"Gregory Maxwell" wrote
> On 10/28/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Less. Our vistors likely don't stay as long.
>
> Your statement is not refuted by the AOL search data: Lots of people
> clicked through to Wikipedia on a broad spectrum of search keywords,
> but many continued searching afterwards.
Makes sense.
> A while back I did a list of the most popular search keywords which
> lack articles and we found a couple of gaping holes in our coverage.
It is largely in the 'long tail' where we really score, surely. I think about this when adding obscure bibliography. Book titles with invented names, for example.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Phil Sandifer wrote
> Going to their talk page, asking, and waiting a day is asking them to
> do things. Slapping an article with {{delete}} is being aggressive,
> hostile, and bitey.
In an ideal world, we'd have enough admins to have a new pages patrol along those lines. One reason we don't is the sheer quantity of submission of parochial stuff, like this. Would Britannica have an article on Bill Knapp's? No. Is it obvious reference material, like sports statistics? No. Can we legislate for people who start with no idea of what an encyclopedia is, traditionally? No, we have started from the view that participation here is for people interested in the encyclopedic mission, not for some project we'd eventually announce in the area of trivia.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Simon Blandford wrote
> I'm a little unclear on this from reading Wikipedia's policy on libel.
>
> It seems concerned only with libel of individuals. What is the policy
> with regards to organisations? In the UK the libel laws cover
> organisations as well as individuals.
I've just a few minutes ago added a section on 'Defending interests' to [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]. This is a guideline piece about people defending on behalf of institutions, or people.
WP's policy on libel and so on is clearly that we don't want it. The general thrust, I think, is to refer as much as possible back to existing policies, so that non-neutral edits are dealt with using conventional weaponry. On what is defamatory, I'm sure we generally stick to 'truth is a defence'.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Keith Old" wrote
> Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, and eBay took the top positions, however relative
> newcomers Wikipedia and YouTube are making a rapid climb up the World Wide
> Web (WWW), as per the monthly Internet snapshot, released by Comscore.
Alexa has WP edging ahead of eBay. The total traffic is less, but we have more visitors. It is cheering to see that eBay's traffic graph is going down (but as a proportion of Web traffic - presumably not in absolute terms) while we are steadily gaining in share. For us 0.5% of the Web traffic would be a big, server busting number.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
VITAL UPDATE:
I just now received this message from Kylu on my Talk Page
- it is important that I update my prior post of confusion
Here is her response, which I appreciated immensely. :o)
Kylu:
Sadly, there's an editor who is trying to revert Hu12's edits coming from
AOL, I've removed the contributions (could be why they're not showing up) but
he keeps annoying other editors. You, however, do have my sincere apologies
that you were affected by this. :)
Thanks for keeping a cool head about this mess. I just rather wish AOL
didn't do its little IP-hopping trick. :( ~Kylu (_u_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu) |_t_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu) ) 21:20, 27
October 2006 (UTC)
ME TALKING AGAIN _
Checked his contributions - He was a busy toad! :o))
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hu12_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hu12)
What was upsetting to me was the offending member not being identified. It
is always SO calming to be able to call up the user's contributions and SEE
FOR YOURSELF!!
A thanks to Kylu
Since there still seem to be people on this list who believe that
inappropriate reversions are a sufficiently rare event to be unworthy
of notice, I draw your attention here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrative_Appeals_Tribunal&d…
Now, admittedly this is not as egregious a case as the one I cited
earlier as an example. However, it appears to me that the admin
involved reverted simply on the basis that (a) it was a deletion of a
large block of text (b) performed by an IP (c) without an edit summary.
Even a quick skim should reveal that the deleted text is an irredeemable
editorial rant written by someone with an axe to grind.
Greg Maxwell has made the point earlier that if, as a community, we want
to revert any large block deletions by IPs without edit summaries, we
would be better served to modify one of the many existing bots to do so
rather than encourage people to do it. And I believe that Greg and I
are in agreement that such blind reversions are a bad thing, regardless
of whether they are performed by people or bots. People should be
expected to read, particularly so in an era when we have so many
anti-vandalism bots operating.
And yes, we now have an OTRS ticket on this.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware Corporation)
It is possible that article about Belgrade passes featured article
nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belgrade).
My question is: May we target some date, so we can make some promotion
here in Belgrade/Serbia as Wikimedia Serbia?
Also, it opens similar questions about other featured articles on
en...? (Also, it is not related only to English Wikipedia.) May we
have some coordination?
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
