Thanks for your answer, slimvirgin.
On what other websites has this been discussed? More crucially, has anything come of it
(at least so far) by way of an attack?
One thought of mine as to why their 'putsch' has not (apparently) occurred is
that the conversation was an old one, and that this charge by WhiteBamboo and
co has not (apparently) taken place is that they changed their minds for
whatever reason. Perhaps it was a bluff, as suggested by others.
But if it was as recent as Feb 2, well, I can certainly understand the
concern of wikipedians on Feb 6, which is when this topic was first raised.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Thanks for the support, Jimbo.
Blankfaze, do NOT confuse censorship with responsible use of
freedom of expression. For some persons , at least , this seems
far too easy to do.
It sounds like you have no problem with being faced with an image like
this one. Others, however, are not in that way.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Every attempt gives me the IE page which says, "The page cannot be displayed".
Coming in via www.wikipedia.org lets me come up with the international page, but clicking on English doesn't help, and the Wikipedia logo doesn't display.
Any explanation as to what is going on?
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I have just moved one 'rumour' of a proof off [[Riemann hypothesis]].
I'm not sure quite what the treatment should be - say by analogy with [[cold
fusion]]. This is not really a NPOV difficulty, but about encyclopedic
nature. I suppose I have tended to duck this sort of issue in the past.
Well, if we have Wikinews, scientific rumours can be news. After some
length of time, a rumour of some breakthrough that gets no further support
becomes stale and ... well, and what?
Options are
-just to drop rumours after a few months
-not to feature them in the first place
-create separate 'rumours' pages where there seems to be a need.
I feel the first, if vague, is probably best.. If there was a sound basis in
the first place for mentioning it, a rumour can be moved to a talk page when
it becomes more apparent that it was optimistically slanted.
Not reporting any unconfirmed stuff looks too rigid to me. If the criterion
were publication in a refereed journal, that could take forever, in
wikitime.
The trouble with separate pages is that attention-seekers will pick up on
them, and self-promoting rumours are the bane of academic life.
Charles
Charles
In case you aren't aware of it, a vote is taking place at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow regarding the use of
"rel=nofollow" in the XHTML generated for external links on the
English Wikipedia. This attribute causes Google to ignore the link
when it crawls a website. Kate stated in #mediawiki that the
developers would respect the results (either for or against attribute
use) of a project poll, so vote on the matter if you are so inclined.
Remember that the results of this poll will only affect the English
Wikipedia.
--Slowking Man
This page was sent to you by: rose.parks(a)att.net.
Apologies... This is the first article from Thursday's Times. As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
TECHNOLOGY / CIRCUITS | February 10, 2005
The Unassociated Press
By AARON WEISS
Wikinews, an experiment in collaborative news gathering, is gaining in popularity. But the central question about the Wikinews effort is its credibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/technology/circuits/10wiki.html?ex=110878…
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0"
BGCOLOR="#F8F5EC">
<tr><TD><font size="2">
/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight Pictures ------------\<br><br>
ONLY ONE COMEDY HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE
<br><br>
SIDEWAYS has been nominated for 5 OSCARS including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Critics across America agree... SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. SIDEWAYS stars Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer at:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.co…">
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html</a>
</font></td>
</tr></table>
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
0
----------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com.
NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
This page was sent to you by: rose.parks(a)att.net.
Hi, And, then, today, the Times published this: As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
TECHNOLOGY | February 11, 2005
Google may host encyclopedia project
Matt Hines, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The group behind the Wikipedia online effort says the search giant offered to host some of its content on company servers.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1038_3-5572744.html?ex=1108789200&en=…
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0"
BGCOLOR="#F8F5EC">
<tr><TD><font size="2">
/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight Pictures ------------\<br><br>
ONLY ONE COMEDY HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE
<br><br>
SIDEWAYS has been nominated for 5 OSCARS including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Critics across America agree... SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. SIDEWAYS stars Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer at:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.co…">
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html</a>
</font></td>
</tr></table>
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
0
----------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com.
NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
This page was sent to you by: rose.parks(a)att.net.
Hi, Is it possible that no one saw this yesterday in the Times? As Ever, Ruth Ifcher
TECHNOLOGY | February 11, 2005
Google may host encyclopedia project
Matt Hines, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The group behind the Wikipedia online effort says the search giant offered to host some of its content on company servers.
http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1038_3-5572744.html?ex=1108789200&en=…
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
<TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0"
BGCOLOR="#F8F5EC">
<tr><TD><font size="2">
/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight Pictures ------------\<br><br>
ONLY ONE COMEDY HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE
<br><br>
SIDEWAYS has been nominated for 5 OSCARS including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Critics across America agree... SIDEWAYS is the BEST PICTURE of the year. SIDEWAYS stars Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Now playing in theaters everywhere. Watch the trailer at:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.co…">
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html</a>
</font></td>
</tr></table>
----------------- Advertisement --------------------------
0
----------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com.
NYTimes.com 500 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Don't sweat it so much. Sure wikipedia has the "goal" of being an encyclopedia, but achieving that goal would be a disappointment, it would become just another encyclopedia, something the world doesn't need. The real goal of wikipedia should be to become what wiki techniques and philosophy can achieve when it "tries" to become an encyclopedia. But it shouldn't try so hard that it abandons the wiki approach that makes it unique.
If wikipedia does not achieve true encyclopedia status and standards will it have a purpose? I think it will at least have a niche and will provide information, not just about the subject of the articles, but about the people and the international cultural mileau that created it. Many articles may never reach a static state, but perhaps there is also information in a dynamic equilibrium, a perpetual edit war between two or more viewpoints. A lot of the unique information may also be in the histories or on the talk page. There will be information about the strengths and weaknesses of the different viewpoints when viewed through each others filters and the filter of the artificial unachievable wikipedia standards.
I know if I were back in school, I would check wikipedia to supplement more traditional sources, and find it a more fertile source of ideas for papers and discussion, and perhaps crystalizing my own thinking. A lot of the information on wikipedia may not be about the subjects of the articles but about the people and peoples that created them.
Yes, wikipedia may have to deal with vandals or the occasional rigid mind that refuses to acknowledge other positions, or the occasional dunce that can't recognize subteties, even when they are on his "side", but perhaps the best approach rather than compromising wiki principles would be patient, persistent dedication to the process rather than sweating the product or the failure to reach the ever distant "goal".
Perhaps, like existentialists who are not "true" believers, we should continue to "act" like believers, but can be aware that we don't truly believe in the goals. The process, they dynamic equilibrium and the edit wars, and the attempts to resolve them, are all the REAL goal, while we are following yonder star and tilting at windmills.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>
> --- Geoffrey Burling wrote:
>
> > After reading the various opinions expressed here about how to deal
> > with
> > the small number of controversial articles which -- sadly -- are in
>
>
> With all due respect, wikipedia already has too many rules. I suggest
> a much better policy: You fuck up an article, you clean it up. If you
> edit anywhere else before the article is nice and NPOV, you get a 3
> month ban.
>
> And I'm only half joking.
>
>
>
>
> =====
> Chris Mahan
> 818.943.1850 cell
> chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
> chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
> http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:02:48 +0000 (UTC),
<pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com) [050206 10:30]:
>
> > {{unreferenced}} has attracted references. Check my talk page.
>
> I am glad some templates are getting a response :).
> It does really get on my nerves though that if I have a specific comment
> on how a particular article might be improved, I have to use the talk
> page, but for some reason general comments that might apply to lots of
> pages (i.e. those that are ripe for templatizing) are allowed to be on
> the article page. It's illogical and not neat.
>
> Pete/Pcb21
Some of the templates, for example {{NPOV}}, provide as a warning to
the reader that "this article has problems, we are working on it" so
they should be kept on the page. Others, for example {{wikify}} would
probably be better on the talk page for clutter reasons.
Maybe there's already a discussion about that at [[Template
talk:Wikify]] but I'm just stating my opinion.
--
Double ROT13 Encoded - circumvention will be prosecuted.