https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljbloddpl?hl=en
- causa sui
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 (Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:42, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic,
it took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:23, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:36, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to stop there, with a general observation - I think they're
right on one big picture thing: Wikipedia has an editorial bias - our
default neutrality is that of a moderately internationalist,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:54 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-evaporative-cooling-effect/
Warrens versus plazas. The former scales (writing articles), the
latter doesn't (the project space areas of Wikipedia, participating
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Now here's the interesting point:
High value participants are treated as special because they have
recognition reputation from the community
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both
unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no
I wouldn't over-interpret my parting shot. I was on the way out the door
anyway.
- causa sui
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
John Doe has been desysopped, or possibly resigned as an administrator.
He has not been outcast from the human race. He has
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 August 2010 01:25, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Destructionism: The tendency for Wikipedia articles which have reached
an advanced degree of completeness and encyclopedic value to be edited
in increasingly
What do you propose?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:00 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a major issue, and needs recognition as such and a cultural problem,
not just on ANI but anywhere it happens.
FT2.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com
wrote
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
But I think the key norms are universally accepted.
Take No personal attacks and civility as two examples. Differences may
exist whether a particular matter is or isnt an attack or uncivil, whether
to act or ignore it, and a
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:22 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a few problems with the above thread too, but perhaps different
ones.
Admins will naturally have a strong say in decisions being active
experienced users who have achieved wide respect and are often involved in
abuse and
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:32 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[
User:FT2/RfA
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred
I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't
made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking
a stand earlier.
The edge of the knife that we must balance on is
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that
necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators,
you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help
them
cope with nightmares.
Fred
What do you propose?
Personally, what I'm going to do is participate more on noticeboards.
Adapting
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:48 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I have had to walk away from recent changes repeatedly.
Picking up on the walking away bit.
There are, of course, those
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking
Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute
For reference:
Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
interpretation of the anyone can edit part of your slogan.
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233seqNum=4
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a
_growth_ in bureaucracy? It would normally mean the opposite, either
a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the
function upon
Pretty much. That's more or less why I quit the project.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active
project.
It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this
undergo.
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Peter Tesler vpt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone -
This is a project presented at Wikipedia Day 2010 at NYU in New York
last January..http://ideagra.ph
We presented this as a way to discuss a few of the most
complicated/controversial Wikimedia-related issues
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what
they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia.
http://www.cpedia.com/
It's like Wikipedia read by Mark V. Shaney.
- d.
Lmao.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember Cuil, the worst search engine of last decade? This is what
they've done with the left over hardware: an automated encyclopedia.
http
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I would be uncomfortable with about blanking articles, if it couldnt
do better in telling whether or not something is referenced than the
last week or so of deletion nomination has done.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2010 23:00, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion.
Last time the subject came up, I believe the advocates were asked for
any examples, anywhere, of wikis that use
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
You older Wikipedians run along now; you've had your day. The adults
are talking now - I are serious editors, this are serious website.
Funny how BLPs have been the most serious threat facing the project,
so serious that
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/01/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone.
I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email.
Tone is one thing, but I'm more
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that either before or now -- indeed, any possible rule, an
admin is more likely to succeed with an unchecked deletion if the
articles actually turn out to be unsourceable, than if they turn out
to be notable
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
And what benefit was there *really*? I see a lot of mindless fetishism
of sourcing here, but suppose Cunctator resurrected an article and
stuck in a random newspaper article for the claim 'Foo was married in
1967.'
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed with David G. on this point. The general sentiment to keep up
with BLPs is ok, I think; but most of the time sources can be found
for most bios. (And yes, I do make an occasional hobby of sourcing
random BLPs --
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember also that The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the
article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It seems that, under the guise of this project, some people are
intentionally writing very low quality articles and then rules-lawyering
over the specific speedy deletion
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article
that
should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some
loophole,
sounds like
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
so far from being disruptive, the project is an attempt to
demonstrate the ongoing disruption being routinely carried out by
people deleting improvable articles. sometimes a few test cases are
the clearest way to
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
You might be misunderstanding what the objection is here. Nobody needs to
be
reminded that use of sysop tools is subject to peer review.
True (though I don't think David
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:26 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com
wrote:
People are doing some interesting work with auto-optimized ad runs that
we could look at adapting for next year. Given our massive amounts of
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Oleg Alexandrov
oleg.alexand...@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current WIKIPEDIA FOREVER banner to be creepy. I don't
have good words to express it, but it does not feel the right way of
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
Yes, but some of those really bad articles will become good articles
if you spend enough time on them.
Deletion short-circuits that.
In a perfect world, with perfect AFDs it
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I wasn't saying we shouldn't discuss deletion process: I think in fact
we should probably look at why PROD is underused. I think that having
the deleted articles off the site (unless you're an admin) does
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
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
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
wrote:
Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting
any
article save to protect
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
I'm having trouble following your meaning, I think because I'm not
familiar with how you are using rationalisation. Can you explain a
bit more please?
Wiktionary meaning (3
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Now that's a lovely perennial idea. There's no point in hard deleting any
article save to protect private information in the history. You can pure
wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com
wrote:
to the end. Rather than saying I am invoking IAR and I did this because
X,
just say I did this because X.
Disagree. The response to I did
Great! Daniel Brandt will love it :D
- causa sui
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
G'day folks,
Google has announced that it has developed a custom search skin for
Wikipedia.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/contextual-search-within-wikipedia.html
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:46 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Come join the talk at deletion review if you think its so easy to
restore articles. People cant even se ethem to work on without asking
an administrator. (though there are some, including myself, who will
always
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
[...] Since IAR is not itself
a justification for anything, there is never any useful information added
by
saying I am invoking IAR. The only defense is I did this because X
where
X
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the
reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I
think that's a bad thing, you think it's
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Indeed. There is a bot that can help index talk page archives. I'll
give details below.
Well, while I see the value in raising indexing as a process, I still
have to point out
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes
of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to
come back and screw with me some more later?
-Stevertigo
It's hard for me to
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
If there's confusion about IAR, I think it helps a lot to think of it
as Ignore All Procedures. IAR doesn't get you off the hook for a
non-NPOV article; it does mean that you can ignore whatever crazy
procedures there
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be invoked, as its not a rule; IAR
should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props
for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
- causa sui
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be invoked, as its not a rule;
IAR
should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give
props
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Isn't it time
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is
that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic
allegiance
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is
that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than
I hope that we at least get Waves instead of talk pages. Being able to play
back the discussion would be invaluable.
Ryan
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Sage Ross
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Steve Bennett
There is currently an RFC in progress regarding proposed reforms to the
[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] policy. The discussion is about
reforming the prescriptive language of the policy to bring it into line with
fundamental Wikipedia principles and policies such as
63 matches
Mail list logo
