On 12/7/06, David Boothroyd <david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett writes:
> >Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got
> >deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the
> >person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential
> >deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently
> >bizarre redirect...
>
> As I was doing, but didn't get the chance to finish before the redirect
> actually got deleted. It was only 'apparently bizarre' if one didn't
> bother to check why it was there. As I'm not in the habit of going round
> redirecting numbers to people, ought not a little bell to have rung with
> questions of "Why this number?" and "Why this person?"?
Isn't this water under the bridge? You screwed up with a silly edit summary;
the admin should have respected your hold tag. You made the first mistake.
But now everything's been fixed, so what's the big deal?
Shocking as it may seem, not everyone knows you or your editing habits.
Steve Bennett writes:
>Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got
>deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the
>person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential
>deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently
>bizarre redirect...
As I was doing, but didn't get the chance to finish before the redirect
actually got deleted. It was only 'apparently bizarre' if one didn't
bother to check why it was there. As I'm not in the habit of going round
redirecting numbers to people, ought not a little bell to have rung with
questions of "Why this number?" and "Why this person?"?
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)
"Andrew Gray" wrote
> > I suspect it's often systematic bias, i.e. a deep conviction that
> > certain areas of coverage should be killed and anyone disagreeing must
> > be clueless or a troll.
>
> *However*, it's worth noting that whilst this is a form of systemic
> bias, it's not usually related to the major fields where we actually
> worry about our systemic bias.
>
> (By which I mean: we worry about systemic bias over non-western
> regions and cultures, over gender issues, etc... but our "deletion
> systemic bias" is about schools and Western pop-culture cruft)
I don't see much of AfD these days. But I'd guess bad English in an article is probably still a cause for nominations. That would exacerbate systemic bias, for evident reasons about non-native speakers of English being contributors in areas where we are light on coverage.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Matthew Brown" wrote
> The postings are also interesting from the point-of-view of finding
> what turns off qualified people from contributing Wikipedia.
Well, lack of time, obviously ...
> Unsurprisingly, both blogs mention that the whole 'notability' mess is
> a big barrier, and a big part of our systemic bias.
Our concept of notability is anyway not transparent. It would not be an improvement, necessarily, to have a clearer criterion with a worse outcome. If you target the systemic bias thing, it is fairly clearly the case of not enough 'minority interest' articles created, rather than too many deleted, though.
Academics are going to focus on the borderline cases: the way their minds work. We have least to say about those, really.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 12/6/06, David Boothroyd <david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather
> bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the
> article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with
> a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put
> a {{hangon}}).
Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got
deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the
person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential
deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently
bizarre redirect...
Steve
On 5 Dec 2006 at 14:28, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Public buildings is a clear case, but I think the main problem lies with
> pictures of people.
> Unless you want to commit a felony and stalk them, it's pretty much
> impossible to get non-fair use images for small time actors who don't visit
> premieres or award ceremonies.
I got a couple of pictures of minor celebrities (an actor and an
author; I also got a picture of an astronaut, but he already had a
better free picture so I didn't use it) that are now in Wikimedia
Commons and in the Wikipedia articles about those persons when they
and I both attended the Mensa World Gathering earlier this year. You
don't necessarily have to be a stalker to run into mildly-famous
people; just have a camera handy when you go to conventions and other
events of that sort.
--
== 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/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion_criterion_for_unsour…
I just don't have the energy to fight.
One of my favorite things about Wikipedia is the sense of self-reliance.
In other words, if there's something that bugs you, fix it.
If Wikipedia is missing an entry, create one.[1]
If Wikipedia's information is incorrect or incomplete, fix it.
If Wikipedia's sourcing is insufficient, add a source.
If Wikipedia's spelling is bad, fix it.
Fix fix fix.
Instead of complain complain complain delete delete delete.
But hey. We're getting near the 7-year life cycle of most such innovative
projects, so I'm expecting the major successful fork pretty soon.
[1] An option now forbidden[2] to most users of Wikipedia
[2] By "forbidden" I mean "put behind a wall of forced registration and yet
another freaking password to remember".
"Matthew Brown" wrote
> Thus, topics not known by your typical Wikipedian
> are more likely to be nominated for deletion. Most of these will be
> saved, but the aggravation of deletion debates is an offputting
> factor.
Yes, there is probably some deterrent factor. I think one can cope with it reasonably well, by cosmetic methods (tart the article up so that it doesn't look scruffy), and by doing a few more minutes on sourcing. Camouflage in a sense, but nothing artificial or that is an actual waste of time.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said
they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new
mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss
issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female
editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable
posting to.
It's called WikiChix - named after LinuxChix, the women-oriented
community for Linux users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinuxChix
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to encourage
to join the mailing list at
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l
There's also a wiki at http://wikichix.org/ - let me know your
username if you'd like an account there. Some of the pages are openly
editable, so even if you're not female, you are welcome to post your
comments at http://wikichix.org/wiki/Comments
The FAQs for the related communities at
http://wikichix.org/wiki/WikiChix#Related_communities answer a lot of
questions about why this was created, so please read those for more
information until we have our own FAQ.
Angela
--
Angela Beesley
wikiangela.com