At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I'll be in London tomorrow for two nights. Camel and Artichoke in Lower
Marsh Street near Waterloo from 1830 on Tuesday. Tim Tams will be provided.
--
Peter in Singapore
> From: "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> When the mainstream media consistently uses blogs as reliable
> information for their stories, there's absolutely no reason why we can't
> do the same thing.
>
> -Jeff
It's a question of the "web of trust." My belief is that part of a journalist's skill involves knowing what sources to trust (and in obtaining reliable information from not-fully-reliable sources through various means, such as cross-checking with other not-fully-reliable sources). My belief is also that a journalist measures a blog posting, or anything else, against a large body of background that _he_ has, that _I_ don't have, that _he_ can use to judge the credibility of the source.
Just because the New York Times' source for _a_ story is _a_ blog doesn't mean that _any_ blog has the same reliability as The New York Times.
It's like saying that a "when mainstream surgeons consistently use scalpels as reliable tools for cutting into living flesh, there's no reason why we can't do the same thing."
Of course, if one believes that the existence of bad journalist and bad surgeons implies that journalists and surgeons don't genuinely possess any special skills, then it would follow that anyone can use a blog (or a scalpel) just as safely as a journalist (or a surgeon).
It was Dilbert's pointy-haired boss reasoned that "anything I don't understand must be easy..."
I posted this one a few days back; another keeper IMO.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20070420/cp.850292a055b2ece8b99a978d…
Get Fuzzy: April 20, 2007
----
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] We're famous!
> --- Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
>
> > On 16/02/07, the wub <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Meanwhile in good comics{{POV-statement}}, Cat and Girl
> > had a typically
> > > philosophical strip featuring wp the other day.
> >
> > Is there any page in the Wikipedia: namespace where we
> > links to
> > webcomics featuring WP are collected? If so, shall we
> > start one?
>
> In case someone did, another on WP's legendary accuracy and
> NPOV:
> http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/04/29/
>
> For those of you in need of retribution:
> [[Non Sequitur (comic strip)]]
> [[Wiley Miller]]
>
> ~~Pro-Lick
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
> http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
zero 0000 wrote
> I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Marc Riddell wrote
> This is what I am asking for in WP. That is why both the main and sub
> categories need to be entered into each Article.
I recall you saying all this some time ago, a propos your own view of what would be convenient. I'm not clear this actually convenient for most users of Wikipedia, i.e. to have large chunks of nested categories made explicit.
Can you not just accept that the system doesn't revolve about your needs?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
http://kevan.org/catfishing.php is one of the most delightful uses of
Wikipedia I've ever found.
Probably not a reason to maintain some of the stupider categories
(which tend to be the ones that make the game the most fun), but a
pleasant diversion, if nothing else, and, as I said, one of the best
uses of Wikipedia content I've seen yet.
-Phil
It has been suggested that people who are not particularly notable should have the option of requesting removal of their Wikipedia biographies. This suggestion has come up in the context of Daniel Brandt, who has long complained, but please address the general question.
I doubt very many people will bother to make such a request, and even if a few tens of thousands did, the loss to the utility and interest to the encyclopedia would be minimal. This would not apply to prominent persons, but would apply to subjects such as John Seigenthaler, whose article was so seldom accessed or edited that a major error remained there for months without being notice. If the person is not notable enough that we pay attention to its content, there is some risk just from having it.
Fred
Unless I'm mistaken--correct me, if so... Wikia.com is a privately held
company seperate from the WMF.
Why aren't links to all *.Wikia.com links covered by nofollow? A quick
glance at the HTML source for example on the Wikia article on
en.wikipedia.org shows that transcluded links to the privately owned Wikia
pages are not covered.
Why does Wikia get the benefit of the SEO from Wikipedia? If there was an
arrangement granted by the WMF for this, was it documented publicly? If so,
where? Thanks!
--
Regards,
Joe
I started a discussion at [[WT:BLP]] on the proposal that we implement
a variant of proposed deletion as follows:
It is proposed that this article be deleted as a biography of
a living individual which does not cite its references or
sources.
If you can improve the article by sourcing it, please edit
this page and do so. You may remove this message if you add
reliable independent sources. This template should not be
removed without first sourcing the article.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place
for 14 days. (This template was added: 26 April 2007.)
If you created the article, please don't take offense.
Instead, please improve the article so that it is acceptable
according to the policy on biographies of living individuals.
The idea would be to give a bureaucracy-free route to removing
*unsourced* biographies. The unsourced condition may be the result of
removal of questionable sources for negative statements, that should
not make a difference.
There's also a debate at [[WP:AN]] about this.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG