On 11/08/2011 23:03, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There was an article in the New York Times a few days ago, on a related theme:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=2
One of its arguments was that there are whole cultures that lack
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, geni wrote:
But things the white nerds who wrote Wikipedia care about, like comic
books or MUDs or text games or anime which are underserved by RSs?
Well, if they don't have RSs, they can go screw themselves. (If you
care so much about fancruft, go work on a Wikia! We're
On 12 August 2011 15:58, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Except in the rare cases where the owners give permission (or where you own
a copy of the magazine and don't need the scan anyway), this solution
doesn't work since illegal copies aren't considered reliable sources. We
can't
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that
you have no reason to believe the copy accurately represents the source.
On 12 August 2011 17:09, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that
you have no reason to believe the copy
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that
you have no reason to believe the copy accurately represents the source.
I think
On 12 August 2011 17:19, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that
you have no reason to
On 12 August 2011 17:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 17:09, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print
On 12 August 2011 18:09, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I haven't seen Ken's particular case, but I've seen similar ones.
Citing a print source is fine, but some (particularly querulous)
people will occasionally challenge the print source because they don't
believe what it says.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
That's a rather different claim than that it is standard and accepted
practice, which is what Ken was clearly implying.
I ran into it a number of times but didn't have a particular situation
in mind. I was sure that sooner or later someone would find
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray
Sent: 12 August 2011 18:09
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:RSs
Citing a print source is fine, but some (particularly querulous
, which means a very
finite number of articles, and there will be no more.”
---o0o---
Andreas
--- On Wed, 10/8/11, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
From: Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:RSs
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wednesday, 10 August
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
There was an article in the New York Times a few days ago, on a related theme:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=2
One of its arguments was that there are
On 12 August 2011 00:08, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
But things the white nerds who wrote Wikipedia care about, like comic
books or MUDs or text games or anime which are underserved by RSs?
Well, if they don't have RSs, they can go screw themselves. (If you
care so much about
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Carcharoth wrote:
My rule of thumb for self-published sources is to see if they cite
their sources. If they do, then you can check what they say. If they
don't, then you can't, and that can be a problem even with so-called
'reliable' sources.
This fails to be a useful
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Brain Diving: The Ghost with the Most by Brain Ruh, _ANN_
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/brain-diving/2011-08-09
...However, this puts books like Drazen's in an odd predicament. It's not
really an academic book, since it
16 matches
Mail list logo
