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
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/06, Sherool <jamydlan(a)online.no> wrote:
>> > The problem is though that a lot of people are remarkably resistant
>> > to taking any notice of instructions and warnings. They just want to
>> > upload cool images, and get very upset when we remove and delete them.
>>
>> Which is why we need to remove the upload link. If they need to hunt
>> around a bit before they can upload images, there's a chance they'll
>> run into the instructions.
>
> Simply making the upload link a link to upload instructions... and
> asking users to upload by forming a image redlink would actually do a
> lot to help. A lot of images get uploaded without ever being linked
> in.. and where an image is used is very helpful in figuring it out its
> status (for fair use images, at least).
While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more
copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea.
Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image,
I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make
people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload
forthcoming?
--Michael Snow
"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.
In case you didn't catch Comedy Central tonight, we should probably
keep an eye on the articles for The Colbert Report, elephants, and
Lutherans. (Together again!)