> > > For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by. The
> > > viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
> > > means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
> > > licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore
> > > furthers our mission.
> >
> > And...? ;-)
>
> I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being
> flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer
> restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."
>
> (I license my work cc-by.)
Thought of saying so on your user page e.g. {{DualLicenseWithCC-By-2.5}} ? You
currently have cc-by-sa.
I really doubt you'll get flamed for it.
-Dan
>
> Assume good faith is a fine principle, but the suggestion here seems to be
> that editors must engage every such page blanker in dialogue based on the
> remote chance that they just might have a good reason for doing it, even
> though they didn't bother giving it at the time. That just doesn't seem
> worthwhile to me; the effort involved seems disproportionate to any
> possible harm.
Depends. The possible harm varies. Sometimes the possible harm is libel.
Dan
"Parker Peters" wrote
> We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding everywhere, we
> speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob
> with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our
> dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the
> shitter in favor of Admins Rule All.
There seems little evidence, to me, that you are learning to express your comments with moderation and plausibility.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> Not really. Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable
> for use of rollback. We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that
> this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking
> without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything
> other than vandalism. Is it really so hard for a new user to find out
> how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in
> some other way fix the issue? It may be that it is.
>
WP:BLP suggests that not only is this not the first case, but in fact "...when
the individual involved is not especially notable, such edits _usually are not
vandalism_ but rather an effort by the subject of the article to remove biased
or inaccurate material...."
Even for non-BLP, instead of {{subst:test1}}, I often start with something like:
== [[Name of article]] ==
Is there a problem with the article? ~~~~
Regards,
Dan
Today's Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1886601.ece
is one of a daily series of full page 'analyses' of burning questions, such as 'do we need a better online encyclopedia than ...' (the greasy kid's stuff). Also in today's Indie an article on Citizendium, which quite likely provoked all this.
Interesting to count the inaccuracies: my favourite is that Jimbo introduced 3RR post-Siegenthaler, to make us more accurate.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Because it's relevant at the moment, Ogrish and its holding
company Beyond Vision Media have never been mentioned by
PRwatch.org or sourcewatch.org.
On to who/what is being mentioned at the moment from the
October 18 "Weekly Spin":
1. PROFITING FROM A NONPROFIT STATUS, THANKS TO ABRAMOFF
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR200610120…
...
The Senate report finds the groups probably violated
their tax-exempt status, "by laundering payments and then
disbursing
funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in
exchange for
writing newspaper columns and press releases that put Mr.
Abramoff's
clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's
clients to
...
SOURCE: Washington Post, October 13, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5303
4. FAKE NEWS LOBBY GROUP GEARS UP
http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/598664/Broadcast-PR-companies-unite-a…
A group of producers of video news releases (VNRs) have
formed the
National Association of Broadcast Communicators (NABC) to
campaign
against the mandatory disclosure of fake news. NABC
Vice-President
Mike Hill, who is is President of News Broadcast Network,
told PR
Week that "disclosure is something that TV and radio
stations should
do as they feel necessary from a news standpoint."
Mandatory
disclosure, Hill claimed, "would be unworkable." The new
group is
supported by the Public Relations Society of America. "We
all play
an important role in the news gathering and dissemination
process,"
said Michael Cherenson, the chair of PRSA's advocacy
practice.
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), October 13, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5301
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shillhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lickhttp://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sorry, I'm new to mailing lists, so bear with me. I am user Ccool2ax
on English WIkipedia (too lazy to link), and I've noticed in the past
that many "Episode summaries", plot summaries of TV shows, have
absolutely no sources. They are completely OR. Family Guy, the
Simpsons, Lost, all of them have no sources! Every time I bring up
discussion I get "The episode is teh reference!" as a reply. I'm here
to ask you guys what we should do about these thousands and thousands
of OR articles? So far, all there is is WP:EPISODE (again too lazy to
link), a small essay saying that episode summaries need sources. What
should we do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doolittle was around 85% knocking
copy. I removed this and put a strongly worded comment on Talk about
undue weight and WP:LIVING. I don't give a rat's ass if there is a
close-fought election in process, if anything that is the worst
conceivable reason for bloating an article with guilt-by-association
and innuendo.
Needless to say there is an edit war. Of course these facts are
cited; but do we really need to know that he took campaign
contributions from some guy and did not give them away like the other
people who took the guy's money? Is that *honestly* the business of a
neutral encyclopaedia article?
We are surely not far from the day when a politician sues the project
for causing him to lose a knife-edge election. Or is that
[[WP:BEANS]]?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG