But these links are only the *current* version of the talk page.
So the fix to "libel" or whatever is simply deletion, and a new dump/load
which is essentially the exact same fix in-wiki. So no-indexing talk would do
exactly nothing to address the supposed concern.
You would still have new libel showing up in-wiki, and depending on the
dump/load timing that would or wouldn't get saved for another day or whatever on
mirrors, and then vanish. No indexing doesn't make it appear or go-away from
google under that scenario. And when it appears, it doesn't make it stay longer
or shorter.
If I'm wrong, why am I wrong?
Will Johnson
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
The title of this thread is a false dichotomy.
There is not necessarily any loss in "quality" in making something more
comprehensive. What you get rather is a bell-curve where the tailings have few,
perhaps only one editor.
However if that one editor is moderately good at being a Wikipedian, they may
be generating top-notch articles. Just ones with few other interested
parties.
The idea that we need to stick to a smaller set of core articles in order to
maintain quality has no evidence. Some of the articles with many editors are
in sad shape.
Will Johnson
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
"The barber shaves every many who shaves himself."
The problem here is article and source, of if-you-will source and
meta-source.
We can certainly impugn a source using ad-hoc methods. We have no firm
guidelines for how we credit or discredit a source. So we can certainly state and
try to achieve consensus on the idea that this book is not itself a reliable
source. If someone wants a *source* for that, they should realize they are up
on the meta level now, not in article space.
Will Johnson
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
In a message dated 7/29/2008 6:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dkatz2001(a)gmail.com writes:
> Interesting. So now under our "Verifiability, not truth" policy we can
> use this as a reliable source.
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:16 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.barryhand.ie/wikipedia-gaff-finds-its-way-into-book/>>
----------
Sure, provided that you also cite this article pointing out that it's not
true.
Will Johnson
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm going to split the prior thread because its off topic for the thread.
Some have stated to me on the list (Majorly) and on IRC (Others) that I
should not be using the mailing list to float ideas.
May I have one of the list mods define the purpose and mission of this
list please?
- --
Best,
Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkiLZ1QACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtWMRgCgt0xLclXqhm3uh5ixKBOAgSZD
TlkAn27OiwF9BXrIneI2hsf9ppZNJFhF
=CkCk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Two quick notes:
- Edit this Wiki: A reminder that the community is invited to help
write the last chapter of The Wikipedia Story, details below
- Final podcasts from Wikimania 2008 are now posted to
WikipediaWeekly.org, descriptions below
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
-----
"The Wikipedia Story" wiki invites Wikimedia community members to
help write the "next chapter" for Wikipedia. The result will appear
in the hardback book "The Wikipedia Story: How a bunch of nobodies
created the world's greatest encyclopedia" a nonfiction work which
will be released in January 2009 by Hyperion in the US.
Many already know I have been writing this book for over a year, after
being a community member for over five years, attending three
Wikimanias and conducting countless interviews with Wikipedians around
the world.
I'm inviting the community to collaboratively write the
last chapter as a demonstration of what the Wikipedians
can do. Details can be found here:
Link: http://wikipediastory.com/wiki/Main_Page
Recent changes: http://is.gd/16B2
-----
Wikipedia Weekly podcasts available:
Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections
http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/07/28/episode-58-wikimania-2008-jimbo-refle…
A two part episode:
1. Interview with Jimmy Wales, from the Windsor Palace hotel
2. Final Day-after - Reflections from a van, from Alexandria to Cairo
- Memorable moments
- Wiki-research-L mailing list revival
- Next year in Argentina
- Wikipedia Academy, for newbies
Commentators:
* Phoebe Ayers
* James Forrester
* Austin Hair
* Andrew Lih
* Liam Wyatt
-----
Podcast episodes coming soon:
- Sue Gardner, WMF
- Egyptian organizers of Wikimania 2008
- Patricio Lorente on Wikimania 2009
- Diplopedia
- Kaltura
- Javanese Wikipedia
(This is a long article, but I think it's interesting enough to quote the relevant parts in full.)
From <http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge252.html#pesce> "Hyperpolitics (American style)":
"This shows up, at its most complete, in Wikipedia, which (warts and all) represents the first attempt to survey and capture the knowledge of the entire human race, rather than only its scientific and academic elites. A project of the mob, for the mob, and by the mob, Wikipedia is the mob rule of factual knowledge. Its phenomenal success demonstrates beyond all doubt how the calculus of civilization has shifted away from its Liberal basis. In Liberalism, knowledge is a scarce resource, managed by elites: the more scarce knowledge is, the more highly valued that knowledge, and the elites which conserve it. Wikipedia turns that assertion inside out: the more something is shared the more valuable it becomes. These newly disproportionate returns on the investment in altruism now trump the 'virtue of selfishness.'
Paradoxically, Wikipedia is not at all democratic, nor is it actually transparent, though it gives the appearance of both. Investigations conducted by The Register in the UK and other media outlets have shown that the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is, in fact, tightly regulated by a close network of hyperconnected peers, the "Wikipedians."
This premise is borne out by the unpleasant fact that article submissions to Wikipedia are being rejected at an ever-increasing rate. Wikipedia's growth has slowed, and may someday grind to a halt, not because it has somehow encompassed the totality of human knowledge, but because it is the front line of a new kind of warfare, a battle both semantic and civilizational. In this battle, we can see the tracings of hyperpolitics, the politics of era of hyperconnectivity.
To outsiders like myself, who critique their increasingly draconian behavior, Wikipedians have a simple response: "We are holding the line against chaos." Wikipedians honestly believe that, in keeping Wikipedia from such effluvia as endless articles on anime characters, or biographies of living persons deemed "insufficiently notable," they keep their resource "pure." This is an essentially conservative impulse, as befits the temperament of a community of individuals who are, at heart, librarians and archivists.
The mechanisms through which this purity is maintained, however, are hardly conservative.
Hyperconnected, the Wikipedians create "sock puppet" personae to argue their points on discussion pages, using back-channel, non-transparent communications with other Wikipedians to amass the support (both numerically and rhetorically) to enforce their dictates. Those who attempt to counter the fixed opinion of any network of Wikipedians encounter a buzz-saw of defiance, and, almost invariably, withdraw in defeat.
Now that this 'Great Game' has been exposed, hypermimesis comes into play. The next time an individual or community gets knocked back, they have an option: they can choose to "go nuclear" on Wikipedia, using the tools of hyperconnectivity to generate such a storm of protest, from so many angles of attack, that the Wikipedians find themselves overwhelmed, backed into the buzz-saw of their own creation.
This will probably engender even more conservative reaction from the Wikipedians, until, in fairly short order, the most vital center of human knowledge creation in the history of our species becomes entirely fossilized.
Or, just possibly, Wikipedians will bow to the inevitable, embrace the chaos, and find a way to make it work."
--
gwern
Propaganda Security rip CIO VIP Pershing O/S MPRI JASON AMEMB