In a message dated 8/13/2008 4:17:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com writes:
My recollection is that you made some valid
points and I acknowledged them as such, but then proceeded to weaken your
better points by failing to acknowledge that the counterarguments had any
validity at all, while in the process calling me various names.>>
--------------
{{fact}} ?
It's not like me to "call names". But sometimes my dosage is off.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/13/2008 3:49:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com writes:
I'd like you to go back to the Hornbeck/Ownby
deletion discussion and re-read my lengthy comments there.>>
--------------------------------------
Just as an example. I might be "notable" if you simply count the number of
times and places where you can find me mouthing off about something :)
But as far as I know, one hundred and twenty five newspapers across the
country and in France, England, Canada and Guam didn't carry stories about me. I
wasn't on Oprah, I didn't have a foundation named for me, and I didn't write
a book about myself.
I'm sure you can see there's quite a bit of difference in the casual ability
to "find out" about someone like You or I by pouring over public records,
and the determined effort of those people like Barbara Bauer, Matt Sanchez,
Shawn Hornbeck to make their name stand out in bright lights.
If you check the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation page you will find, that they are
still active, at least as of a month ago. Still visiting various schools or
what-have-you under their own name. Now any casual reader might say....
Well... Who IS Shawn Hornbeck.
We should be answering that question, instead of turning out the lights.
That's my position. It applies to all questions of that sort, even if the
subject hates the result.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/13/2008 3:49:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com writes:
Although we have not adopted a "BLP opt-out policy," I do not understand why
a user would consider it a significant priority to re-create an article
containing predominently negative coverage about an, at best,
highly-borderline-notable individual who has expressed extreme resentment
regarding the existence of such article.>>
------------------------------------------
I didn't say it was a "significant priority" of mine.
However two points, whether or not its "predominently negative", and whether
or not she has "expressed extreme resentment" should have no impact on our
mission, in my opinion.
If someone is notable, then we should have an article. And where the chips
fall is that person's own fault, not ours. As long as we present the sources
evenly and balanced, if those sources universally denigate the person, than
evidently that's what those sources do. It's our job to represent them, not
to censor them.
Will
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
Since the article space is full-protected, someone will have to lift that in
order to start the Barbara Bauer article once more.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:49:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi(a)gmail.com writes:
And since she's now even more notable than ever due to the lawsuit, does
this mean [[Barbara Bauer]] can be recreated?
- Joe>>
---------------------
Help me start it.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
> From: "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Some humor from WP:UAA
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> * Yourmom2020 (talk ? contribs ? deleted contribs ? hardblock ?
> softblock ? spamblock)
>
> * This user has edited at least one time.
> * Matches the regular expression called Your mom. The portion
> that matched was Yourmom.
>
> * This report was delayed until the user edited.
> * The string called Your mom has a comment associated with
> it: Not everything someone has to say about your mom is against
> policy. See WP:U HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
>
> So does that mean that there are things I can say about people's
> mothers that is supported by policy? :)
Your mother... is a wonderful person. So, yeah, I guess there're some
things.
[[User:Lifebaka]]
* Yourmom2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock ·
softblock · spamblock)
* This user has edited at least one time.
* Matches the regular expression called Your mom. The portion
that matched was Yourmom.
* This report was delayed until the user edited.
* The string called Your mom has a comment associated with
it: Not everything someone has to say about your mom is against
policy. See WP:U HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So does that mean that there are things I can say about people's
mothers that is supported by policy? :)
In a message dated 8/12/2008 4:50:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
delirium(a)hackish.org writes:
don't see why Wikipedia should be special-cased here. It's not common
practice in academic publishing to cite all the research tools you used
in arriving at your actual sources. I don't usually cite Lexis-Nexis
when I look up an article through it, or JSTOR, or my local reference
librarian, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or some website with a list of
interesting articles, or Google.>>
-------------------------------------------------
That misstates the issue.
Some of the above are mindless programmatic tools that merely cast indexes
into the wind and see what sticks to them. They are not creative *on an
article specific basis*. They are merely methods *by which* you can find expert
human resources about one subject, they are not those resources themselves.
So Lexis-Nexis, so Jstor, so local reference librarian, so Google.
However Wikipedia, Brittanica and "some website with a list of interesting
articles" (provided it's generated by specific human effort to that article
topic, and not automagically) are not in the same category.
The question to ask in these cases would be: "Would a PERSON recognize their
work being revealed in my work, without citation?" The courtesy of
secondary citation is not extended to a computer program but rather to a person, an
author, or in the case of Wikipedia or Brittanica sometimes a small group of
authors. It is *people* who we are trying to not offend. Google takes no
offense, it cannot, as it has no emotions.
An author of a biographical dictionary, can take offense.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/11/2008 4:23:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
I don't doubt that it happens. It's completely unacceptable and is why
people should not cite Wikipedia is serious research.>>
---------------------------
I can't agree with that.
We have many articles that are quite good, clear, concise and very close to
the money.
Also I'm not sure where you draw the line between serious research and
not-serious research?
When I do my work, I use Wikipedia as a tool to ferret out other sources, to
explain and illuminate side-issues, etc. The main focus of the thesis
should rely on both primary and secondary material and Wikipedia can serve as
secondary material. However if Wikipedia is your sole source of information,
then you are in trouble. But if Wikipedia is a main source, or even a
*starting* source from which you launch your digging, using its article citations to
ferret out more details, then Wikipedia should be cited, whether you quote it
or not.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )