In a message dated 12/4/2008 7:41:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk writes:
and the fact that it discourages specific citation by page
number.>>
-----------------
Number one failing. Imho.
Esp. for those of us who make our living in research, we really do need
those page numbers.
I don't want to read an entire index-less book, just to find the one
quotation referenced.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> 2008/12/3 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt <st09039(a)mi.uib.no>:
> >> > I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen
> >> > Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental
> >> > Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some
> long
> >> > time contributors voting to delete it.
> >>
> >> Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted,
> >> that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete
> >> anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be
> >> indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a
> >> problem at all.
> >
> > Not *at all*? Doesn't it waste everyone's time?
>
> Well, it uses up people's time, but the alternative is things not
> getting deleted that should be, so I don't consider it a waste of
> time.
>
The alternative to proposing things for AFD all the time that shouldn't be
deleted is to not delete things that should be? I don't see how that
follows.
If a system of community prosecution was constantly putting innocent people
on trial, would that not be a problem at all? The alternative is to not
put criminals in jail, right?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Charlotte Webb
<charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
>
> To the same extent that a non-fatal runway incursion indicates good
> traffic control (read: minimally).
>
Actually, it's less indicative of the system working, because the sample is
naturally skewed towards the articles which are not deleted. I suppose the
sample set includes articles which were deleted and then undeleted, although
I've even heard those referred to as evidence that the system is working.
Let me clarify some things:
Saboto215 is a sockpuppet account. It is my sockpuppet. Ryan Postlethwaite
found it. Durova is correct.
I am not a meatpuppet of JB196. I know JB196's name from memory. For me to
be a meatpuppet of JB196 would require me to have communicated with him at
some point. I haven't, and have no intention of doing so. Durova thinks I'm
involved, but she hasn't said how. She may have been trying to imply that I
was a meatpuppet of JB196. She can choose to believe the truth, or not. She
seems to have chosen the latter.
I have also never communicated with Burntsauce or Eyrian, and I don't
remember ever talking to Alkivar either. I had not even heard of Burntsauce
or Eyrian before the cases, but Alkivar was quite active and I have seen him
comment on various issues. I do not know who any of these people are, and
have no intention of finding out.
What Durova is not telling is that after she said she was "signing off the
list", I sent an e-mail to the never-read gmail address nadezhda.durova AT
gmail.com. The e-mail is copied below.
--Jonas
----------------
From: "Jonas Rand" <joeyyuan(a)cox.net>
To: <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Hello
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:18:09 -0800
Hello Durova,
I didn't realize that the name was removed by now. It must have been some
time since I read the page, as I last remember seeing the name there. I
remembered the name, and I didn't think it was a secret (as he made an edit
saying he was Jonathan Barber), but Alison removed in in 2007. I remembered
that name and then did some searching on him not long ago. I know Grawp's
name as well; that does not mean that I have ever communicated with Grawp
(indeed I have not). I don't know how these things stick in my memory,
though.
Yes, it is a mere coincidence that the date aligned with the arbitration
cases and the Eyrian thing. I have nothing to do with JB196. I know, if I
were so inclined, how I would go about contacting him (based on the search
that I did), but I don't remember the address and I would have to do the
search again. I have never e-mailed JB196, or contacted him via other means
(such as a forum). You should ask him if he's ever communicated with a Jonas
Rand.
The circumstance that I "didn't want to discuss" was that I wanted to make
the hoax more elaborate, setting up a blog network referencing "Nikita
Molotov" and advertizing the promotion. I reconsidered and thought that was
too much work, so I decided not to do it. That's it.
Jonas Rand
In a message dated 12/1/2008 2:00:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
This isn't as rare as people might think either; I'd
say the *majority* of academic-press books make at least one significant
claim that is controversial in its field, often without even admitting
that the claim is controversial.>>
-------------------
Which is why Wikipedia needs to attract and retain expert editors who can
at-a-glance spy an unusual but well-sourced claim, and either relegate it to
Talk for further discussion, or counter-balance it with another source stating
the opposite or watering down the conclusion.
Will Johnson
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
I recently sent an unblock request to Tiptoety, asking him to post it on the
Admins' Noticeboard, as he said he would on IRC. Durova made a comment on
it, and then she wrote a long-winded addendum to it that I really didn't get
the point of, and am unsure of how to respond to. It seems to me that she
wasn't accusing me of anything, as I could make out no clear accusation, but
why did she write all of that? For nothing? I don't think that she was
accusing me of being JB196, because if she read the long term abuse page on
him, she would see that his real name is Jonathan Barber, and that he is a
wrestling commentator who promotes himself. Then again, she's accused me of
not being as young as I say I am, and she may think that I am a made-up
person. A Yahoo! search on my name can disprove this. Any connection between
me and JB196 is purely coincidental. I have never even communicated with
Alkivar and Eyrian (who have been accused of editing for JB196), let alone
JB196, and I surely didn't "proxy" for him.
I don't know what to say in response to her speech, except that I cannot
understand a word of it.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
Jonas Rand
Because myself and others have been frustrated by the lack of good
stats on the number of active editors on the English Wikipedia, I have
compiled some stats on the editing frequency on enwiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_frequency
I am going to forgo any extensive analysis for now. But I will say
that these trends mostly mirror trends seen elsewhere, with a peak in
early 2007 followed by a decline and then leveling out as we go
towards the present.
In September, 130,000 registered users and 525,000 anons made at least
one edit to an article. If you define "active editors" as those
making at least 20 article edits per month then 14000 registered users
and 6000 anons met that threshold in September.
-Robert Rohde
On one hand, it would be pretty stupid for a person to rely on WP for
drug interaction information, but it also might be wise for us to
institute some kind of disclaimer at the top of pages related to drugs
(over-the-counter as well as prescription).
Matt
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:16:46 +0000
> From: "David Gerard"
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] How's our coverage of medications?
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE4AN7BO20081124
>
