On 25 Jan 2007 at 02:25, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)"
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Fastfission wrote:
> >> Well, nobody has really called America the great melting pot earnestly
> >> for some time now (see [[melting pot]]).
> >>
> > What does it say now that Bush used the term in his State of the Union
> > speech? ;-)
>
> Eh, so long as nobody calls America a wok...
Multiple choice quiz:
America is most like a...
a) Melting pot
b) Crock pot
c) Frying pan
d) Flame broiler
e) Wok
--
== 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/
...NUKE [[WP:CIVIL]] as it's unworkable, increases uncivil conduct, and
encourages hypocrisy.
And I am serious. I also think [[WP:GA]] is incorrigible and unredeemable,
that is has lost it's credibility and is better put out of its misery
instead of remaining a mockery of its good intentions.
Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
On 26/01/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr> wrote:
> Typical complaints: an article (or a former version thereof) will, in
> increasing order of severity:
> * Contain true, but anecdotal or biasedly presented information on the
> school. (Example: three years ago, there was a party where students were
> drunk. Who cares? This happens everywhere.)
> * Contain false allegations against the school. Example: the school is a
> known drug trafficking spot.
> * Contain information on the private life of named individuals,
> especially minors. Example: calling a certain female student a slut,
> saying that such or such teacher is homosexual, or similar.
> * Contain libellious accusations against named individuals. Example: the
> principal was accused of statutory rape.
> That kind of things probably comes from students or former students.
> They may stay for days because these articles are largely unpatrolled. I
> suspect those who do that do not quite understand the severity of what
> they do, that they can create real harm, especially when individuals are
> named.
> Complaints come from school administrators or parents.
The on-wiki way to deal with this is let people in the schools project
know there's a serious problem and these articles need serious
patrolling, with the level of concern of living biographies. (I say
the schools project because that's where the school entry advocates
gather.)
Anyone from the schools project on wikien-l? Can you get some
patrolling together?
- d.
Just got my latest "Funny Times," which contains a cartoon by Andy
Singer... I can't find it online, sorry... it's headed "Alternative
Forms of Government," and one of the options is "Wikigovernment:"
"Anyone can appoint or fire government officials, online. But someone
else can undo those appointments, until the entire nation is mired in
internet voting gridlock." In the picture under the caption, a
smaling woman says "I was President for two minutes," and a grinning
man says "Now it's my turn!"
Omegatron wrote
> For instance, machine
> translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor
> quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is
> more important than "in their own language".
Unless they have got better recently, I wouldn't characterise machine translations as 'into' the target language.
> If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the
> others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of
> priority?
>
> Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or
> changed? Who has the power to change it? Is this simply a top-down
> authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular
> Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and
> priorities of the project?
I expect the WMF Board can also issue mission statements, and update them.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Francis Tyers wrote
> The only people who think that having to cite and verify articles with
> reliable sources is "abuse" are the kind of people who think "oh no my
> pokemans character studies are at risk again!"
You of course have a reliable source for this statement.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> Similarly, most vandalism is done anonymously, but most anonymous edits are
> not vandalism.
Ah bloody hell. That was supposed to be my oh-so-smooth transition to an
obligatory bitch about anonymous page creation. So much for timing.
Anyway. Anon page creation, Susan gets confused and winds up at AfC, poor Susan,
salt of the earth, etc etc.
Dan
> From my experience on Wikipedia, unsourced articles are very unreliable
> and may have plenty of wrong facts. Most of thse wrong facts are not
> added due to malice (though that is not uncommon), but they were
> added by people either from their (inevitable unreliable) memories,
> from blogs and forums, which, on average have an awful lack of
> accuracy or they are simply misinterpretations.
>
This may be true. But my sense is that most of the right facts were also added
the same way.
Similarly, most vandalism is done anonymously, but most anonymous edits are not
vandalism.
Dan