Old-style drama around a high-profile admin. A decade ago we used to assume
those things went together.
> On 11 June 2019 at 02:54 George Herbert wrote:
> A high profile investigation target is most unusual but
> not unheard of.
Right.
Charles
___
>
> On 13 September 2016 at 17:34 benoit_lan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> For those who may be wondering, the username was User:Eclecticology
>
>
> ~Benoit / Salvidrim
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile on Nexus 6P
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:29 PM
On 13 August 2015 at 15:08, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu
wrote:
Leave the list open! There are lots of important people subscribed, and you
never know when an interesting conversation will pop up.
Sounds as if we need a moderator willing to take over from David G.
Charles
On 22 December 2013 00:24, Ali Norris georgiagirl9...@gmail.com wrote:
I have given you a small amount of money to your site. This will never
happen again if you do not change your article on Keith
Ablow. I am his patient and I am deeply offended on the new added
professional ethics part of
On 5 November 2013 07:42, Tony Souter to...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Nathan, it's a pity you've decided to smear me on a public list without
even informing me. I was alerted to this by an existing subscriber and have
since subscribed myself so that I can respond.
Tony, welcome to this list.
On 5 November 2013 10:55, Tony Souter to...@iinet.net.au wrote:
snip
If the Signpost is sometimes provocative, that's part of the deal and
why we have talk pages. I believe the movement is better off having
coverage that is independent of the WMF and of any particular community (we
have
On 24 September 2013 10:06, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
There are risks to preferring published sources while condemning
original research.
And vice versa.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 23 September 2013 16:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/09/writing-biography-in-the-age-of-wikipedia-removing-a-shadow-from-the-life-of-justice-tom-clark/
A. B said A. C wrote that B said A. These are all different, and we should
bear that in mind.
My
On 26 April 2013 05:19, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Obviously we need to quit arguing and change it. Either a man or a woman
mystery writer would be in both a gender category and a genre category,
if we are to have gender categories.
The German Wikipedia does these things
On 26 April 2013 15:24, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
If only there were some kind of editable data store project being worked
on that could store this kind of metadata in a centralised location… grin
Quite a good if cryptic comment about Wikidata. I suppose it is encouraging
to think
On 16 April 2013 02:07, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Incivility is difficult to deal with.
That may be the case; but it's not for the reasons usually given.
One of the reasons is because there is a school of thought that a
certain level of frankness and brusqueness is
On 16 April 2013 14:20, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote
I agree with you, Charles. These fallacies are quite transparent. And it is
too bad that much good effort and input to the Wikipedia initiative can be
lost due to those who feel it is their to be forthright (wiggle word)
On 16 April 2013 20:37, Matthew Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I've consistently seen with incivility as a tactic is that, the
longer someone is around, the more of it they can get away with.
Indeed. See four example this
On 15 April 2013 16:14, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think what you're seeing is anything particularly peculiar to
en.wp - I've encountered rude or socially awkward people from all
projects.
But see discussion on
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1]]. Some of my
On 15 April 2013 16:43, Hex . h...@downlode.org wrote:
On 14 April 2013 14:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty much everything that's fucked up about Wikipedia is emergent
behaviour of people being a problem
I think you mean failure of management.
Well, it is an unsolved
On 15 April 2013 18:39, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
You're an idiot, and you're damaging the project. It's not about
copyright, or understanding it. What I'll do is to keep swearing at
you, and I'll be uploading tons of files onto en.WP, not Commons. That
will just disadvantage other
On 13 April 2013 22:12, Gwern Branwen gw...@gwern.net wrote:
My basic observation here is that inclusionism/deletionism debates
seem intractable [...]
Indeed. As is characteristic of false dichotomies.
I was once asked by a prominent journalist where I stood on this. I
replied that it was a
On 14 April 2013 11:59, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2013 11:44, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Indeed. As is characteristic of false dichotomies.
I was once asked by a prominent journalist where I stood on this. I
replied that it was a boring
On 14 April 2013 13:28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 April 2013 12:24, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Mmm, I remember that mail and whom I suggested ...
I didn't see you in that thread ... who were you thinking of?
It was a private reply
[Resending - I believe the first time I was using an old addess for the list.]
A blog post by Benjamin Mako Hill
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy-and-wikipedia
alerted me to some COI editing that has been going on, rather
blatantly. The deletion debate
A blog post by Benjamin Mako Hill
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy-and-wikipedia
alerted me to some COI editing that has been going on, rather
blatantly. The deletion debate associated with the [[Institute for
Cultural Diplomacy]] speaks for itself, and I see
On 13 March 2013 18:15, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The problem he apparently trying to solve is that sites like Wikipedia
and YouTube are kind of noisy. As problem statements go, it lacks a
certain specificity...
I know what he means though. The snarling nonsense we sometimes
On 6 February 2013 09:07, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Pownce is an interesting example of why we need to keep these kinds of
articles around: every time a new social network comes along, people
jump on to it like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Showing them the
many failures
On 6 February 2013 13:06, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 2/6/13, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
Yeah. But that is a bit of a canard in some cases. It is a question of
whether
On 6 February 2013 14:04, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
which rates do people
On 6 February 2013 15:14, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out information which is no
longer of interest to readers or editors. Perhaps this could be one
criteria justifying deletion, or perhaps some other form of archiving. We
could
Oops -
the thesis that salience or its perception changes over time begins
to look tenable
is the point I was hoping to make.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they
assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like
whether we have flagged revisions or not. All of that is fully delegated to
the
On 17 November 2012 16:10, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their
deliberate attempts to do
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a
website. We regularly defame people.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/report-usmanov-pr-firm-tweaked-wikipedia-entry/471315.html
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame people all over the place.
They massage biographies etc. to cast things in a
On 12 November 2012 15:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that biographies can be malicious without being defamatory.
It would be wise to check what exactly went on in the biography before
passing judgment.
Actually, I agree. Treating each instance of a general
So Sue sees the need for some sort of clearer mission statement, I
suppose. A natural reaction on coming up to five years as Executive
Director, would be one way to look at it.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Catchphrase from
http://infteam.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2012/09/10/eduwiki/
which in itself is an interesting roundup from the EduWiki conference last
week. Does pedants welcome imply experts unwelcome? Please have your
essays in by the end of the weekend.
Charles
On 12 September 2012 16:50, Matthew Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:34:26 +0100
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
On 11 September 2012 17:29, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It seems I have
On 12 September 2012 18:32, Jim Redmond j...@scrubnugget.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
VIPs expect to deal with another VIP, with authority to get things fixed,
with a word, even if the rules have to be bent a bit. That is the way of
On 11 September 2012 10:11, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote:
The link is to the NPR article and the comment below is worth reviewing.
How can this perception typical among the NPR commentators be over-turned?
Boe D (Dajoe) wrote:
People: If you are knowledgable enough to find a
On 11 September 2012 16:14, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its ohmigod
you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, yes,
you do require verifiable
On 10 September 2012 17:04, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't
credible. If he was told that he wasn't a reliable source in WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish
On 10 September 2012 17:26, Matthew Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
Only on WP. This kind of crap is why I've essentially given up on the site.
The man wants an article on HIS OWN WORK to be accurate, and was frustrated
by the apparently quite unhelpful people he met there. That's just
On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
No it doesn't.
I'll give you good odds on me being right.
Because I see the same thing week after week.
You mean leading author almost synonymous with rare interview assumes his
word is good enough for WP?
On 17 August 2012 12:36, Steven Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000
pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since
2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a
On 18 July 2012 10:47, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Hi all,
The English Wikipedia categorises biographies by gender in some
circumstances (eg athletes), but not systematically in the way that
German does - there are no supercategories of Men, Women, etc,
designed to list all
On 18 July 2012 12:32, james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Actress is certainly not obsolescent in common usage, and I would suggest
it is not the role of Wikipedia to redefine the English language.
The point here is whether occupation is gendered, though, in this
case. Cf. firefighter, seafarer
On 21 June 2012 11:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(God I look my age. The ponytail is going!)
Mmm ... with Gemma Griffiths ... yes she beats you on hairdo.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On 21 June 2012 12:35, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
Not bad David!
I tend to take a bit more of a liberal guideline on fixing obvious
blatant vandalism: Google CEO Larry Page is a great big poopyhead
should be reverted no matter what, even if you have a conflict of
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
They're also interested in
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of
course that's descriptive and not normative.
I think a line you could
On 1 June 2012 11:19, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And deletionists have no policy knowledge?
Deletionists are not the monolithic body of people that you seem to
think they are. Those with these tendencies (though I'm reluctant to
lump people under a label) vary widely in
On 30 May 2012 20:41, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that if such experiments are to be carried
out, it would be better if they were designed and conducted by those
able to restrain themselves from such snark.
Better how?
I'll add this to my list of If you have to ask, you
On 22 May 2012 17:48, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 5/22/12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian McNeil's productive work in Edinburgh. I particularly like the
idea of recruiting newbies at libraries - with all those lovely old
printed references right there to hand.
On 16 May 2012 19:41, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
And why haven't they taken those who generalise broadly from a single
example with them?
Are you denying the general decline in editors, even
On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you are.
That's [[ad hominem]] against Carcharoth, and you really need either
to withdraw it, or back it up. The former option is much preferable.
Charles
On 17 May 2012 20:37, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012 17:32, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
That conclusion would be far more convincing if you weren't who you
On 16 May 2012 16:49, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. Why *are* the skeptical geeks now on Reddit and not Wikipedia?
And why haven't they taken those who generalise broadly from a single
example with them?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing
On 25 April 2012 13:30, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I suspect our medical articles are pretty much
written by the medical community.
The clinical medicine WikiProject is all doctors, I believe, in
practical terms. In a talk I heard given by one of them, it was
pretty clear that
On 19 April 2012 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Rules can cause trouble, but they have one benefit: at least ideally, it's
clear when you have or haven't violated them. (Many Wikipedia rules are
not
ideal, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a lot harder to
On 19 April 2012 14:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote
On 19 April 2012 15:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Those people, who do not have WP's
best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the
letter and spirit of policy, because
On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:
Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
my view, and is the type of
On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce
trust in Wikipedia.
snip
Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
When the talk pages were used to request edits, it was found to typically
take
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting
changes
as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm;
they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with
some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a
On 18 April 2012 15:26, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012)
page
that specifically
asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor
errors
in spelling,
grammar, usage or facts, provide
On 16 April 2012 14:12, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
articles or not,
On 10 April 2012 14:33, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
The process is not cast in stone, and suggestions on how to iron out
some potential rough edges are more than welcome.
It's a useful survey, clearly. The big diff pasting in the new version
does offer (edit
On 4 April 2012 15:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
We *should* have a category of BLP stubs, but I can't find it. Maybe
someone can cross-reference the BLP category and the people stub
category (and its sub-categories) and find out how many are BLPs.
In principle that
On 4 April 2012 16:24, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
snip
I would suggest as a modest proposal that we do away with Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia. I've already suggested that we do away with the IAR
clause to improve the encyclopedia.
Oh, I don't know, it still has explanatory
On 4 April 2012 20:16, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Putting these together, I would make a wild stab at saying that it is
unlikely more than half our BLPs - about a quarter of a million
entries - are stubs. I'm not sure I'd go as low as 100,000, but it's
interesting how
On 27 March 2012 15:52, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Reading what you have written above, and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Biographies_of_**
living_persons/Noticeboard#**Chrishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
On 27 March 2012 18:05, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The key point to remember about BLPs is: no eventualism. If an article
about someone dead 200 years says something nasty and wrong, that's
not great, but it's not urgent. If an article
On 26 March 2012 16:17, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
In almost all cases, a stub with the basic information is better than
a loose aggregation of factoids. The problem is that well-meaning
people (and sometime less well-meaning people) come
On 23 March 2012 15:06, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
- We need fewer biographies.
- We need to give borderline-notable people (people like Hawkins; not MPs)
an easy opt-out.
- We could probably benefit from making real-life name registration
mandatory for BLP editing, and
On 24 March 2012 11:37, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 March 2012 11:25, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
The point about Wikipedia (for BLPs) being ahead of the proper sources
to use is another excellent one. There is a natural progression to
biographical sources
On 24 March 2012 16:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
information to people. It is clear from the page views they get that
BLPs are useful
There are reasons to disambiguate article titles, and reasons to
disambiguate categories. But should the category system simply mimic what
the articles do? I was surprised to find at a current CfD discussion (on
Category:Matrices) that there are supporters of this idea, which I don't
see mentioned
On 11 March 2012 03:37, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip
The reason we're starting off by seeing
if we can improve quality and inform newbies with Special:NewPages rather
than Special:RecentChanges is, firstly, because it's a lot easier to trial
there (less stuff going on), and
On 11 March 2012 08:56, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A low barrier to contribution is not a problem. What we are trying to fix
is the overwork of patrollers and the fact that new editors go into the
article creation process unaware of what to expect and ignorant of policy,
which
I suppose we're in favour of it. I note that [[digital inclusion]] is a
redlink, for the reason that it was a redirect to [[e-inclusion]]; which
went down under a PROD in October of last year, as [[WP:OR|Original
research]] about a [[WP:NEO|non-notable neologism]]. Something of a
disaster, given
On 10 March 2012 11:16, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
snip
Currently, when a registered newbie clicks on a redlink, they get
automatically taken to an edit page where they can create the article, but
without any context as to what is actually happening. With the proposed
system,
On 10 March 2012 12:55, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If a new editor
tries to create the article, they'll be informed that they need a
familiarity with policy, an absence of a COI and several references
(amongst other things) before the tool recommends they create it.[4]
On 19 February 2012 13:31, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/
Subject of a thread on foundation-l
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-February/subject.html
But a suitable topic for this list. I
On 8 February 2012 12:26, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I recently came across a very ancient merge proposal (from November 2009).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heliotrop_Rotating_Houseoldid=467204628
On 20 January 2012 13:18, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Yes, but.
Ultimately, a paper encyclopedia says This article is written by a
qualified person (you can see his name) he has been chosen by an expert
panel (here are their names) and his work will be reviewed by them. All
On 19 January 2012 09:55, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
[crossposted to Foundation-l and WikiEN-l]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup
Can someone please change zip code to ZIP code again? (This error
was corrected in the blackout notice yesterday.) I haven't
On 8 January 2012 15:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thought some here might be interested in this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16443825
It's about the history of managing knowledge and information.
It's [[Lisa Jardine]], so the history will be OK ... the main
On 22 December 2011 18:10, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
And for the general problem is something I've often noted: Wikipedia is set
up to force people to follow the rules.
Interesting debating point, but I think the comment is ahistorical. It is
more accurate, IMO, to note that
On 11 December 2011 14:13, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Our own internal discussions have long reflected on the unfriendliness and
undue bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Generally we're good at the trade-off but
if we start claiming with a straight face that it's benign rather than a
On 9 December 2011 14:13, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 5 December 2011 22:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
I can quite see why people do think Wikipedia Byzantine, which is the
basic message of what we are talking about. Probably trainee medics
On 6 December 2011 16:08, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
This sounds like a splendid idea. Perhaps we could supplement it by
informing criminals that they can avoid a life of crime by getting an
education
On 5 December 2011 09:52, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 12/04/11 1:10 PM, Will Beback wrote:
snip
I've noticed that a lot of critics of Wikipedia began by trying to
promote
some non-notable cause only to be rebuffed.
Do we get anywhere when we approach a problem with
On 4 December 2011 03:56, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853
Now whatever the merits of his case, this chap does have a point about
the unfriendliness of the environment.
Well covered in The Signpost, in fact. But I came away
On 3 November 2011 17:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The thing is that with a better classified backlog you'd get some easier
progress. If you Google the topic of these older articles
On 3 November 2011 11:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:07 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_is_a_mess_wikipedians_say_1_in_20_articl.php
Now, we have a lot of work to do, it's obviously
On 30 October 2011 11:30, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely
don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has
done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to
On 11 October 2011 16:41, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
[[Jacobus Verheiden]] turned out to be much more rewarding than it promised
to, when I just had a name. Spinoff from [[List of participants in the Synod
of Dort]], which is a
On 12 October 2011 18:11, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 October 2011 06:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be
used far more than they are.
Nah.
As in yes, but there's an entire
On 16/09/2011 03:26, Tony Sidaway wrote:
It appears that a study by a team at the Medical School at Thomas Jefferson
University has found Wikipedia's cancer information to be very accurate and
updated more frequently than other sources. Compared to professional sources
such as PDQ, however,
On 13/09/2011 16:25, Carcharoth wrote:
I have bought expensive academic books in the past, but never actual
published PhD theses. I would expect someone to rewrite, extend and
expand on their PhD thesis to make it suitable for a wider readership
before publishing it and expecting people to
1 - 100 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
