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 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
] In development--BLP task force
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
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
Just a note on this- the usual reliable sources don't tend to
report about
Gary Glitter these days- it's just the low-end tabloids that are avid
to get
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 3:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
That's very evil. You just made me read his article to confirm that it
doesn't say this at all!
Oh gosh! Sorry, I should have pointed out that I was Trying To Prove A Point.
Although, I think that falls under [[WP:DICK]].
Not sure if
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other
rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of
evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about
a person, and that person
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take
part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief
email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has been
and your own
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Of course, and that's why we have other rules which moderate the other
rules. And the BLP policy itself is a rule. However if a piece of
evidence is both verifiable, and widely reported and yet negative about
a
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to a degree. But what if they later say, in an equally
verifiable source, that that was a joke? Or if a verifiable source
says it isn't true? But yes, I wouldn't object to seeing that in an
article provided policy is
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
And:
John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John
Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1]
{{bio-stub}}
Well, I guess you could invoke Wikipedia:UNDUE at that point :o)
Peter Coombe wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In that respect, I'd like to solicit members of the community to take
part in this project. If you are interested, please send me a brief
email summarizing what your involvement in BLPs in the past has
Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on
the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is
verifiable, even
Emily Monroe wrote:
We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was
bad.
I agree.
But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the
negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported
information available? If I had ran across that as a new
to our principles and policies.
Starting over won't change that.
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 4:52 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
We're
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
And:
John Smith is an engineer best known for his award winning [[John
Smith Bridge]]. In 1999 he admitted to being a prostitute.[1]
{{bio-stub}}
Well, I guess you could invoke
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2009 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough
on
the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is
verifiable
and that's how we
should write the article.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2009 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
What you're really saying is, Isn't
, 2009 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force
What you're really saying is, Isn't there a way to be nice even to
people who aren't nice?.
No, I didn't. You misunderstood me. Let me explain.
I'm more worried about uneven reporting. If, say, there's one hundred
blog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all!
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force, to work
together to come up with some firm recommendations and guidelines for
dealing with the issue, to be made to the
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be handy if you could tell us what the
board resolutions are.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by
ArbCom, under the
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
community as a whole. I accepted membership in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has
pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any
committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or
on 8/5/09 4:33 PM, David Goodman at dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
community as a whole.
Yes, that is quite clear.
I accepted membership in a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Aha! Thank you.
Hmm, well I can see a way I could help out with the Task Force, but it
would depend on some
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM,
Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Aha! Thank you.
Hmm, well I can see a way I could help out with the Task Force, but
it
2009/8/5 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group
unless people don't like what they come up with.
I'm not being silly here, but couldn't that good-faith statement you
just made apply to *any* group?
Evidently not. I meant
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were
highlighted
on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in
preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because any edit to any
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Phil
Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were
highlighted
on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in
preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because
2009/8/6 Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk:
It can't catch all BLP problems as you've so wonderfully illustrated.
But it can show us a worthwhile subset, don't you reckon?
That would be one way forward; we now have abuse filters which detect and
revert the more gross edits, but as far as
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on
the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is
verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that
information should be allowed to be included, and should not be
forcibly stopped from
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
There was a proposal what seems like a long time ago for Flagged
Revisions, which was somewhat controversial but was intended to be
introduced as a test
They're coming! They're coming!
There's a Jimbo speech linked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living_people
This won't catch edits which remove the category, and it won't catch
the 5-10% of BLPs which aren't in the category to start with, but it's
otherwise mostly what you want, I think.
Well done Andrew, that looks
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on
the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is
verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that
information should be allowed to be included,
36 matches
Mail list logo
