But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs?
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about
pending changes.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs?
I've had a look at some stats. See
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
According
Risker,
This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about
pending changes.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the use of
Pending Changes until significant changes to the
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for picking the topic up again, David.
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
unless an exception can be made according
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio
of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a
On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
The pending changes stuff should probably be restarted in a new thread
(or the subject line changed, whichever is best). I've never been
clear, though, how 'recent changes' works, let alone pending changes.
Take a recent edit I reverted:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
The particular case here where the local radio personality objected so
much, we're reading too much in to. They had an idiosyncratic
reaction and did a bunch of actions that made the situation worse and
called more attention to themselves. Their press
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Under existing BLP and notability policy, we have criteria for article
existence/non-existence. If the subject makes or can be helped to
articulate a case under that policy that they shouldn't have an
article,
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, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the
subject has the
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 Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in
particular, Do No
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
unless an exception can
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
It
On 4/17/12, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting
with sensitive BLP subjects.
That is not always the case.
What would *you* do if you cleaned up and expanded an article on a BLP
you had never heard of before
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/17/12, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting
with sensitive BLP subjects.
That is not always the case.
What would *you* do
On 4/17/12, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you not find yourself in a similar situation if employed by
a published scholarly encyclopedia and were told This guy is just
notable enough, write a brief bio of him for the next version?
The difference is, there is
If we let people delete articles on themselves, they will delete
those articles not closely conforming to their own idea of
themselves, and this gives them a veto power over content. No BLP will
then be other than promotional. In my experience the problem with
most little-watched articles, bio
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my
I noticed a thread on Jimbo's talk page that is partly related to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_radical_idea.3B_BLP_opt-out_for_all
Tarc suggested:
Any living person, subject to identity verification via OTRS, may
request the deletion of their article. No
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent developments,
however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:27,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent developments,
however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
I would suggest as a modest
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 Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
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
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia constantly gets misinterpreted to mean we
may never allow other concerns to take precedence over being
encyclopediac. This is wrong.
Mmm. There is a certain rather blinkered singlemindedness that can set in
with some
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
I would suggest as a modest
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I would prefer we limit content to encyclopedic content. Obviously
aggregating news, especially about individuals, is incompatible with that
purpose.
Large amounts of Wikipedia articles on recent topics are nothing more
On 4 April 2012 17:55, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Large amounts of Wikipedia articles on recent topics are nothing more
than aggregating from news sources.
A lot of this will be the canonicalisation of any rubbish in a
newspaper as a Reliable Source. If you don't want your
On 4 April 2012 17:55, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I wonder, how much of the early editing (first 2-3 years), was on news
topics?
Probably relatively little because there weren't many editors and those
that were were concentrating on copying other encyclopedias.
How much
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:34, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I didn't pull this out of thin air, after all--I was replying to someone
who, with complete seriousness, said that we shouldn't delete a BLP because
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
I did
On 4 April 2012 17:28, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
In principle that shouldn't be too hard to do, with Catscan 2.0 to
intersect categories for you. In practice the toolserver can't be taken for
granted. And it seems that the naive way of doing this produces a list that
is
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 at 20:16, Andrew Gray wrote:
Catscan has always been quite slow - it's fair enough, I suppose, when
you consider it's having to match item-by-item in two very large and
dynamically generated lists! I wonder if it's possible to tell it to
just return a figure for
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 Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
One of those would be me :)
A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians
individuals from CREWE where we could
One of those would be me :)
A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians
individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an
email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night).
If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that
On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
One of those would be me :)
A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians
individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an
email to Daria about getting assistance for
I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :)
We also (reading that blog post) disagree on a few other aspects as well.
Which is why I am eager to see input from a broad swathe of Wikipedians on
these issues.
Tom
On 29 March 2012 10:17, David Gerard
On 29 March 2012 10:20, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :)
It's not a threat from us, it's saying you don't want what happened
to Bell Pottinger to happen to you.
I'm surprised to see (repeatedly) that
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the
Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising.
I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
media person), Richard
On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic.
The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out if
you're caught with *what
On 29 March 2012 15:38, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I noticed that in the Bell Pottinger meltdown Lord Bell switched from
saying that the PR operatives had not actually broken the law (i.e.
minimalist on professional ethics), to a line that WP was really just too
On 29 March 2012 15:38, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
It would certainly be useful to have an agreed approach from our side.
What even might work? Our natural sort of starting point would be FAQ-like,
but that probably doesn't fit the bill. Neither would a simple set
45 matches
Mail list logo
