Ed Poor wrote:
> If there are a dozen or 6 dozen separate, tiny articles with a common
> theme, then why not:
>
> * Copy the text of each article into one new comprehensive article
(like
> [[List of Apprentice contestants]]
> * Turn the text of each old article into: #REDIRECT [[List of
> Apprentice contestants]]
>
> This is how Maveric asked me to handle the Simpsons, way back when...
That's what I voted for, and indeed, that was the overwhelming consensus
of the VFD vote, and is what has been done.
And indeed, that could have been boldly done by someone without needing
a VFD vote. But I would say that (a) there would have been a guaranteed
edit war following it; and (b) there WAS a definite minority opinion
that these people didn't deserve to be in the Wikipedia AT ALL, being
merely "game show contestants".
Me, I see the whole affair as further proof that VFD is not at all
broken, and continues to excellently serve the community.
Cheers!
David...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential and/or
legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without
the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive
this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:23:17 +0200, Anthere wrote:
> Is it german language comparison or english one ?
German of course.
> What does c't mean ?
The complete title is "c't Magazin für Computer Technik"
What c and t mean should be obvious now ;-)
It's not the first time they mention Wikipedia in an
article, e.g. they already had an article about online-
encyclopaedias AFAIR two years ago.
Regards, Lothar
--
Lothar Kimmeringer E-Mail: spamfang(a)kimmeringer.de
PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)
Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
questions!
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:39:58 +0200, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> oh, I read elsewhere it was german to german.
> Why did you sent it to this ml Sj ?
Yes, just german to german. Perhaps it will inspire other researchers
to do serious comparisons in other languages as well. (and I meant to
send it to wikipedia, wikien was an accident). --sj
> > Grab a copy of the original at your local international-pubs shop, if you can.
> >
> > http://www.heise.de/ct/
> >
> > Encyclopedias: Wikipedia vs. Brockhaus and Encarta (pg. 132)
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
This poll on an amendment to the deletion policy:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:
>> Deletion_policy#Proposed_new_rule:_No_repeat_submission_of_articles
has become a bit of a mess, due to my slightly unfortunate choice of
words when I opened the poll.
I have now added a statement acknowledging the problems but I have
requested that the poll results be respected despite the (arguably not
major) insufficiencies.
However I feel that any further steps towards codifying the proposed
rule might be frowned upon if I take them.
I would like to ask our admins to help
I would like to request that an admin (preferably a few admins) look at
the situation and see if it can be sorted out without a repeat poll.
I don't think a repeat poll is a good idea because with every poll
there will be deviating preferences and minor criticisms.
I feel that if that were enough to invalidate a poll then every poll
would have to be invalidated and we could never make any decision.
We'd end up holding polls on whether we can accept a poll on whether we
can accept a poll.
Again, I'd like to ask for some "old hands" (admins) to please look at
things and provide some guidance and leadership as regards this issue.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
See my post at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/
We_believe_in_human_dignity&action=edit§ion=1
Jongarrettuk, David Remahl, Benc, Neutrality, and Mikkalai have "voted"
to delete this short article (which I wrote) because it's "Non-notable
political propaganda".
I beg to differ. It's one of the 3 most significant speeches of George
W. Bush's career, and if it's propaganda then we SHOULD have an article
in which some political expert SAYS it's propaganda.
I suspect the motive to "delete" is really censorship, i.e., the desire
to make it harder for Wikipedians to find out what Bush is saying about
world affairs. Part of this dovetails with the Kerry campaign's POV, the
constant refrain that Bush has nothing of substance to say about Iraq or
anything else for that matter.
A major service Wikipedia provides is to bring hidden facts to light. If
one politician says "My opponent A has NEVER spoken about X", then it
can make a big difference to our readers whether a quick Wikipedia
search turns up:
* nothing by A about X, or
* an obscure reference by A about X, or
* a public speech by A to a major world body about X
Maybe the article should be moved to a more bland title. Instead of "We
believe in human dignity", call it [[George Bush speech at the United
Nations on September 21, 2004]]
... Or whatever our naming convention is for speeches.
Ed Poor
>From: Matthew Larsen <mat.larsen(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Matthew Larsen <mat.larsen(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Zero0000 has blocked
>Lance6Wins....apparentlycontray to Blocking policy
>Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:44:50 +0100
>
>Anyone can make a harmless mistake, and Zero has clearly blown this
>issue out of all proportians. Is it really worth making all this fuss
>over something as silly as 'where did this quote come from'
I think there is a more important issue here, and that it is not just Zero
who has "blown the issue out of all proportions." The tolerance for editors
who willfully damage Wikipedia is astounding; known repeat offenders are
agonized over, sometimes for weeks at a time, before action is taken, and
even then actions are watered down in the hopes that one day, perhaps, with
the right tutoring, the editor might make some valuable edit or
contribution. Even people who have been permanently banned for outrageous
behaviour are allowed back in on special "parole" conditions in the hopes
that enough Wikilove and supervision will turn them into productive
citizens. The RfC, mediation, and Abitration processes work so slowly and
intermittently that many admins describe them as broken and essentially
useless (see, for example, [[User:Ambi/Thoughts_on_Dispute_Resolution]] .
And yet, when an admin who has made extremely valuable contributions to the
project appears to step over the line in a fairly mild way, the immediate
response *from the top* is that this person should be de-sysopped.
Now it's true no action has yet been taken, and given the glacial pace of
the various abuse "remedies" on Wikipedia, it's likely none ever will be
taken. And I understand and support the need for holding an admin to a
significantly higher standard than a regular editor. However, I still see a
big imbalance here between the way valuable contributors are treated and how
known trolls are coddled. A number of extremely knowledgeable editors have
privately (and even publicly) stated that they would no longer edit articles
*in their areas of expertise* because the abuse and harassment they receive
from POV warriors and ad hominem abusers is so great that it is simply not
worth it for them to bother, particularly as there is no remedy for this
problem - or rather, there are remedies, but Wikpedia cannot or will not use
them.
I admit that some of the frustration I'm expressing here is based on two
solid weeks of daily personal attacks on me by 3 Wikipedia editors, and in
particular my feeling that there is little, if any, point in attempting to
use the various Wikipedia remedies to try to fix this situation. And
perhaps it is character building for me to simply ignore the "slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune" rather than "take arms against a sea of
troubles, and by opposing end them," particularly when I think the arms in
question are ineffective. Nevertheless, the underlying question is general
and remains; how many of Wikipedia's most valuable resources will be forced
to take lengthy or permanent self-imposed Wikibreaks as a result of this,
before the issue is not only taken seriously, but actually addressed?
Jay.
_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen
Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht…
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.