WikiEN-l July 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

130 participants
136 discussions

An alternative to "critics"
by Steve Bennett 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]: -- Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. -- I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV. "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral - just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on the event. Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"? Steve

8 13

Dead wikipedians and how to really make a project boring to death
by Anthere 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Image:Norbert3.jpg_listed_fo… Norbert was a much appreciated wikipedian on the french wikipedia. He contributed a lot. Wikipedia is not produced by machines. But by living beings. We should value people and we should value good contributors. Norbert died some time ago. It was the first wikipedian we lost on the french project. At that point, he was the editor with the largest number of edits. And it was not only typos. He left us a last word just before he had an operation and did not survive it. We sent flowers to his burial. We told his family how important he was for us and they were proud of what he did for Wikipedia. A text was written about him. And for some reasons, it was translated on the english signpost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-10/News_a…. I uploaded the picture of Treanna on the english wikipedia. It was the picture he had on his user page. A bad image, but the only one we had for him. Certainly an image which will never be reused by anyone. But an image of Treanna. The crime : it was uploaded as a non-derivative license. So, it is proposed for deletion. And frankly, I can not ask Treanna any more if he would be nice enough to change that license to make it free by wikipedia definition. -------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians This page is also part of our history. People matter. Please do not delete editors pictures because they uploaded an image of them under a non-derivative licence. please try to find the balance between dogma and wikilove. Anthere

20 76

Re: [WikiEN-l] An alternative to "critics"
by Daniel P. B. Smith 01 Aug '06

01 Aug '06

"Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...". Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]: Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good. > On 7/31/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X'' >> have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source >> from newspaper X by So and So>" Be specific. Who are these >> "commentators" or "critics". If it is a general feeling, then is >> there some sort of poll that could show that? --LV > > Obviously specific quotes are the best solution. But the wiki model > strongly encourages the addition of "better" while waiting for "best". > > At least by saying "some commentators", you're not trying to imply > that it was a "general feeling" - it's simply *some* (preferably > notable) people expressed that opinion. I agree with Lord Voldemort... and not only does wordsmithing the weasel words not help _much,_ in this case I don't even think it's clear whether the proposed substitute helps at all. To me, the phrase "critics charge" is a warning that this represents a point of view that is held by a substantial number of people, but probably a faction, and probably a minority. "Some commentators" is vaguer and _softens_ the impression that a faction is being represented. But frankly I think the "better solution while waiting for the best" is to slap a {{citation needed}} on any sentence beginning "critics charge..." and delete it eventually if none is forthcoming. The funny thing, of course, is that an actual verbatim quote from one particular critic is usually stronger, more flavorful, and more precise than any attempt to summarize what "the critics charge." Which is better: "Critics charge that the United States Constitution failed to define a meaningful role for the Vice President" or "In 1932, John Nance Garner said 'The vice presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss.'" {{cite book|title=Cassell's Humorous Quotations|first=Nigel|last=Rees| publisher=Sterling Publishing Company, Inc.|year=2003|id=ISBN 0304365882}} [http://tinyurl.com/g9lal p. 760] "Critics charge" is journalistic language. _This is OK_ in a newspaper because the assumption (don't pile on me, I know about Jayson Blair), ah say the _assumption_ is that reporters are authorities, maintain journalistic standards, and wouldn't write "critics charge" unless it were reasonably accurate. It's not OK in Wikipedia.

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues
by Michael Snow 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

Steve Bennett wrote: > On 7/29/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote: > >> > Pop? Isn't that what you do to bubble wrap? >> > >> > Coke? Isn't that a fuel made from heating coal in the absence of >> air, or >> > a slang term for cocaine? >> >> Soda? Do you mean baking soda or the nonalcoholic part of scotch & >> soda? > > I can't think of any other interpretations of "soft drink". All it fundamentally means is something non-alcoholic, as in the opposite of "hard drink". Lemonade can be a soft drink (unless of course it's hard lemonade), but it doesn't qualify as pop or soda. As with freeway/motorway/etc., there is no single satisfactory term that both includes all that should be included, and excludes all that should be excluded. If you want to say carbonated non-alcoholic flavo(u)red beverage with absolute precision, that's what you have to say. --Michael Snow

3 2

So you think you can be a Wikipedia article
by daniwo59＠aol.com 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]]. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we going to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too? How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they wore in the audience. Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of these people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any of these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole criterion for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show. This isnt Dr Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who began her career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge anyone to tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included because of the role she played later as a TV shrink. With 1.25 million articles, our criteria for inclusion must be a tad more stringent, before we end up tossing Notability out the window. Danny

17 39

Lists of words
by Guettarda 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

It would appear that lists of words violate the provision that Wikipedia should not have articles which define individual words, nor should it include Lists of such definitions. However, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_words , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_slang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_phrases , among others. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Is this policy still being applied (in which case, *all* of these articles must be deleted), or not (in which case the wording of the policy needs to be changed). I have raised the issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists_of_… I don't know if all of these articles need to be deleted, or whether policy needs to be modified to reflect reality. But I think this needs to be determined in general, not determined piecemeal Ian

7 8

Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories for deletion/discussion issues
by Daniel R. Tobias 29 Jul '06

29 Jul '06

On 27 Jul 2006 at 20:41, Alphax wrote: > ScottL wrote: > > It has a map showing the geographic distribution of pop vs soda vs coke > > vs. other (usually soft drink). > > Pop? Isn't that what you do to bubble wrap? > > Coke? Isn't that a fuel made from heating coal in the absence of air, or > a slang term for cocaine? Soda? Do you mean baking soda or the nonalcoholic part of scotch & soda? -- == 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/

3 2

somewhat OFFTOPIC (was Re: Common sense exceptions to our copyright policy.)
by Anthony 29 Jul '06

29 Jul '06

On 7/27/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Take for example [[Nicole Kidman]]. One fair use image to illustrate who > we're talking about is okay. Having an entire gallery isn't. Not to nitpick, but the Nicole Kidman article has a *free* image, which should be enough to illustrate who we're talking about. A second one, [[Image:The hours-nicole kidman.jpg]], would probably be OK too, even though it's not free, if the article talked more about how Kidman looked in that movie. Anthony

2 1

Everyone _did_ see the article in The Onion?
by Daniel P. B. Smith 29 Jul '06

29 Jul '06

I don't read the whole mailing list all the time so this may have already been discussed to death... but everyone _did_ see the IMHO hysterically funny article in The Onion, "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence?" http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 "Subheadings include 'Origins Of Colonial Discontent,' 'Some Famous Guys In Wigs And Three-Cornered Hats,' and 'Christmastime In Gettysburg.' It also features detailed maps of the original colonies— including Narnia." ... "Founder Wales, a closeted homosexual and hot- dog freak, according to his user-edited bio on the site..." "On July 25, 1256, delegates gathered at Comerica Park to sign the Declaration Of Independence, which rejected the rule of the British over its 15 coastal North American colonies," reads an excerpt from the entry. "Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and ***ERIC IS A FAG*** know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America."

3 2

User:Hillman's arguments
by Jesse W 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

I just replaced the content of my user page with the following. I thought I would mention this on the list, also, as the resulting discussion might be useful. I find the arguments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman to be disturbing, sensible, and very worrying. I encourage everyone who reads this to go read them, and think about them. As I understand them, the central point is that Wikipedia, along with many other cultural forces, are encouraging convenience over correctness, i.e. it's more important to find an answer than the best answer. The specifics, which are as important as the general issues, are that, even as the absolute number of excellent article revisions stored on Wikipedia increases, the percentage of non-misleading article revisions is decreasing; i.e. people who want to use Wikipedia to mislead others are having more and more sucess. This also is very disturbing to me, and causes me to strongly reconsider my participation in Wikipedia - it is not good work to do your part in polishing a building which is being increasingly taken over by filth. I would be better off submitting corrections to resources which are not suffering from this maledy. This is saddening. I would love to hear any rebuttals, or even mere comments of sympathy, on my talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Jesse Weinstein

7 7

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 July 2006