WikiEN-l March 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

181 participants
397 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

"Oldak Quill" wrote > On 29/03/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > > Marc Riddell wrote: > > >on 3/28/07 1:03 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >>No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones. > > >I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article on any > > >person - living or dead - is RESPECT. > > Exactly. That's much better than basing a distinction on the simple > > fact that the dead can't sue. > > Ec > Respect is too vague and variable a notion for a multicultural venture > like Wikipedia to base policy on. Certainly. While the dead cannot themselves sue, read [[Julian Bell]] for the high-profile case of [[Hong Ying]]; in which a Chinese court found that the dead could be defamed (by a work of fiction). We have _never_ allowed general arguments on respectfulness to condition what we will allow in enWP. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

4 5

Stable versions (was Re: Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can't edit)
by Steve Bennett 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

On 3/28/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: > I would tend to agree. The "stable versions" feature should make a lot > of this unnecessary. Where is "stable versions" at, and what exactly is the proposal being implemented? Anyone have a definitive link? What are we going to see? Will the community have any say over whether it is implemented? What if we don't like it? Steve

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt elsewhere (was Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still)
by Denny Colt 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Brandt_posting_H… And now Brandt is accusing Thatcher131 of Libel on the Banning Policy page. - Denny

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

"David Gerard" wrote > On 28/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:54:24 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >the > > >blind idiot worship of print sources in [[WP:RS]] doesn't help make us > > >a better encyclopedia. > > > That really helps move the debate along... > I find it hard to describe it otherwise. Look at this thread. Tell me > how anyone who's ever actually been written about could regard the > press as the infallible source of reliability it's being painted as. Well, to be fair - not all print sources are newspapers - not all newspapers are the same - and not all of us regard writing about breaking news as central to the encyclopedia. The policy on reliable sources has to cover the entire range of articles, from tabloid celebrities to scholarly antiquarianism. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study
by Fred Bauder 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 09:46 AM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study > >On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly >> mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or >> however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article >> about him. > > >If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in >an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), >then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise >it'll be readded and readded and readded. > > >- d. This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular editors. Fred

9 14

Funniest thing in a while...
by Steve Bennett 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

I just don't know how to react to this one. A while ago I wrote a stub on a pretty dodgy company called [[PayPerPost]] that pays bloggers to write nice things about advertisers' products. Today I notice some new text - mostly fairly positive about the company, but not too horrendous. The source is "willifordblog.com", and the (new) user is called Mwilliford - coincidence? Hmm... So I go to his blog, and here's the first post, entitled: "I'm on wikipedia" -- today, my buddy Ted Murphy wrote in the payperpost blog about them not having much on their page on wikipedia so I logged in and edited the payperpost page. I'm pretty excited that I got something on there. Check it out: PayPerPost is an advertising company that was started by Ted Murphy and was designed to connect advertisers with bloggers. It started out under the name BlogStar Network and quickly became one of the most talked about companies on the internet. After requiring disclosure following an FCC ruling, the company quickly became home to over 15,000 bloggers and big name advertisers such as Hewlett-Packard. In early March 2007, while still in Beta, they rolled out segmentation which let advertisers target specific blogs and let bloggers make more money. Some bloggers reported making over 100 dollars a day. PayPerPost spawned numerous companies that offered advertising on blogs such as ReviewMe, CreamAid, Blogitive, and Blogsvertise. None of these were able to offer the opportunities of PayPerPost or copy their number of bloggers. PayPerPost has forums with thousands of members that are very active and vocal and through these forums helped PayPerPost become what it has become. -- (that second paragraph is verbatim the text that he added, after my initial stubby sentence.) I'm still giggling over this sentence, "I'm pretty excited that I got something on there." Um, what to do next? Steve

2 1

Citizendium to launch this week
by Keith Old 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

G'day folks, Associated Press reports that Citizendium will launch this week. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm 'This week, Sanger takes the wraps off a Wikipedia alternative, Citizendium<http://www.citizendium.org/>. His goal is to capture Wikipedia's bustle but this time, avoid the vandalism and inconsistency that are its pitfalls. Like Wikipedia, Citizendium will be non-profit, devoid of ads and free to read and edit. Unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium's volunteer contributors will be expected to provide their real names. Experts in given fields will be asked to check articles for accuracy." More in story. It will be interesting to see what they actually deliver as opposed to talking about delivering. Regards Keith Old

26 48

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can't edit
by Daniel P. B. Smith 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

> bobolozo wrote: >> We now have about 1500 articles in >> Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP >> addresses can't edit. I picked a few at random, and >> most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles >> which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address, >> which was over months ago and there was no reason to >> believe it would ever occur again. >> >> This is in violation of one of our basic principles. What basic principle is that? I thought Wikipedia's basic principles were a) to be free (as in freedom), and b) to be an encyclopedia. Everything else is a means to that end, not a "basic principle." Anyone _can_ edit any Wikipedia article, because anyone can create an account. And the account name can be pseudonymous. And, anyone _can_ edit any WIkipedia article, because they are all licensed under the GFDL. What they cannot do is: Edit a Wikipedia article --without creating an account --and host that edited version --on the Wikipedia website --in the main namespace.

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] change RS/BLP etc to not say 'blogs' (was Blog Entries (Bauer fork))
by Denny Colt 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Or, put another way, what is it about > Movable Type that somehow corrupts her words when her speaking the > exact same text aloud at a transcribed lecture or in an interview > would be OK? > > -Phil Why don't we just change BLP and RS immediately to not say blogs? It has been demonstrated here to be a red herring to actively--I'll say this... *discriminate* against what is becoming the most common publishing format on the entire internet. Mass-replace "BLOG" with "unreliable source" or "unreliable website" if you want to be internet specific, and done. The current policy inappropriately actively discriminates and is biased in its wording... -- - Denny

7 11

April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught
by MacGyverMagic/Mgm 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

Based on my experience in previous years, I have no doubt April 1 will bring out a lot of pranksters. We had a lot of mess before. Are there any preparations to keep things under control this year? If not, we should organize something ASAP. Mgm

25 51

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
40
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l March 2007