The AP has now latched onto the COO story, I caught this when checking out
Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317887,00.html
Now, I have previously argued that Doran wasn't notable on the talk page of
the article (both article and talk page are currently deleted and, I
presume, salted) and I will leave it to brighter minds than mine whether or
not major media reports make a difference to her notability or the
notability of the story. Nonetheless, people might want to put their
thinking caps on because somebody is much more likely to take the deletion
to DRV now. I'm posting this to the list as opposed to AN to reduce the
signal to noise ratio, knowing that there are many people moderated here
right now but that a range of opinions is still available and the list is
publicly accessible.
I feel kind of sad to be posting this, but given that the first round of
deletions and other actions led to some hard feelings all around, it's
probably better to develop an action plan before someone does something that
leads to unnecessary drama. I am AFK for the next 8 hours so won't be
involving myself in any discussion.
Risker
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/12/alttext_1…
* The Wikipedia community, faced with competition from Google's Knol
project, decides as a group that the only chance for survival is to
appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the policy
"Wikipedia:Jessica_Alba's_Breasts" is instituted. It requires every
article on Wikipedia to contain a picture of, reference to or citation
of one or both of Jessica Alba's breasts. This approach is so
successful that the rest of the internet just gives the hell up.
- d.
Hi folks,
We have just launched a new Wikipedia-based search engine -
http://www.seariki.com
The idea is to combine searching and browsing effectively. For example, we
find paths from a category to top categories, and hopefully this makes
navigating through category hierarchy easier.
At this time, only English and Chinese are supported, but we are working on
indexing more languages.
Any comments will be appreciated.
Thanks and happy holiday.
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand
three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but this
is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged
drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users involved.
This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
The last time I tried to get some additional comments on a user
category there was little to no response, so I thought some of you on
the mailing list might be able to bring some additional views on this.
I noticed a user pointing to [[Wikipedia:User categories for
discussion/Archive/October 2007#Wikipedians by mental and
physiological condition and subcats]] the other day, and I was a bit
surprised to see all of those categories did get deleted. I personally
know of a few times such categories were used to help out with article
collaboration, and even once during a debate about the handicapped
sign being used in templates. In the past I've recommended to people
that they were a good way to contact someone who wouldn't be bothered
by someone asking questions related to their condition. It's been my
assumption that when a user put themselves in such a category (or uses
the associated userbox) they were basically listing themselves as a
resource, as if to say "I have this condition, and I am inviting any
editor that is interested to ask me about it, or ask me about what
resources I know of that might help said articles". A lot of
Wikipedians have conditions, but don't have an active interest in
working on the related articles, but are still willing to help when
asked.
It also reminds me of something [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and
manga]] has done, where it has made a magazine and book listing where
users can list what books and magazines they have. So when someone
knows that an anime was talked about in a book, they can find who owns
the book and ask them for help, or how to cite the information.
While I agree with a great many of these deletion discussions, I think
people are not being reasonable in how things can and have been used,
or are not considering some of the points I've brought up.
I'm also confused as to why people seem to think that [[WP:MYSPACE]]
applies to anything that they don't see as helping Wikipedia.
Certainly, useless categories should be deleted, but being useless
does not mean something is being (or is even practical to be) used for
social networking. It also seems to set people off, in that since they
are assuming these categories are being used for social networking,
reasonable arguments that demonstrate wiki-related use will not be
given proper consideration.
Like I said, a lot of these deletions are dead on, but we're also
losing a lot of categories that were realistically usable. Should some
be taken to DRV? Should a kind of "rationale" page be created to help
avoid confusion? Are any of these categories realistically being used
for social networking, or are we overreacting? Are babies in lurking
in the bath water? Is it bath water in the first place? Green or
yellow? Up or down? Paper or plastic?
-- Ned Scott
I'm tempted to answer that with never. Too much room for
abuse, which the BP may or may not solve. We wouldn't know
until the BP document is made and tested to prove it works.
Until then, and after, a better option may be to limit it
to the wikinews articles that are first cited by other
reliable sources. Until then, it may as well be the White
House encyclopedia citing White House press releases.
--- Cool Hand Luke <failure.to.communicate(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> A particular dispute over a Wikinews reporter citing
> quotes from his own
> interview has turned into a generalized debate about when
> Wikinews should be
> an acceptable source. See this RS/N
>
thread.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinew…>
>
> Jimbo has suggested that Wikinews create a best practices
> document.
> BP-compliant articles would be verifiable and thus should
> be available to
> Wikipedia editors as a reliable source. See this
> Wikinews water cooler
>
thread<http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#I_want_to_h…>
> .
>
> I think that this is a great solution, which would answer
> the continual
> objections that Wikinews faces on our project. However,
> more editors should weigh in.
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shillhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lickhttp://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:31:23 -0500, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Switch to gmail, its suppressed. And, since it is, I sometimes forget
> to delete stuff (like the below).
That's the trouble with "helpful" features of some mail services and
clients; they encourage sloppiness on the part of their users.
--
== 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/