On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:53:21 -0400, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Here's what I wonder: how do we apply WP:V to *tweets* in a few
> decades?
A problem with tweets, even "official" ones, is that Twitter is a
relatively informal medium compared to most of the others that are
used as sources.
The problems one needs to consider include:
* Is the 'twitterer' actually an official spokesperson, or possibly
just somebody impersonating one? Is the account verified?
* Even if it's known to be the true, official account, do you
actually know who is providing the information there? Is it the
celebrity him/herself, or some marketing flack acting on his/her
behalf? Maybe the flack is posting stuff in the celebrity's name
that they themselves don't agree with, or vice/versa, the celebrity
is acting as a loose cannon and giving his/her top-of-the-head, spur-
of-the-moment views that don't necessarily represent what direction
their career and works will go when the marketing types get through
with them?
* Whoever it is that's posting, are they trustworthy for accurately
representing the true viewpoint of the entity involved, or are they
prone to kidding around, starting hoaxes, playing devil's advocate to
get a reaction, stirring up controversies for publicity, slinging
bullshit, getting drunk and spouting nonsense, etc.?
* If they keep changing their mind and posting contradictory stuff,
which one should be regarded as official, or should it just be
reported that they contradicted themselves? Should their errors,
typos, misstatements, misunderstandings, etc., be reported?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> I gave up. Eventually I came across a controversial topic that
> particularly interested me, where I had the background to understand
> the sources and where my research radically changed my mind. So I
> started working on it, I even bought a pile of books about it (on all
> sides of the controversy), and a major recent and very expensive
> mainstream work on it was donated to me, and I became much more
> vulnerable as a result, since I now had an opinion and a POV, based
> on reading the sources, and I started asserting content based on the
> most reliable of the sources, especially peer-reviewed secondary source.
>
> The information necessary for my major shift of POV is much more than
> most editors could absorb with some light reading. There exist
> secondary sources that cover the field that, if editors would trust
> them, would make it easy, but .... they don't trust these sources,
> even when published by independent, non-fringe publishers, since what
> they say contradicts the easy positions of ignorance. After all,
> doesn't everybody with a background in science know....? Reliable
> source guidelines, if followed, would address the problem, but are
> useless against entrenched opinion, because editors will invent this
> or that excuse for disregarding them, so that the article doesn't
> fall into their view of undue weight.
>
> So ... I'm no longer a Wikipedia editor, I'm now working off-wiki,
> with real knowledge and research in the field that interested me,
> and, as well, on the kind of voluntary structure that I see as the
> only way out of trap that Wikipedia has fallen into. It's much
> easier, though, of course, it all takes time. I still have an
> account, and the block will expire, and I'm not burning any bridges,
> but .... once I realize that a wall definitely exists, I don't butt
> my head against it. I walk around it or dig under it or climb over
> it, if I actually want to get to the other side, or I do something else.
>
So rather than address the problems inherent in this narrative so as to
retain editors, we have a "Bookshelf project" to recruit cannon fodder.
Ec
Google searches:
portmanteau - 573,000 hits
portmanteau wikipedia - 88,400 hits
Conclusion: 15% of uses of the word portmanteau on the internet are on or
related to Wikipedia?
Apologies for reviving a thread from three weeks ago. But the idea
that we had degenerated into a newbie biting place where one could
"challenge a newbie to create an article on Wikipedia and have that
article exist for an entire week. Guaranteed, your article will be
marked for “speedy deletion” within about two minutes of its
creation." bugged me, so I thought I'd unscientifically test it.
I made a suggestion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/new_users#Lets_…
Nobody including myself knows how many articles have so far been
created as part of the test, and yes one has already been deleted
under the novel speedy deletion criteria of "the wikilinks did not
have the proper markup".
But there are at least two other articles that have survived more than 24 hours.
Anyone else who is interested in following the test is welcome to
watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie_treatment
Two articles at least should be unveiled in the next few days.
WereSpielChequers
>
> On Friday, September 18, 2009, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone
>> who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting
>> "wikibullying" can be for newbies and other editors who aren't
>> well-versed in the procedures and processes.
>>
>> http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/09/04/bullypedia-a-wikipedian-w…
>>
>> Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
>> who enforce the rules are perfectly civil and try to be friendly at an
>> individual level.
>>
>> -Sage
>>
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Microsofts-Bing-Adds-Reference-Page…http://www.bing.com/reference
Bing is attempting to differentiate itself with a nicer "reference"
page. Wikipedia quote at the top. (We're famous enough now that I
could say "of course.")
The search up top says "Search Wikipedia". The thing that caught my
eye in the article (and the results) was it actually searches Freebase
as well!
I think Freebase is rather underappreciated, particularly amongst us
encyclopedia nerds ... it's sorta at a Wikipedia 2003/4 stage of
development. So it's nice to see Microsoft giving them some attention.
- d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Wylie
My source for the death is a tweet.
It is a tweet from the official Bletchley Park feed, so I think it's
reliable enough ... but I've asked them for more, and a photo if they
can :-)
Remember: "reliable sources" is a guideline and requires the
application of good sense.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Subject: [Checkuser-l] [checkuser-l] Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies:
Call for applications
To: "[Checkuser-l]" <checkuser-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the
[[WP:AUDSUB|Audit Subcommittee]] is underway, with the election itself
starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified,
please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit
Subcommittee/October 2009 election|election pages]] for the job
specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22
October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Roger Davies
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
[[Charles K. Kao]] and articles like it seem to need even more hatplates.
Perhaps we need a new hatplate for just this purpose:
| text = '''Please help improve this article by adding more template
messages (boilerplate) to the top.''' <tiny>See the talk page to
discuss adding more.</tiny>
<!--end {{moar plate}} -->
Sometimes making a point is necessary to get a point across (before
anyone whines about POINT).
-Stevertigo
"It's been evening all day long...