In a message dated 10/2/2008 9:47:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
Their purpose was a marketting one to encourage the
public to see the whole film.>>
------------
I agree with this analysis and would just like people to understand that a
copyright owner is very unlikely to sue us, unless we're reducing his/her
potential income. If contrariwise, our work actually creates new income streams
(as I contend it does in some cases), they will love us and promote us.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
[[Wikipedia:Merging encyclopedias]] is about one of those slow-burning, long term issues: engulfing material such as the 1911 EB.
It turns out that there is a bit more than meets the eye, and a few of us have been working on an essay that records some experience in the field. I've just now moved it out of my userspace because we seem to have a stable version.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Haha... just had to fix a double-redirect at WP:SAUCE - seems a certain
someone (*cough* FT2... *cough*) forgot to check after renaming the page!
- H
Wed 08/10/2008 06:02, FT2 [ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com] wrote:
> Surely what you mean is "Sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the
> gander"...?
>
> FT2
Ken when you read one paragraph from a source, and then summarize it, you are making a decision as an editor of exactly how to summarize the source aren't you? So in the same way, when you read a book, and represent it in two paragraphs in an article on "Chicago" or whatever, you are choosing what to include, exclude, how to whittle it down to a sparse representation of that source.
You are making these decisions, and they are part-and-parcel of "editing" they are not "original research" because you are not *creating* new "statements-of-fact". Instead you are summarizing other people's statements into a much smaller space.
That isn't the same thing is it? It would only be the same, if your summary *does not actually represent* the source.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/7/2008 10:02:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com writes:
Surely what you mean is "Sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the
gander"...?>>
-------------------
Ganders are much tougher. They require overnight marination.
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/7/2008 3:40:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Ah, Geni. You've yet to find a WikiEn thread you can't lower the
discourse of.>>
--------------------------
I simply cannot let this challenge go by unremarked (mister poopy head).
I refuse to cede my chair to an amateur like Geni.
By the way, how exactly do you spin snow? Wouldn't it melt if you spun it?
Something about kinetic energy?
Or does spun snow = ice cream?
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/7/2008 2:36:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
I'm well aware that they're not original research; however, I don't consider
a spoiler warning to be original research either. I'm more wondering if
anyone thinks that spoiler warnings are original research but other types
of editing-based comments aren't, and if so, how this can be justified.>>
--------------
Spoiler warnings are not original research, they are editorial decisions.
Thus there would be no *policy* against spoiler warnings, and yet some editors might disagree with their use.
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/7/2008 2:34:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Really? It's against policy to put somethiing in an article saying "This
article may contain unverified claims", for instance?>>
Meta-content is not article content. It floats in a virtual universe on top of article content
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
In a message dated 10/7/2008 11:54:28 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
By the same reasoning used for spoilers, we don't have a source which
states that an article needs copyediting or that it is class B. (Remember
that Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source.) Making that decision
ourselves is original research.>>
--------------------------
We are allowed to make meta-decisions as editors. Those decisions aren't OR, only in-article-content-decisions would be OR, not about-article-content-decisions.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)