> From: Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>> ...when you try to explain "it's a website the readers can edit",
>> some people immediately go OH NOEZ and list every obvious reason
>> it can't possibly work and the enterprise is provably doomed.
>
> "People who believe a thing to be impossible should not stand
> in the way of those who are doing it."
All together now... in four-part harmony
"But the world is full of zanies and fools
Who don't believe in sensible rules
And because those daft and dewy-eyed dopes
Keep building up impossible hopes
Impossible! things are hap'ning ev'ry day."
--Oscar Hammerstein II
"George Herbert" wrote
> There's a difference?
Irony: :-;
Sarcasm: No, of course, there is _no difference_ at all. If you are at the bottom of a pond. And talking only to fellow tadpoles. In semaphore. With your tail. And then your tail falls off, leaving you without a viable means of communication. Then and only then does the distinction between sarcasm and irony become a distinction without a difference. I have been teaching this to frog-faced pupils like you for forty years and you still haven't got the point.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Sam Korn"
> In reply to the whole thread, the problem with banning sarcasm is that
> it would prevent a good proportion of British editors from editing at
> all. Sarcasm is not inherently impolite (though of course it *can*
> be) and is an absolutely crucial part of British humour and indeed
> regular speech.
Um. It is also a major part of British culture not to know the difference between the sarcastic and the ironic. Or deliberately to forget. Or to push the envelope. Or something.
(Yeah, right, Charles.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Currently we try to classify some types of sources as
"reliable" and other types of sources as "unreliable". This
is problematic because in fact almost all sources are reliable
for some things and unreliable for others. So, instead of
fixing a yes/no classification of sources, let's establish a
general principle that each article should be based on the
most reliable sources available FOR THAT TOPIC. Then we
can give guidelines to help editors make that decision.
For example, we could discount USENET articles if there are
articles in respected newspapers. We could discount books
by popular writers if there are books by eminent experts.
And so on; it would take some effort to get it right of course.
Doing it this way might (one can hope) avoid some of the
absurdities of the present policy. It would also allow us to
pay attention to the consensus in the relevant community
about what sources are best. If every comics fan knows that
certain USENET postings are the final word on a topic, it is
really silly to exclude them. Similarly, it is really silly to
apply the same rules about basic biographical details to
movie stars (who are the subjects of many articles by
journalists that can be consulted) as to scientists
(who are not, with very few exceptions).
Zero.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Delirium wrote:
That seems kind of silly. I'd actually looked up this article before
myself, because the "fleshlight" is notable enough that it's entered
slang use, at least in some subcultures, and I had no idea what the word
was referring to. It's also gotten quite a bit of press, and a quick
google news search turns up a claim in the _Village Voice_ (a mainstream
news magazine) that it's "one of the best-known boy-centric toys".
I would have to say Danny erred in this case with his ignorant statement
that it is a "non-notable product".
Danny comments:
Before proclaiming my ignorance to the world, I would invite Delirium to
look a bit more closely at Google News, supposedly the font of knowledge here.
Typing in Fleshlight resulted in exactly one hit on Google News, the Village
Voice article he mentioned.
A percursory glance at the article itself shows that it is titled: "Boys' Toys
Cock rings, butt plugs, finger massagers and other guy goodies" Before the
brief paragraph on the Fleshlight it says, "Neil's not the only hetero male
seeking out women-friendly sex toys. According to Carolyn Riccardi, Education
Coordinator for Babeland New York (_babeland.com_ (http://www.babeland.com/) ),
35 percent of their customers are men, and their most popular boys' toys are
the Sonic Ring, a vibrating cock ring, the Blossom Sleeve, and the Aneros
prostate stimulator." I suppose our next step would be to ensure we have
articles on each of these products, as well as Babeland and their educational
coordinator. After all, they are each mentioned in the "Voice." This week's
edition also has a fascinating review of a stirring new film, "Black Monster Dicks
Fucking White Chicks," complete with a comparison to [[Das Boot]]. I would
have watched the film and written the article myself, but alas, Netflix didn't
have it (yet).
(_http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/dirtypornos/_
(http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/dirtypornos/) ). Instead I will write about another Voice topic, Xiao
La Jiao, NYC's "foremost Sichuan restaurant," and in Flushing, no less.
I read the Voice regularly when I lived in New York. I even took circuitous
routes home from work just so I could get a copy. But not everything in the
Voice (or even in the NY Times for that matter) deserves an article. Editing
isn't only about knowing what to add, but about knowing what not to add as
well.
Danny
A lot of the bad atmosphere with regards to the Fleshlight is due to a
confusion between whether Danny is acting independantly or acting as
WP:Office.
It is confusing for wikipedians naturally.
It is confusing for Danny as well, who is pressured by the phone calls
and otrs messages. Who is either left alone making a decision, and later
is blamed by Jimbo, Brad or whoever. Or who acts under Jimbo or Brad
supervision, but is the one to receive the blame from the community
later on.
Problem is that Danny has very strong convictions himself (so may not be
the best to handle such requests) and is - as expected from most
wikipedians - sensitive to the community feedback afterwards.
I would like to suggest that office actions - normally under Brad
responsability - be actually done by Brad himself or by a future new
employee, who should NOT be a wikipedian.
ant
Jossi Fresco wrote
> The main issue here is if we are dealing with a controversial topic,
> a biography of a living person, or an ongoing enterprise. In these
> cases, the need for reliable sources is paramount.
Correct. But some of us have always objected to having the most controversial articles driving policy. So, please, not the 'main issue'. The main issue is getting the encyclopedia written, in the large, not that some people want to write on controversial areas. Policy in this area is basically defensive, and hence rather negative.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"George Herbert" wrote
> Can you remind us how active/inactive membership is counted, and what the
> effects on a voting plurality are depending on how many people are actually
> responsive out of the total?
There are rules. I'm the ranking mathematician on the AC, which probably explains why I can't remember them.
> How bad is it for moving forwards if arbcom members are functionally
> inactive? Is it then just an issue of bandwidth, or do you have to spur
> some of the inactive ones to participate to get proposed decisions voted out
> and official?
There are naggers and naggees. It comes down to saying that with fewer bodies, cases are decided more slowly, and with a smaller subset of approaches.
The preparation of cases is the worst part, undoubtedly, and requires experience (more than I have). The list of 'principles' is ever-expanding, but we still need more, and some cases are marathons.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 10 Oct 2006 at 23:09, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> THE COMPANY WERE COMPLAINING THAT THEIR *ADVERTISEMENT* WAS BEING
> EDITED. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Edited, perhaps, into something that was no longer an advertisement
(and hence the complaints from the marketing types who didn't like
this development)?
> Was it an OFFICE action? No.
This seems to be something that people have to guess and infer,
during and after the action occurs, with possible drastic penalties
for those who guess/infer wrong. See, for instance, the incident
cited in this week's Signpost (Eloquence interview, question 4).
--
== 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/