MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> You shouldn't judge a group based on the rantings of a single clueless
> individual.
Three or four years ago, Jimbo ranted about all of the external links he
was finding in articles. IIRC, his point was that we didn't need any external
links, that a Wikipedia article ought to stand on its own, and be better
than any other website on the subject.
Maybe we should have listened to him.
Geoff
On 25/01/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr> wrote:
> In any case, I think the Foundation should issue a clear statement that
> admins, especially from OTRS, can CSD:A7 school articles that do not
> demonstrate notability. Otherwise it's not manageable.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make OTRS happy, any more than it
is to make Articles For Deletion happy.
- d.
cc'd to wikien-l - it's not entirely clear why you left the wiki
you're actually talking about out of the loop here.
Gee - ZakuSage abuses me, and what happens when I respond? Assterion blocks
me for 2 weeks, and his ass buddy Yamla locks my user page?
You are a real fucking laugh riot, Zakusage I guess really owns that PSP
page huh.
RunedChozo
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/01/what_actually_i.html
I added two lengthy comments on the issue (nothing I haven't been
saying) basically asking for ideas.
I did take the opportunity for a dig at open-source/free software
advocates who flood our FOSS-related articles with advocacy and
rubbish, because they' re the people who make sure that [[Linux]] will
not be a featured article any time soon even if [[Microsoft]] is.
HEY ADVOCATES! PLEASE GO AWAY AND LEARN WHAT NEUTRALITY IS!
- d.
On 26/01/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm just getting ready for C4 to pick me up, take me to their office
> > and interview me for tonight's news re: the Microsoft-Wikipedia issue.
> > If someone could record it and throw us an MPEG afterwards, that would
> > be most helpful!
> I watched the news but didn't see anything. John Reid did say
> something stupid. :)
Apparently so ;-) My apologies to my fans. NO COKE AND CHICKS FOR ME.
Probably C4 or ITN will use the tape in six months as a [[dead
donkey]] ;-) Might end up on lunchtime news, watched avidly by bored
housewives and students. Perhaps we'll draw in a few more Susans.
- d.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
>I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears
>far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
>
>Ec
And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
Fred
David Gerard wrote:
> So, regular editors. How do we set up a page or forum where companies
> and people written about can express editorial concerns (rather than
> e.g. legal ones), such that they know people will at least look over
> them with thought and improve the articles from there?
Dare I play the devil's advocate here and say that we should allow this sort
of thing?
Hear me out: all we need to do is say that we do not condone, promote,
discourage, or prohibit paid editing by firms, but make it explicitly clear
that such edits are, at best, treated as any other, and, at worse, watched
closer than other edits by the general community. All edits must still
conform to [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], must be licensed via the GFDL, and may be
rejected completely if [[WP:C|consensus]] is as such, regardless.
It's an interesting situation. On one hand, we have a pile of posts on the
en mailer talking about the necessity for accuracy and citation. On the
other hand, we're quite militant about not letting third parties commission
other third parties to provide information that may not be as easy for Joe
Sixpack to grab and add to an article.
And yes, I know, MyWikiBiz, etc - I'm not convinced it was handled properly,
but this isn't the thread for that discussion - but I'm not sure we
shouldn't be tolerant of this sort of thing. After all, Microsoft merely
got caught - it's likely happening anyway without our knowledge.
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.