WikiEN-l April 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

179 participants
353 discussions

WikiEN-L archives unavailable to search engines
by Earle Martin 15 Apr '07

15 Apr '07

I see the list archives now include this in their HTML. <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="noindex,follow"> How come? It's impeding the usefulness of having an archive at all. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

3 2

Law articles (was: Re: Opt Out for...)
by Earle Martin 15 Apr '07

15 Apr '07

On 10/04/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine It is interesting that there is nowhere in that article that states that it describes United States law (except a brief mention of the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah) - even in the large series box on the right-hand side of the article. This appears to be a fine example of systemic bias[0] (or more specifically, American Cultural Assumption[1]) in action. [0] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]] [1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AmericanCulturalAssumption -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

2 1

ValueWiki: Blogger code of conduct? Learn from Wikipedia
by David Gerard 15 Apr '07

15 Apr '07

Well, someone thinks we're still a nice project :-) http://blog.valuewiki.com/2007/04/12/blogger-code-of-conductlearn-from-wiki… - d.

6 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
by Fred Bauder 15 Apr '07

15 Apr '07

You are describing original research. Putting together information you have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm [mailto:macgyvermagic@gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 05:48 AM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies > >A newspaper article usually goes into detail about a specific event. >Biographies discusses a person's entire life. >If you require someone to already have a published biography, it looks like >you want to delete articles which can be written based on multiple newspaper >sources rather than one biography. (Either that or we have some semantic >issues again). Thing is, Wikipedia is often the only place that bothers to >put all the biographical info about someone in one place. Just because no >one collected the info before doesn't make them any less notable. The info >is there. We need to judge notability one what someone did. If someone wrote >about them, it provides the sources. But the way that was done has no >bearing on their notability. > >Mgm > > >On 4/9/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/8/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: >> > >From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com] >> > >Define "Not so notable". If you can do that well, then this idea might >> > >have merit, but currently it is far too vague and will just result in >> > >arguments over notability, rather than over content. >> > > >> > >> > Not so notable is the rough dividing line between public figures and >> those who are not. George W. Bush is a public figure as as most of those who >> regularly appear in the media. Those whose doings are not ordinarily covered >> by the media are not public figures, although something interesting may have >> happened to them and there has been spot coverage. >> > >> One way to determine notability sufficient to justify a Wikipedia >> biography is whether that person has already had a biography published >> by a reliable third-party source, either in a form of a newspaper >> article or a book. If we were to adopt a "no first biography" >> criterion, it would ensure not only that our subjects are truly >> notable, but would also help to ensure accuracy, because we'd have a >> published biography to base the Wikipedia article on. >> >> Sarah >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

4 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] Major dysfunction in RfA Culture
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 15 Apr '07

15 Apr '07

I would take a rather different line. I'm not 'endorsing' current RfA customs: I know too little about it. But I'm quite confident in asserting that _if_ routine vandal fighting and patrolling and other typical uses of admin powers needed constant scrutiny and support, then we'd know about it and it would be a constant topic of discussion. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

That whole WP:BADSITES controversy...
by Daniel R. Tobias 15 Apr '07

15 Apr '07

And, to continue on my train of thought from the last message, it's a real shame that the main critical sites are like that; I genuinely see a lot of good in the idea of an independent, critical-minded site that keeps watch on Wikipedia, holds it up to criticism where warranted and ridicule when it deserves it, and makes constructive commentary about what its problems are and how they might be solved. There's even a place for forums on which people banned from Wikipedia can have their say and explain why they think their ban was unjust. And it's good that there are places to talk about Wikipedia that aren't controlled by the same people who run Wikipedia itself, so that those in power aren't able to completely remove all checks and balances on the exertion of that power, by suppressing criticism whenever it hits close to home. It's just too bad that the places where this sort of thing can take place end up getting dominated by unconstructive criticism along the lines of "Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed!" (an actual thread subject on WR recently). -- == 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/

3 2

Opt out negative material in biographies
by andy.dyer9＠tiscali.co.uk 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

On 10 Apr 2007 at 19:17, "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote: > What would be the notability there? Merely entering (and even > winning) a wet T-shirt competition doesn't seem to be sufficient > notability to justify an article, since there are probably thousands > of girls in a similar situation. Precisely. If the encyclopedia allows such articles to be posted, then it opens the door wide open for abuse. Years later that woman or her husband may be standing for election or campaigning against environmental damage or fighting corruption or whatever. Her wealthy opponents can blackmail her into silence, and thereby badly damage democracy, by the use of Wikipedia. (Because, make no mistake, it's wealthy people who find ways to protect themselves from this stuff and dig it up against their opponents). I'm not sure of the complete answer (and I'm sure there are others much better qualified to speak than me). But I'd have thought that, as a rule of thumb, only people truly notable, and in some "notorious" fashion, should have this kind of trivial material added to their biographies. In most cases if people ask to have their biographies taken down, or "titillating" material removed, then we should do so. Otherwise, the likes of Daniel Brandt are indeed going to target people within Wikipedia, with equally unpredictable but harmful effects. ___________________________________________________________ Tiscali Broadband only £9.99 a month for your first 3 months! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/

2 1

Bureaucrats decide!
by David Gerard 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureauc… - d.

25 67

That whole WP:BADSITES controversy...
by Daniel R. Tobias 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

At a few points in the big debate over banning links to certain critical sites, the tactics and behavior of that policy's proponents were seeming to accomplish the impossible: making me gain some sympathy for the sites that were being so persecuted. However, it still only takes a quick look at those sites to make my blood boil and any sympathy I had for them to wither away; the arrogant idiocy displayed there is astounding. Nevertheless, I remain firm in my position that making flat bans on linking to any site is a bad policy. -- == 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/

1 0

Citizendium's assertions about material from Wikipedia
by Andries Krugers Dagneaux 14 Apr '07

14 Apr '07

On 4/14/07, jf_wikipedia <jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com> wrote: >> Are editors "licensing their edits to WP and >> retaining copyright"? >Yes. However, edits that modify text already in existence are derived >works and if they incorporate parts of someone else's text, Andries >cannot relicense. >-Matt I will remove the few and minor contributions of others and not just re-write in Citizendium what others wrote in Wikipedia. I am still hoping that somebody can take over editing the Wikipedia entry [[Sathya Baba movement]] after I was topic-banned in the [[arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba2]]. Please have a look at [[Sathya Baba movement]] and see if you can improve it. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the entry in Wikipedia will probably remain in its unfinished state because the arbcom banned the only serious contributor during its three years of existence. [[user:Andries]] Andries Krugers Dagneaux

3 2

← Newer
1
...
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
...
36
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 April 2007