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
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
"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.
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
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
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/
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
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."
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