WikiEN-l January 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

88 participants
184 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
by WJhonson＠aol.com 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

Establishing that a source is reliable is up to the person adding it, if challenged. Just like all of our content. In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, alvareo(a)gmail.com writes: Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements. **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt… cemailfooterNO62)

2 1

MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
by Michel Vuijlsteke 11 Jan '09

11 Jan '09

Nothing exceptional about this, of course: http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-… Sigh.

14 31

Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
by WJhonson＠aol.com 10 Jan '09

10 Jan '09

When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case. The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter. So. Is there evidence on the table here? Will Johnson **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

6 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time
by WJhonson＠aol.com 10 Jan '09

10 Jan '09

<<In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:53:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes: There is no question as to his expertise. The question is "Was his expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked and published what he had to say on this matter?" The answer appears to be "no". Self-published sources, even by experts, are not particularly reliable, nor do they in any way establish notability.>> If a person is such an expert, that some third party *has previously* published his work in this subject area, *then* a blog by that same person in the same area can be considered a reliable source. In our policy page discussion for example, we discussed the situation where a reporter blogs on a unfolding story. That we can cite it prior to its final published version (if any) was acceptable, since the reporter was already acknowledged to credibly construct their story. Will Johnson **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!
by WJhonson＠aol.com 10 Jan '09

10 Jan '09

<<In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:09:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Andrew(a)soschildren.org writes: only need to give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles - no real section Entitled "History", so no requirement to copy that">> Five principal authors of Wikipedia. I can smell that Academy Award right now! **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

1 0

Most inept Wikipedia PR ever
by David Gerard 09 Jan '09

09 Jan '09

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/01/bullshit_blue_monday.html - d.

1 0

Rank hath its privileges
by Gwern Branwen 09 Jan '09

09 Jan '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123129220146959621.html "John Soong, 18, says that after he had failed to get jobs at several chains that use the test, he began to poke around for an answer key, driven by "altruistic, and maybe vengeful," motives. In a discussion section of a Wikipedia entry, he saw a mention of a set of Unicru statements and answers that had been posted there but removed. Using privileges as a volunteer Wikipedia administrator, which gave him access to deleted page histories, Mr. Soong, a University of Virginia student, was able to recover the answer key and re-post it on Facebook." - -- gwern -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREKAAYFAkllIJsACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oIQ9wCgkhjvk65QkqLHVfRlsNr6R9qE 3CIAnjNSNtb2bBBoEYMQMCCJtKHZor+S =hFKM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

13 30

From "Private Eye"
by James Farrar 09 Jan '09

09 Jan '09

>From the letters page in the current edition (Eye 1227, p. 14): Sir, Re "Nooks and Corners", Eye 1226. It was a treat to see my rather amateurish photography appear (via Wikipedia) on page 12 of Eye 1226, depicting in all its glory West Bromwich's less-than-lovely "The Public". As an Eye reader of many years, I shall now look forward to the greater honour of having this letter printed, which will neatly fulfil your obligation under the relevant GNU Free Documentation and Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licences to give me a credit! Yours etc, David Waterson Solihull ----------- I laughed a lot. :)

6 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
by WJhonson＠aol.com 08 Jan '09

08 Jan '09

<<In a message dated 1/8/2009 7:06:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes: I mean, I'm not saying secondary sources are useless. I'm just saying, "knowledge published in reliable secondary sources" and "encyclopedia" are not equivalent. That's a statement on a line-by-line, fact-by-fact scale.>> Okay but you're talking past me, because I never espoused this position either. In fact quite the opposite. If I had I would have *no room whatsoever* for primary sources right? No sense in quoting a primary source if the knowledge had already been published in a secondary source. I'm sure you can see this. Will Johnson **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV
by WJhonson＠aol.com 08 Jan '09

08 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/7/2009 7:57:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes: "Encyclopedia" and "record of only what has been published in reliable secondary sources" are not synonymous terms.>> ---------------------------- And yet the community needs a method of determining "Is this encyclopedic?" We already loosely use an expression like "this is not encyclopedic" in AfD. Apparently there is some sort of processing going on, on the editor level, to allow them to determine that. If the determination is simply the answer to the question "Has this ever been published by anyone anywhere?" then we come back again to Notability, since this answer destroys notability entirely. However the community seems to want Notability. And so my conclusion is that this contradiction means that "This has been published" is not a full answer to "Is this encyclopedic?" Will Johnson **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

2 1

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
19
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l January 2009