Could someone with a technical background give me the latest on accessing WP from a current mobile phone, such as an iPhone? Is what is said at [[Wikipedia:WAP access]] the last word?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Message-ID: <Xns9A2BA4F6679BFwhhvans(a)news.albasani.net>
"AFAICT, though, the Wikipedia model appears to accept "has been
posted to Wikipedia by multiple contributors" as constituting
verification.
Wikipedia's main weakness is that, at base, it's a pub conversation.
It's a large pub conversation, and is open to contributions from
passers-by who know their onions, but it's still basically a bunch of
interested people who might -- or might not -- know much about
something, having a chat."
Hey!
Just a quick question on CSD:A7. I had speedy tagged a gated community
(i.e. a development run by a company, see the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_Garden_%28Shenyang%29 ) for
speedy deletion according to A7 (no notability, company). The admin who
removed it said A7 didn't apply to locations. Does a gated, commercial
development count as a location?
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
P.S: I put them up for deletion at WP:AfD now anyhow, just for future
reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback
So, have we come to the point where User Rights:Developer trumps User
rights:Editor?
As pointed out on WP:AN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipe…,
the difference between the ratios was not statistically significant from
last time to this time.
If wikipedia is going to devolve into a strictly hierarchical caste
structure, the project will suffer immensely for it.
--Avi
--
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adult-child_se…
This AfD raises a number of interesting questions for Wikipedia -
* How does Wikipedia handle pedophilia related articles? Haphazardly,
in a coordinated way, not at all?
* Is there a method for protecting editors from the sort of exposition
that goes on at sites like Wikisposure.com?
* Can we reasonably expect an article like this that appears to be a
POV-fork to become sufficiently referenced and erudite such that it
isn't a magnet for pedophilia POV-warriors?
* In the past, self-identified pedophiles have been banned immediately
based only on that identification. Now that they have learned to not
self-out (as evidenced by some of the diffs linked to on the
Wikisposure page) is there a 'next step' for dealing with tendentious
editing on this issue?
* The Pedophilia Article Watch (might be messing up the name) is
essentially a research group that seeks out and counters
pro-pedophilia or seemingly pro-pedophilia articles and article edits
(I think). This is obviously a POV-based project, but it represents a
POV that I think few would disagree with. Still, what is the status of
a project like this?
Interested to hear a spectrum of opinions about this,
Nathan
Wider audience for commenting requested...
A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via
Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_exemption_policy talk
page
The proposed policy in its "needs to be worked on" form is located at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_exemption_policy project
page
Best regards,
Merc
Postscript: I have also posted this to the foundation mailing list die to
the large interest in this type of change, I believe it may be of interest
to the foundation mailing list audience.
I can view articles, and even use the edit window's preview function, but I
can't save any changes.
--
Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P
President Congregation Knesseth Israel
http://www.ellingtonshul.org/
elipongo(a)gmail.com
http://elipongo.blogspot.com/
Hey!
I've been involved in my first, and hopefully last, dispute over the
People's Republic of China article. An editor named Otolemur
crassicaudatus
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Otolemur_crassicaudatus)
keeps pushing POV and removing certain images (polution in China,
Tiananmen protests) and text that is NPOV written and well sourced. He
seems to be generally pushing POV, as his AfD on [[Muslim population
growth in India]] shows.
What is the best way to deal with such problematic editors? I have left
a message on his talk page and will wait what happens. But what if he
starts doing it again? It's troublesome having to keep an eye on one
editor, just because he doesn't believe that negative aspects can be
written in a NPOV way/
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Andrew Miller wrote:
> I'm not familiar with 'consumer's surplus'. What does it mean?
Peter Spiro replied:
> Consumers' surplus exists in markets where all consumers pay the same
> price for the same good or service. Consumers are all different people,
> and the good or service X is more important (and hence more valuable) to
> some people than others. However, in a competitive market, the price is
> actually determined by what it's worth to the marginal consumer who
> values it the least. All the other consumers are getting more than
> their money's worth, so to speak, and this is their surplus.
>
> In non-competitive markets, such as airlines, the company charges more
> for the same flight to different types of customers, attempting to grab
> back this surplus. There's an article on the concept at Wikipedia[...]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_surplus
I like your explanation better: especially with the example, it is
easier to understand. Now I wonder:
How can Wikipedia get contributors to make articles less technical and
easier for non-experts to understand?
* i.e. add examples?
* Or have an initial "easy explanation" section then a later advanced
explanation section?
* Or what?
Cheers,
--
Jason Spiro: corporate trainer, web developer, IT consultant.
I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more.
Contact me to discuss your needs and get a free estimate.
Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
I think that we might be able to create a Tutorial:* namespace when we
get quite a few more Signpost tutorials. I think that it'd be easier
than having to dig up those tutorials by searching through the Signpost
archives. Thoughts?
Jonathan