Rui (and list) there is a myth about articles that are sacrosanct -
which is not to say that there aren't such articles, though the examples
you gave don't stand up to much scrutiny. It would be useful to conduct
some research on the whole corpus to evaluate this hypothesis and give
some
Rui, His point is valid. You have a valid point but use an invalid argument
to support it.
Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Rui Correia correia@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:19 PM
Subject: Re:
Journalist = professional troll
Explains but does not justify.
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Rui Correia correia@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a
Hey, what about writing the White people self-centered writings
article? ;P
Le 2013-08-01 22:22, Rui Correia a écrit :
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
ancestry.
What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
ancestry.
What is that even supposed to mean? Who would be any other white
people
if not of Europen ancestry?
The Ainu people, not that it matters.
Fred
Rui,
if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
On 8/1/13 10:22 PM, Rui Correia wrote:
So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to
Denny
If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
(and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract
Denny
PS: Your email is a typical case of shooting the messenger. I have seen
far too often that we seem to prefer that we don;t see the elephant in the
room.
What happens to emails such as mine? Nothing. They get flushed down the
gutter of electronic waste. There are so many bodies within the
Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of
course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
ever_. It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
never been an encyclopedia yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
Asaf
So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
only after that showing that you somehow agree.
The elephant in the room is so big that we there isn't even enough room to
breathe properly to get enough oxygen to our brains.
Rui
On 1 August 2013 23:10, Asaf Bartov
On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
only after that showing that you somehow agree.
No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
definition, there has never been an
Laura
If this is a VERY VERY important topiic, as you put it, then why don't
YOU help, instead of joingng the knee-jerking squad? If you agree that it
is a very important topic and you are apparenly a better journalist that
me, why don't you do a better job rather than attacking the messenger?
David
I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic
bias [which]
Let me pose a set of questions -
1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached
creating some articles?
3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in
George
Thank you for your interest.
It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to
the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV.
I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an
analysis of articles with a high rate of
The specific examples you started with are not to my knowledge problem POVs -
unless one of the White Power groups showed up while I wasn't paying attention.
It would seem much more of the not gotten there yet or not (yet) well
covered in reliable sources for the specific ones.
Am I
I rarely jump in controversial topics here in Wikimedia-l, but I've decided
to share my 2 cents today.
I sign up for what Laura Hale said on facts data based support for such a
claim, but would like just to add a question:
* what does a real encyclopedia look like?
While I do see Rui Correia's
Rui,
as others are trying to tell you in this thread, I do not consider the
manner you are raising this topic to be helpful or constructive, and I
don't think that your continued defense of your approach will help or get
us anywhere.
Whereas anecdotal war stories as the one you describe can be
20 matches
Mail list logo
