policy.
Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
by
David Gerard wrote:
I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
capture.
Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
can run. Maybe bar admins from running for
George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
the risk of arbcom siding
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Having just nullified a load of inactive proposals, I can attest to
that. I was wondering if there was a better way to organise historical
and rejected proposals
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels
Draft Checked and quality, but this is under active discussion.
Quality
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious
qualities), then
FT2 wrote:
The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot
summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable
Ken Arromdee wrote:
The result is people
constantly claiming that you can't ignore rules for BLP or privacy concerns,
since helping the BLP subject is not a form of improving the encyclopedia.
Hang on, you've set up a straw man there. You haven't shown how
helping the BLP subject is not a
stevertigo wrote:
FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
there would also be users who would find ways around [Civil], ways to
offend, upset, annoy, provoke, or distress, that they could claim
wasn't strictly against the rules.
But a great number of people do these things and get away with
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that
we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid,
arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is?
Didn't we used to reformat discussions? Maybe we need to re-integrate
that into
I freely admit I have an issue with fictional categories. I find them
somewhat in the face of what categorisation was intended to do, or at
least my thoughts on what it was intended to do, which was to classify
as unambiguously and as relevantly as possible. I'm prompted into this
David Goodman wrote:
Fiction is a very broad term. fictions can be used for rhetorical
purposes in serious discourse--fictional examples are a mainstay of
philosophical argument, dating back to Plato's cave, if not earlier.
For this hypothetical animal, I do not think there will be any
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 04/11/2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
Schroedinger's cat very definitely is fictitious; it's not an
experiment you can actually do and get an alive/dead cat that you can
Carcharoth wrote:
Take a random sample of
deleted articles and see what proportion actually didn't fix the
criteria and what proportion can be written as acceptable articles.
Have a look at [[Charles Mills Gayley]], which I created as a stub, was
deleted as an A7, and which I eventually
81 matches
Mail list logo
