On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 22:49, Audrey Abeyta audrey.abe...@gmail.com wrote:
Your insightful responses are invaluable to my project and I cannot express
my gratitude for this community enough, so thank you, thank you, thank you!
When my final paper is written in June, I will make it available
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 00:23, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
A million? Personally, I prefer quality over quantity. He's not that good.
I spent ten minutes writing a bristly response to this before I
realised you were joking.
B
___
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 07:54, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Australia is pleased to announce a partnership with the
Australian Paralympic Committee to intended to increase the depth and
quality of information about disability sport on Wikipedia (English,
German, French),
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Four *separate* incidents where users mistook the fundraising banner ad for
an illustration that is part of the article.
As is usual for lousy user interfaces, a lot of us are probably going to
blame this on the user
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
So you have to pick the right level and get a source that suits the
article you are working on. For an article on a major battle, you
would need several books on that battle. For an article on a major
general, you
I decided I hadn't reviewed a featured article candidate for a while
and Russell T Davies (writer of the Doctor Who reboot) was there.
Figured I'd give it a go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_T_Davies
I invite you to look, with reasonable care, at references 1 to 97.
Now, not only are
Hullo,
The British Library has put 4 million pages of 19th century newspapers online:
http://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/Press-Releases/Murder-mania-and-a-leech-powered-weather-machine-up-to-4-million-pages-of-historical-newspapers-now-searchable-online-at-britishnewspaperarchive-co-uk-54f.aspx
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh. I had (foolishly) assumed it would be free.
That would have been lovely :O)
It would have been good just to have a few free searches before
tripping the paywall, just to see if you like the product. And if
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
When I look at an article as an ordinary reader looking for information
I mostly don't notice if it has been referenced...
I fall into the category satirised by XKCD (though I can't find the
strip, unfortunately): if a
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Bo Xu box...@yahoo.com.cn wrote:
We, Prof. Bo Xu at Fudan University in China and Prof. Dahui Li at University
of Minnesota Duluth, are interested in why and how people contribute to
Wikipedia. You could make an important contribution to this research by
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
that happens is
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
I like this question ;O)
For my part I have been considering my actions during time spent on
Wikipedia and actually adding content to articles has gone by the
wayside!
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much what I've been doing of late - just proofreading as I graze.
I have set myself the task of reading every article on current sitting
UK MPs (whilst also keeping bookmarks of stuff to read after that,
such as
Good day Wikipedians,
I have of late got into a football management computer game. Don't
panic, I will be relating this post to Wikipedia, hang on. I'm really
enjoying the game. To such an extent that I've actually started to
follow football. I've never particularly liked football. I only
started
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Two editors are scrapping without going to the talk page to discuss it and
it's beginning get out of hand, and it's annoying that I can't do anything
about it.
Anyone care to step in?
I've issued them both with an
Hi,
There's a company operating in the UK that has a large number of
controversies attached to it.
Because this mail will be publicly viewable/searchable (and for other
reasons that may become clearer as you read on) I shan't name them.
The article for the company already has a substantive
Thank you Nathan and Geni,
Nathan I may take you up on your offer. But using a library computer
is another option I had been considering.
It's gone midnight here now, so I'll sleep on it.
Thank you once again,
Bodnotbod.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
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
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
Don''t know if Curriki.org (Curriculum + Wiki) has been mentioned on
this list before?
Here's a blog post with a good half hour interview (mp3) with the head.
http://blog.curriki.org/2010/08/24/what%E2%80%99s-the-future-of-curriki-an-interview-with-scott-mcnealy/
I'm almost moved to suggest
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
A likely edge case would be 'Rosebud' is the name of the
childhood sled of Kane.
I'd disagree. The whole Rosebud thing is rather a MacGuffin [1]. The
mystery of Kane's final word is just a hook that motivates the
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this
situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the
play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against
this.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-medium-t.html
Interesting. Good to note that incorrect facts printed in old media
would infect other publications; something we've caused to happen too,
of course, but
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to begin a conversation about the 2010-2011 Fundraiser, which
isn't slated to launch for a few months, but for which we'd like to
get community involvement early and often.
Aside from recalling the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
That's great fun! If I had more faith in humanity, I'd assume it was
somebody's idea of a joke... (a joke which wastes the court's time, at
that).
The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a
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 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
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Many, if not most, companies, major non-profit organizations and virtually
all government agencies have a Human Resources department...
Would this be a possibility for the Wikipedia Project?
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 going to be that clear ... particularly
with the tendency for
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
All that's happened is that the professionally produced material had
some specific attention towards making it readable.
The Wikipedia AFAIK doesn't have any formal processes to check that,
so far as I know.
Is it
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 you mean by algorithmic?
And what do you feel needs changing
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure changing the default from Go! to text
search is the answer, though - and adding another button would be
confusing. Maybe if the Go page had a Not the result you wanted?
Click here to search by text prompt at the top?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Does this case have implications for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8533695.stm
Google employees were convicted by a court for allowing a video of a
teenager with
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the
technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b)
there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Congratulations to all who put together the Learned Hand article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand). From the Article through its
Talk Pages - an excellent example of true collaboration. A great read!
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Peter Coombe
thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
2) Delete all unreferenced BLPs - or BLPs referenced only to own website or
IMDB etc
What's the rationale behind this?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Those people who have been safely dead for a while, it tends to be
easier to establish notability and find sources (they are also less
litigious).
There's an idea. Some people assert that Elvis is still alive. Why
Ah, crap. I may need some advice soon.
I created an article some years back on a living person. Not that long
after he contacted me and asked if he could use the article as his
official IMDB biog. I asked the community (since I was worried about
licensing issues - IMDB controls content placed on
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Explain the situation on the talk page. Basically, you wrote the text
on IMDB as well. There is nothing wrong with this.
As a reference, it's now basically a first-party reference - it's a
bio approved by the subject. Not
It would be rather good if a list of the deletions arising out of this
cull were listed somewhere so we can see the extent and details of the
damage/change/improvement.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
For restorers, I would say that the image page
is where they should be named, but the image caption could maybe say:
restored by Wikipedia/Wikimedia volunteer - that is the key point,
Would I encounter a wave of
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Would I encounter a wave of hostility if I said that a short list of
volunteers should be credited for featured articles?
Probably. Try it and see! :-)
Hee hee.
Well, it's something that could potentially arise
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you explain the obvious to people it isn't obvious to? With references?
Your comment there reminds me of a mini-battle I had on Wikipedia.
I started articles on various forms of published 'criticism'. We
already had
What's the best namespace or place to make a proposal that en:wp have
a random *featured* article button?
As anyone who uses the random article link knows it often turns up
places of small geographical interest. We now have a pretty damn good
library of featured content. I'd really enjoy being
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
These two links may be of interest to you:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-good.php
As found on [[User:Csörföly D/random featured
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I just hope that the banner that recently was captured and displayed
on reddit[1] was a edit/joke because if it wasn't it shows how
pathetic and needy the community is to include that message.
[1].
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
This has been my largest critique over time.
My largest critique over time is that it stubbornly refuses to go backwards.
I missed an IRC meeting of Wikipedians the other night. Would time go
back *just* *this*
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
So, in essence, many Wikipedia articles are another way that the work
of news publications is quickly condensed and reused without
compensation.
This is more than a little rich considering Wikipedia is the
number-one
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
And the *most* newsworthy stuff makes it into Wikipedia. As a reader
of Wikipedia I think it's absolutely great. As an editor I'm
astonished at what fellow editors accomplish with topics. But if I put
myself in the shoes
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
As I say, I love Wikipedia, but putting on media boots I can see us as
a problem.
This doesn't mean their opinion has a leg to stand on, however.
We do this stuff so people can use it, but it's a bit off to turn
around
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Certain copyright issues are also at the heart of the problem, notably
that you can't copyright information. You can copyright expression, but
Wikipedians are quite happy to not use the actual wording of news
reports.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We know that there is enough traffic for the SEO/spammer mob to think
it is worth trying to get there links into the reference section of
wikipedia. Wikipedia's traffic is also highly targets and actually
buys stuff and clicks ads
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
It actually takes quite a bit of work to read an entire article and
process it in your mind then put out a purely self-made version. And,
let's take the *most* optimistic view of editors: you're still
reporting a
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
The fate of newspapers is well beyond our ability to settle. Our
interests are that good quality reliable reporting of events across
the globe continues to take place.
I think most Wikipedians support good journalism. The question
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
(1) The re-synthesis of information that goes into creating Wikipedia
articles often reduces/removes the need to read source news articles,
without infringing copyright. The kind of neutral analysis and
synthesis that
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We add background information and context from wider sources than
newspapers.
Do we? On topical subjects?
It's also somewhat questionable how much of a dent we make
in traffic for day to day news. Sure we take a decent
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, the interesting part of the voluntary nature of Wikipedia is that there
does illogically persist an ideology of status, and moving up the ladder
just like in a professional world. In a paid environment, the motivation
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
A good way to overthrow a regime is to predict its downfall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Which regime and which prophecy are you referring to?
One assumes the 'prophecy' is the recent
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Jake Wartenberg
j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote:
I can. I want to promote a relaxed atmosphere without allowing outing or
trolling. It should be a place where editors can chatter idly and
brainstorm new ideas. I hope that gives you an idea of what I am going
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that you misunderstood what he was saying, and then
harshly criticized what you mistakenly took him to mean. He was asked
Can you describe the editorial policy [of wikien.net]? He replied
that it would be a
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Strange, I'd interpret it as Wikipedia will be ad-free forever. Now,
hand over the cash.
That's pretty much how I'd see it too. I would like to see WP ad-free
forever but it does seem a little unwise to tie your hands
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
As long as history doesn't come to an end, and new people keep getting
born and (annoyingly) becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article,
there will always be a need for new articles.
Not to mention people's
WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!
It just sounds like a war cry or triumphal primal scream.
I'd rather the words help or support were in there.
The cry makes it sound like Wikipedia is not the least fragile. It
sounds like it doesn't need support.
___
WikiEN-l
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oops, can't read/can't count at this time in the morning - was launched
23rd September (see [[Google Toolbar]]). Does anyone actually use this
in ways relevant to WP?
I downloaded the Google toolbar
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of
the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia.
Indeed. A very intelligent friend of mine said he often finds the talk
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
What I would think more likely to succeed? A Help us improve tab, not a
comment tab
One of the proposals on the strategy wiki has recommended an
adjustment to talk pages. I added that perhaps the tab should be
called
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
People with a view on this may like to contribute to:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Move_references_out_of_the_code
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:09 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
- WikiTrust might be described as a way to see how long an edit
endured
and how much trust it seems to have; in most users' hands it'll
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I found a Wikimania presentation earlier that showed colour coding of
text according to trustworthiness and also rated contributors on a
similar scale. I can't seem to find it again now though.
D'oh!
My usually gorgeous
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I will wager $100 that Wikipedia will be gone long before the sun turns
into a Red Giant.
I hope Wikipedia at least outlives me.
I do sometimes get into the mindset of thinking everything I do with
Wikipedia might be a waste of time
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The content of Wikipedia, like malaria, is here to stay. It's been
copied so many times by now, that nothing can eradicate it.
Wikipedia itself however probably won't live more than ten more years at
the most :)
In twenty years, we
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
What's so bad about encouraging howto information? I'm sure that a lot
of people would find such practical information very useful.
Perhaps so, but it's not in tune with the idea of an encyclopedia,
which is what we're
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
So standard physics is a morasse of unprovable assumptions,
unobservables, and blatantly incorrect theory. By now it comes as no
surprise that wikipedia suppresses all the flaws. It is in the
interest of their “moderators”
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general
accept as a fairly complete general encyclopedia.
I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
volume* encyclopedia up to featured or good
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Far worse than hatnotes, I'd say, are the ever-more-garish templates
we now use for matters such as tagging for NPOV, cleanup, and so on.
In my opinion we were better off when such templates produced a single
line of
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Now I'm off to dump all this on Vienne (disambiguation) and then
I'll go and moan at WikiProject Disambiguation about how one can't be
expected go through all the 500+ links pointing at Vienne
Do we not have a tool
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my
experience,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:59 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
The stable concept of deletionism isn't anything more than the
waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal
system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, inclusionism
sort of became a misnomer -
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Renata Strenataw...@gmail.com wrote:
It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing
that we ought to do something.
As others have said, I don't find this disturbing at all. It would be
good if a Wikipedian bought one of the books
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
we might short-block [experts] quickly, if they do not
respond to warnings, but we would explain that we respect their
expertise and we want them to advise us.
Nothing says we respect your expertise like a
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
There are people who are skilled at facilitating consensus, given the
opportunity. Dispute resolution process suggests bringing in a
neutral party to mediate, but we don't insist on that process.
Instead, we have
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.dailylit.com/tags/wikipedia-tours
Thank you for that link. I had thought to do something like that
myself. I have been saved the time now.
___
WikiEN-l mailing
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem being discussed in this thread would be solved by the
feature (much-desired by Commons) of turning categories into tags - so
that e.g. [[Category:Left-handed dead Jewish lesbian presidents of the
United States]]
This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television
news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free
online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in
the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online
newspapers will
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael westmichaw...@gmail.com wrote:
We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of
print. I don't see the problem.
I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's
valid but I'll throw it out there.
Where a book
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Humans tend to unconsciously focus on the negative. This is something
we do automatically. It probably makes sense in terms of evolutionary
history. It's better to avoid fire than get burned. It's better to
avoid water
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Note the tension between you can edit this page right now,
which is part of the credo, and you can verify this fact right now,
which isn't...
...unless it's a BLP, right?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Note the tension between you can edit this page right now,
which is part of the credo, and you can verify this fact right now,
which isn't...
...unless it's a BLP, right?
You say that why? There isn't
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
I don't think that Murdoch's proposal is viable in the long run. Who
will be wanting to pay for so much ephemeral material. What would it
say of readers who bind themselves to one site because that is all they
can
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Interesting examples. For both O.J. and Phil I would assume we can create
fairly complete biographies using appropriate souces.
I am doubtful that we could really make a biography for Gary Glitter
without a lot of unacceptable sources
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Reuters to Murdoch and AP: Go ahead and kill yourselves. Idiots.:
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-in-the-link-economy/
Yes, I'm inclined to believe the link economy works with a caveat
after
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for
people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find
further information and (sometimes) to check content.
Nicely done, sir.
Yes, as
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in
considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora
Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for
you, provided you have the
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when
to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the following rule:
I'm sorry, you've completely and utterly confused me... so let's look:
Part A or 1) *If* the
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I found this interesting:
http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/
Basically, en:wp cites the BBC and Guardian more than any other UK
news outlet. Because they're easy to link to.
Paywall for
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I would submit however, that every print publication over the past 100
years or perhaps even 200, lives in at least one worldcat repository
(library) somewhere in the world.
OK, thank you. I expect I'll be spending a lot of time on that
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an
article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs?
Yes.
05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted
James
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy
of this, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
Yes, the intro is. Definitely. Then I think the hoaxer played around
with the
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
