Except to get a lot of flack on a tool to "fix" BLPs with fact tags.
I anticipate a poor reception :)
Personally I think bots are the worst thing to ever happen to the project.
I can't think of one I like. Well maybe one.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
In a message dated 12/30/2008 9:35:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wilhelm(a)nixeagle.org writes:
Right but nobody will know to check back on the article. Generally
articles are monitored by watching the rc feeds, at least that is what
I used to do.>>
-------------------------------------------
The rate of new article creation is trivial compared to the mass of bytes we
already have.
In my mind, there is not, and never was, any need for anyone to monitor new
article creation.
Those eyes could be much better served on the old {{fact}} list.
We have a backlog *exceeding* one year.
That, imho, is far more important, than catching a one sentence stub.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/30/2008 2:37:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
my work and social life suffered>>
Now we see the problem.
Delete Work and Social Life. Replace with "Unemployed and No Life".
Problem solved.
Will "The Problem Solver" Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:11:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
In the article [[Person A]], Person B's article is a secondary source,
and can be summarized freely. But because a primary source cannot be
used for claims that are not easily verified by non-specialist
readers, Person A's response, which is a primary source for [[Person
A]], cannot be used the same way to respond.>>
If this seems what we intended, than all I can say is, it wasn't.
Involved hypothetical discussions are hard for me to follow without specific
examples.
In your example
A: blah blah blah god is dead etc
B: You're full of it
A: No I'm not
All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a
primary source.
A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source.
That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a
secondary source.
Opinion pieces are all primary material.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
I disagree on the synopsis of *why* the wording used was used, but
regardless I haven't yet seen any serious attempt to actually address the specific
issue. And when I asked about volunteering to address the specific issue, I was
essentially told the issue was more broad.
That seems to be a kind-of skittering out from under the problem, not really
an attempt to address it.
I don't think addressing it requires a change to the wording. I'd like to
see first, a serious attempt to address it on the specific article topic, and
*only when that is found to be impossible* then resort to examining the
policy language.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/30/2008 1:18:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
You weren't evil, but what you did was, and the truly evil people noticed.
My trying to walk the tightrope ended up helping enable evildoers on
Wikipedia, and that still bothers the hell out of me.>>
Wikipedia has always been about a battle being Good and Evil.
It's about time we all realized this.
Good is whatever you do, you want, and you think would be super duper.
Evil is everyone who thinks your ideas stink.
The only way Good can prevail, is in a civil war, where we exterminate the
Evil-doers.
I'm signing up recruits now. The war will start in two weeks.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Link me the essay Derida wrote and I will summarize it.
Then your problem will disappear and we won't have to hear any more about
him :) (or her or it or goat).
By the way, you are aware Phil, that subject's speaking about themselves, in
their own articles, have a wide latitude. Right?
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
<<In a message dated 12/29/2008 9:33:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk writes:
In many ways, the most effective solution would be a hard-and-bright
line like the DNB uses - no-one who is alive, end of story, and we
could deal with living people as tangential notes in their work. But
it certainly wouldn't be popular!>>
Oh silly that would never fly!
No article on George Bush? No article on John Major?
No article on Brad Pitt?
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I just want to throw this onlist *before* doing anything on wiki to
see what kind of thoughts are out there.
I would be interested in an extension of the BLP policy to go as far
as, those who explicitly op out, can have their biography removed for
the duration of their life. This I base on the number of complaints
on site and off site (via our otrs mechanism, for example). Keep in
mind, the English Wikipedia will be around for ages. Thoughts?
Best,
Jon-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAklYPJ0ACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtWhGgCgxE3P8uHcu3XiAK4ymNVFF2UU
nlsAn1eAnPFRNZfGtHqsuEShfhoyxMOv
=VMIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----