>Yes he does have his comeback, if Wiki itself has
>broken either its own self-described terms or another
>law, towards him. Good luck to him: you've been asking
>for it with your gloating claims to be above every law
>in the world.
Moderated. Please contribute something useful to the list or don't bother.
- d.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>Arbcom appointments don't need to be all at the same time. >Whether
Jimbo should be doing this alone is a dubious proposition >because of
the time demands that it would put on him. A >nominating committee of
trusted people could be a more practical >idea.
Trusted by whom? As the basis for favouring appointment over election
seems to be that the community isn't to be trusted to make the "right"
decisions, I'd love to know how we could arrive at such a committee.
Filio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I am purposefully breaking the thread here:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>
>>Do you really want deletion in the hands of these people? Other than a
>>mild interest in which of our edit warriors would come out on top I
>>can see nothing posertive about this aproach.
>>
>
> It sounds to me like you just don't believe in the idea of a Wiki in
> general. I could make the exact same argument against letting anyone
> edit the article; the more persistent edit warrior always wins, so
> what's the point? If that's your view, we can't even have a discussion
> about this. But it makes me wonder why you are involved with Wikipedia
> at all. :\
>
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia being a wiki is a means to an end, NOT the other way around.
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ2DW4LMAAH8MeUlWAQhL/wgAtE3D0s3rQr25G0+ZSaXiDGVSspmamOfZ
Rpa4kZ5Wf2HsFMFOPGXqsyxtQTT023PQ4Xq2SfeSJBzN5Vzn3VPi0Dh4B119IQHi
e/3aB/EbWQvuJFl3ZmZfD2F+oUKm78yDn0WQC92plcZXsFFF/4aJMFi9aZvS5EYJ
Jh7bUaDL+RI4bB5PliXcCPjRoq/E5QTX0u/cI0vUDbE0STmcnm+/XI+trDUvxThv
ZQexy9I15eReBH0q/kcQBdnl4slrdFTu1D5QNC7DXd/K3NWzgJjBLK/mnSRkATaC
knaZHBYI8BXfJRlc3YqN9BGL48xiFg63xIk2L0HeJFwq//7qaCzjFQ==
=ZuAa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jayjg wrote:
>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
>>Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite
>>evident in RfA.
>In the past you've alleged voting blocks in RfA based on their "deletionist"
>tendencies, and this was discussed on this mailing list. Are you still
>making this claim?
Alphax's RFA.
- d.
I just had to list over 500 audio tracks on http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_October_24
As I cant find any speedy delete criterion they fall under. I could
tag them all with
fairusedisputed or something, but it is a blatent attempt at mass
copyright violation
from a user who left some time back. Many are whole tracks, some are
shorter although
they may be complete too. The speedy delete criteria are too
bureaucratic now, things
have to be tagged for a week, which is pointless in this case.
Justinc
The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which
various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of knowledge:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
At the very least, it will draw attention to the articles reviewed,
particularly the article on [[haute couture]], which Vogue's editor
rated at 0/10.
Noted Wikipedia critic Robert McHenry rates the [[Encylopedia]] article
at 5/10: not nearly good enough, but it's a start... it might well be
worthwhile to try to improve Wikipedia's McHenry Index by improving the
quality of this article, and backing up its statement with solid cites.
Downplaying the self-reference to Wikipedia own fabulousness might be a
useful first step.
The other article ratings were:
[[Steve Reich]] 7/10
[[Basque people]] 7/10
[[TS Eliot]] 6/10
[[Samuel Pepys]] 6/10
[[Bob Dylan]] 8/10
A friend forwarded me a link to this; they have an interest in one of
the fields reviewed, and commented that they were somewhat dubious about
the factual accuracy of one of the criticisms made in the article ;-)
-- Neil
Martin Richards wrote:
>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
>That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex
>E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about
>what they wanted to hear.
The Guardian Online really, really loves Wikipedia because the
managing editor of the online edition really, really loves Wikipedia
(so I was told at a job interview there a few months ago, when the
interviewer noticed "Wikipedia" in my interests ;-).
That said, I find it hard to consider the above unfair. It's the
real-world acid test and mostly rings true to me.
- d.
Geoff Burling wrote:
>He's become a difficult problem, & all of the easy solutions have
>been tried & shown not to work. And he's gotten to the point
>where attacking Wikipedia has become his life: calling that
>"pathetic" doesn't properly do it justice.
Skyring's life is denial. If he's in this much denial about being the
author of his own misfortunes on Wikipedia, he's well practiced in the
art and will be in denial about lots of things. However, he's actually
noteworthy enough to get an article (for his work on Bookcrossing -
he's doing getting a metric shitload of press and media on it of late,
check his blog, and his past involvements in politics). So who wants
to start [[Peter Mackay]]? It would make Wikipedia a better
encyclopedia by one useful article (on the guy who leads Bookcrossing
in Canberra and other things). I figure an article with 110%
verifiable and undeniable factual references detailing facts and
establishing encyclopedic nature to a degree that not even a weasel
like Skyring can wriggle out of would be a good thing..
- d.
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:03:53 -0400
> From: Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RE: copyright and NOR policies re: math and
> science
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <98dd099a0510270903hb290f71p4456375b4dba13ee(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Two things:
>
> >And what about a proof? One can always
> > paraphrase a proof, but at the end of the day, you're really violating
> > copyright in spirit under the above interpretation as much as if you
> copied
> > verbatim.
>
> I'm pretty sure mathematical proofs would not be copyrightable.
That's funny...given that a lot of mathematical papers consist almost
entirely of proofs, are you saying that copyright does not apply to them? I
think the publisher would beg to differ.
> I could write my own
> version of the same facts in a given book and have full claim to a
> copyright in this instance.
This is my point -- statements of theorems don't have different "versions"
of themselves. (Maybe *equivalent* versions, that's another issue.) Or at
least, there's very little room for tinkering.
> I think a good line of work with NOR is to say that every fact which
> could be reasonably contested should be cited. That is, if I write an
> article the History of X, and I say that on such-and-such a date,
> so-and-so did something, I might from the get-go assume that this is
> common knowledge (at least among specialists). If someone comes to the
> talk page and says, "Hey, I don't know about that," then it is my duty
> to pull out some other source which says it. I think citation is
> allowed to be an evolving thing.
Yes, I understand; my point is that in math, there exists non-original
research which cannot be cited. There is no "big book" containing every
possible true statement and valid argument in math. Say someone comes up
with a particularly nice proof of some calculus result, but can't find it in
any reference in exactly the same way. And suppose it's not a terribly
novel thing -- just a couple tweeks that make it more appealing. Is this
original research? Most math people would say, "no". Even if it *were*
original enough to publish in CMJ, say, if it were never submitted, it would
*still* not require publication before being written up in
wikipedia...because it is something easily verified by any professional in
the field. The difference between, say, history and math, is that in
history, the verification is the historical record (primary or secondary
sources), whereas in math, the "verification" lives inside the
mathematicians' brains. It's hard to cite that.
Really, this is has not been much of a problem, so far. In fact, the math
people have kind of interpreted these "rules" as they went along, as they
saw fit, collectively. So, you might wonder why I go on. I just want
people to realize that policies and rules require a fair amount of latitude
and interpretation from situation to situation. A lot of people seem to
have the attitude that the way the policies are implemented and interpreted
in their little domain of existence is the "right" way and should be imposed
on everyone else. I would hesitate (I hope I have hesitated in the past) to
tell the people in the biology project, or the history project, or a project
on some hobby or craft, how the policies should be interpreted in their
domain. But several times I've seen a math person raise an issue like this
outside of the math community, and people just pounce on them -- imposing
their own view of a policy to a situation they don't even understand.
darin
I am slightly concerned about the RfA for Acetic Acid. This is a user
whose only attempt to create an article is [[vitaminwater]] which is
really bad. He does however have overwhelming support (even from a
couple of people I know) and clearly has a huge fanclub, and he hasnt
done anything blatently wrong (apart from a perhaps unnecessary RfC).
I was wondering about suggesting a mentoring program in how to write an
article perhaps, which would be something I would be interested in
creating anyway.
I am sure he wont do any harm as an admin, but it all seems a bit odd.
Justinc