I'm having a discussion over an AfD I created for Riverside Gardens over
Now, for me there is no notability, as it is just one of many gated
communities in China. However, the other editor seems to be of a
different opinion. Can I get some feedback on the opinion of notability
of such a subject?
On Jan 23, 2008 6:43 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/01/2008, Rama Rama <ramaneko(a)gmail.com> wrote (on commons-l):
> > 2) There is definitely a trend of professional photographers to request
> > credits under the image in articles. This is what they are accustomed to.
> > I (and a few others) think that we should make efforts to sensibilise our
> > users to this. We can definitely afford to credit people in articles. This
> > is a small concession which costs us very little and can benefit us greatly.
I think articles should also be attributed to their authors in the
body of the article. Every major encyclopedia does it. Certainly there
would be some debate about how much of a contribution should be
required for attribution, and what form the attribution should take,
whether real full names, wikipedia nicks, or real full initials.
Corrupt admins are deleting everything I say, and denying all my posts to
the mailing list, even though they are required to at the very least provide
an explanation for their denial. How can this be appealed? How can users
refer matters to mediation and arbitration when the cabal deletes their
>From a BoingBoing
Josh sez, "The folks at BMC (Black Mustang Club) automotive forum wanted to
> put together a calendar featuring members' cars, and print it through
> CafePress. Photos were submitted, the layout was set, and... CafePress
> notifies the site admin that pictures of Ford cars cannot be printed. Not
> just Ford logos, not just Mustang logos, the car -as a whole- is a Ford
> trademark and its image can't be reproduced without permission.
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> > It seems like they do have something of a systemic bias problem. Not that
> > en:wiki doesn't, but I doubt it's as bad as citizendium's.
> I expect both projects have a similar systematic bias, but it's really
> just a matter of priorities, rather than anything permanent.
Cough ... exactly how many articles does Citizendium have in German? Wikipedia (the project) wins that match 600,000-nil. The _priority_ for Citizens of non-English articles is where?
> naturally going to prioritise articles relevant to the
> English-speaking world. There are far more than 5000 articles relevant
> to the English-speaking world, so Citizendium hasn't got around to
> other articles yet, Wikipedia already has all the obviously important
> articles that we consider high priority, so we've started on the lower
> priority ones.
I doubt that's really the position. CZ has _installed_ some extra bias by its requirements to edit. I think that's just a fair observation on defining "systemic bias", meaning bias in coverage that is an unintended consequence of the composition of the community.
Anyway a brief surf around the place would suggest that its more "writerly" feel (as opposed to "editorly", which is what WP does quite well) has consequences, too.
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam