WikiEN-l October 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

135 participants
206 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Reminder
by dmehkeri＠swi.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

> > > For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by. The > > > viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to -- > > > means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free > > > licence. This means that the content is more free and therefore > > > furthers our mission. > > > > And...? ;-) > > I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being > flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer > restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better." > > (I license my work cc-by.) Thought of saying so on your user page e.g. {{DualLicenseWithCC-By-2.5}} ? You currently have cc-by-sa. I really doubt you'll get flamed for it. -Dan

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Before reverting blanking, please read the text
by dmehkeri＠swi.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

> > Assume good faith is a fine principle, but the suggestion here seems to be > that editors must engage every such page blanker in dialogue based on the > remote chance that they just might have a good reason for doing it, even > though they didn't bother giving it at the time. That just doesn't seem > worthwhile to me; the effort involved seems disproportionate to any > possible harm. Depends. The possible harm varies. Sometimes the possible harm is libel. Dan

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Before reverting blanking, please read the text
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

"Parker Peters" wrote > We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding everywhere, we > speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob > with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our > dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the > shitter in favor of Admins Rule All. There seems little evidence, to me, that you are learning to express your comments with moderation and plausibility. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Before reverting blanking, please read the text
by dmehkeri＠swi.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

> Not really. Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable > for use of rollback. We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that > this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking > without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything > other than vandalism. Is it really so hard for a new user to find out > how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in > some other way fix the issue? It may be that it is. > WP:BLP suggests that not only is this not the first case, but in fact "...when the individual involved is not especially notable, such edits _usually are not vandalism_ but rather an effort by the subject of the article to remove biased or inaccurate material...." Even for non-BLP, instead of {{subst:test1}}, I often start with something like: == [[Name of article]] == Is there a problem with the article? ~~~~ Regards, Dan

1 0

The Indie gives WP The Big Question (Mark?)
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Today's Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1886601.ece is one of a daily series of full page 'analyses' of burning questions, such as 'do we need a better online encyclopedia than ...' (the greasy kid's stuff). Also in today's Indie an article on Citizendium, which quite likely provoked all this. Interesting to count the inaccuracies: my favourite is that Jimbo introduced 3RR post-Siegenthaler, to make us more accurate. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

1 0

PR & Fake News Update
by Cheney Shill 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Because it's relevant at the moment, Ogrish and its holding company Beyond Vision Media have never been mentioned by PRwatch.org or sourcewatch.org. On to who/what is being mentioned at the moment from the October 18 "Weekly Spin": 1. PROFITING FROM A NONPROFIT STATUS, THANKS TO ABRAMOFF http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR200610120… ... The Senate report finds the groups probably violated their tax-exempt status, "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns and press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to ... SOURCE: Washington Post, October 13, 2006 For more information or to comment on this story, visit: http://www.prwatch.org/node/5303 4. FAKE NEWS LOBBY GROUP GEARS UP http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/598664/Broadcast-PR-companies-unite-a… A group of producers of video news releases (VNRs) have formed the National Association of Broadcast Communicators (NABC) to campaign against the mandatory disclosure of fake news. NABC Vice-President Mike Hill, who is is President of News Broadcast Network, told PR Week that "disclosure is something that TV and radio stations should do as they feel necessary from a news standpoint." Mandatory disclosure, Hill claimed, "would be unworkable." The new group is supported by the Public Relations Society of America. "We all play an important role in the news gathering and dissemination process," said Michael Cherenson, the chair of PRSA's advocacy practice. SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), October 13, 2006 For more information or to comment on this story, visit: http://www.prwatch.org/node/5301 ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site) --spam may follow-- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Episode summaries
by Chris Picone 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Sorry, I'm new to mailing lists, so bear with me. I am user Ccool2ax on English WIkipedia (too lazy to link), and I've noticed in the past that many "Episode summaries", plot summaries of TV shows, have absolutely no sources. They are completely OR. Family Guy, the Simpsons, Lost, all of them have no sources! Every time I bring up discussion I get "The episode is teh reference!" as a reply. I'm here to ask you guys what we should do about these thousands and thousands of OR articles? So far, all there is is WP:EPISODE (again too lazy to link), a small essay saying that episode summaries need sources. What should we do?

11 18

[[Kristian Menchaca]] - link to video
by The Uninvited Co., Inc 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

We're getting some lovely fan mail on info-en regarding this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

14 43

John Doolittle
by Guy Chapman aka JzG 17 Oct '06

17 Oct '06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doolittle was around 85% knocking copy. I removed this and put a strongly worded comment on Talk about undue weight and WP:LIVING. I don't give a rat's ass if there is a close-fought election in process, if anything that is the worst conceivable reason for bloating an article with guilt-by-association and innuendo. Needless to say there is an edit war. Of course these facts are cited; but do we really need to know that he took campaign contributions from some guy and did not give them away like the other people who took the guy's money? Is that *honestly* the business of a neutral encyclopaedia article? We are surely not far from the day when a politician sues the project for causing him to lose a knife-edge election. Or is that [[WP:BEANS]]? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

4 4

Ogrish.com
by Cheney Shill 17 Oct '06

17 Oct '06

Recently, there have been claims regarding the reliability of http://www.ogrish.com. That in itself isnt a problem. The problem is that none of the claims have been verifiable. Does anyone have anything that meets Wikipedia's own verifiability standards showing Ogrish publishes manipulated, inaccurate, or false information? Please make it available here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogrish.com ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site) --spam may follow-- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
21
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l October 2006