At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Just to let you guys know, prescriptive, descriptive and most
importantly 'thoughtful' essays are welcomed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethics
Best wishes to all Wikipedians for the new year
While I was researching *why* New York Brad was "forced to resign", since no
one here seems to want to state that Daniel Brandt revealed his real name and
the law firm for which he works ---- I found this interesting article.
_http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html_
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html)
While gives a big overview of the whole Overstock.com issue and related
topics.
I still have no *clear* idea of what naked short selling actually is.... but
wow what a lot of new topics to research!
Even ED doesn't really go into the whole thing in a way that makes the
issues clear. They really need to hire a new writer, and the folks at WR respond
in one or two short sentences to a whole lot of underlying detail. Like that
one guy said "I see the crumbs, wheres the loaf of bread" in the whole
Alison-Amorrow "he's editing from where I work" fiasco.
I'm rambling. It's just much easier when you edit from your own name, and
have nothing to hide. Linda Mack? MI5 ? Google-Watch?
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
On 18 Jun 2008 at 00:30:34 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
> It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but
> that has not consistently been borne out by the facts. To say that we
> will have the opportunity to look at it again is either na?ve or a POV
> push. Nobody is trying to overthrow a ruling as it related to the
> parties involved in that particular case. Most of us do not follow
> Arbcom cases, and to not participate in their petty details, so it would
> be grossly improper to have such a ruling extrapolated onto everyone else.
And in this case, the remedy was attached to a case that didn't seem,
on its face, to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue the
remedy was addressing; it was a case about the formatting of
reference quotes, about as "wiki-wonky" a topic as you can imagine,
and got very little attention even from those who regularly follow
what the ArbCom is up to, compared to some more drama-intensive
ArbCom cases going on at the same time.
ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy and
is not obliged to follow precedent, but in this case they seem to
have made policy, and done so in a highly stealthy manner seemingly
designed to be placed in force with as little community comment or
notice as possible. They perhaps hoped that it would remain beneath
the radar in the usual drama venues until it began to be quietly
enforced.
A more above-board manner of adopting such a remedy, if the ArbCom
were insistent on doing it, would be to have had a case specifically
on the subject of BLP enforcement and its failures, with parties who
were involved in BLP controversies and had a live dispute in that
area (the function of ArbCom, after all, is to resolve disputes, not
start them). Then, the community would know that a sanction in that
area was being proposed and could present relevant evidence for or
against it. Instead, the actual case has (as far as I could see) not
a single piece of evidence on its evidence page that relates to the
subject of this remedy.
--
== 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/
Hi,
I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TSgt_Goodman_inspects_newest_member_of_f…
is used in some pages at wikipedia.
There are reasons to suspect that the image has been altered (and I
must admit, edited in a very poorly fashion).
The sharpness of the monitor image does not correspond to the
sharpness of the surrounding items. The monitor image is beyond the
monitor screen at the lower left corner.
Even if someone considers such an image to be suitable for using it in
Wikipedia, it should be a standard procedure to at least mention the
editing (assuming that there was one).
Mathias
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:03:32 +0100, "David Gerard"
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 Angela Anuszewski <angela.anuszewski(a)gmail.com>:
>
> >> What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
>
> > If I never subscribed to this mailing list, I would have never heard of
> > him. :)
>
> Am I one of the few people who had heard of him? He was that
> anti-Google crank who ascribed his low search ranking to malice on
> their part. Of course, since then he's worked extremely hard to make
> himself as famous as possible, using Wikipedia to this purpose.
I'd heard of him, also, before I'd even heard of Wikipedia; this was
also via his anti-Google activism, which I saw as sour-grapes whining
on his part.
--
== 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/
In a message dated 6/30/2008 10:57:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
Angela does make a valid point. The biggest factor contributing to DB's
notability has been the persistent debate over his notability. Maybe
there's a lesson in that somewhere.>>
-------------
I would think that the CEO's of any stock-exchanged company would be
notable, just from that alone. I have no idea what the market value of
Overstock.com is, but certainly it is, or was, at one time something substantial?
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
It occurs to me that, in several years of fighting for a more
inclusionist stance on fictional topics, I've never been thoroughly
explicit about why I care.
I am a PhD student in English focusing on popular culture. I have
written and taught on comics, video games, television, films, and all
manner of obscurities. I am, in this area, not just an editor of
Wikipedia. I am a serious user of it. I routinely use Wikipedia to
look up and check basic facts about fictional subjects - what episodes
a minor character appeared in, who the creator of an obscure 70s DC
comics villain was, what the plot of a random episode of something is.
I use Wikipedia for background information to decide if something is
worth looking into in more detail. I don't cite it, or use it in place
of the primary source for close readings. But if I need a quick throw-
away fact or to know if looking into something is going to be worth my
time, Wikipedia is useful.
When an area that has been thoroughly worked on has not been decimated
by deletion and notability police, it is an invaluable resource that
often has not been duplicated elsewhere. There is no other place on
the Internet where I can go for some of this information. When
articles are deleted, the information and work that went into them are
gone, and I cannot get at them. For a handful of shows with active
Wikia projects the information gets mirrored elsewhere, but for a
large amount of stuff, deleted is gone.
Plot summaries, cast lists, biographies of fictional people, etc -
these things are not "fancruft." They are information that I use for
serious scholarly research. Regularly and routinely. When they are
deleted, my work becomes harder. When they are present, I can save
hours of searching for minor details.
I am all for adding more in-universe material, and cutting summaries
and the like to manageable lengths. I do not advocate scene by scene
or chapter by chapter analyses. But on the other hand, it's
tremendously useful to be able to get a general plot of a television
series from the first episode up to the present. Useful. To real
research.
When the information is easily verifiable (as in-universe information
almost always is), the purpose of a notability guideline is to
restrict Wikipedia to useful information. The "multiple independent
sources" rule has, in the past, been a somewhat effective way of
handling this. But we must not forget that the point of a notability
guideline is to make sure that Wikipedia is limited to only useful and
important subjects.
Plot summaries, episode descriptions, minor characters, etc are
useful. They are important. To real, peer-reviewed research. We are
not talking here about webcomics that end after three weeks, or about
obscure garage bands. In most of these cases we are talking about
television shows with audiences in the millions. People study these
things. They are legitimate objects of academic research. And
Wikipedia's coverage of them helps. It is an area where Wikipedia
directly serves the public good.
Please stop deleting this stuff. Thanks.
-Phil Sandifer
I've tried looking pairwise up on wikipedia and get some queer math. can
anybody explain simply why election results are shown as "pairwise"? is this
an american thing or how bookies work out odds for coupe de triomp?
