In a message dated 2/9/2009 3:01:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Debeo_Morium/Chats
Please don't run off and do something based on reading this. That
would be a bit unfair. But is that a good example of the sort of thing
Charles was talking about or not? Is that "community" or "blogging" or
"chatting" or "encyclopedia building"?>>
-----
These "chat" links don't have any content however. To me it seems just like
a person had their hand slapped for "chatting" in some article, and so
decided to explore a new avenue for article building. I don't find this sort of
thing to interfere with my own use or editing of the project. In fact it
seems commendable that someone would have the creativity to think of something
like this (even though it didn't go anywhere).
We should encourage the use of the project in new ways that are
*potentially* helpful, even if no one else has thought of them before. We don't want to
become static. The project should give free rein to new ideas, let them play
out, and see where they lead and *then* rein in ideas that are abusive.
One-offs, partials, dead links... aren't abusive.
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000002)
Personally I don't think we have enough commentary on the actions of others.
Some people using their tools blithely go through the project leaving
wreckage in their paths believing that they will never be subject to scrutiny,
simply because those they tred upon, don't know enough or have the ability to
contruct a long involved analysis.
Having bits and pieces of past conflicts in the userspace helps injured
parties collect data about these rogues, so that a full commentary can be
contructed and also so that groups can be formed to co-ordinate a campaign.
I don't have a problem with allowing this sort of thing to exist. If a
person finds themselves often the target of this sort of approach then maybe the
problem in with them, and not with those who take the time to create this
evidence in userspace.
Anything which helps identify abuse or suspected abuse in the project is to
our credit, not detriment.
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000002)
In a message dated 2/9/2009 12:31:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
The problem comes, re blogging, when people really do "blog" on
dedicated user pages, in violation of WP:USER, and apparently stand on
their rights to do that.>>
--------------
Example? Let's have a few concrete examples so we know more clearly what
you are and aren't saying.
Will
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000002)
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article56…
Slightly confused article headed "The wiki-snobs are taking over" by Giles
Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the
author claims "My entry features at least two errors, one libellous (unless
my mother has been keeping a dark secret, I am not Roy Hattersley's son)"
which has me befuddled since there is no entry on Giles Hattersley nor was
there ever one (unless it's been oversighted).
--
Sam Blacketer
I'm sick and tired of this back office wheeling and dealing.
At our last meeting I am *certain* we had agreed to take over the island of
Barbados.
Now I hear this. I'm completely miffed.
Will
In a message dated 2/8/2009 10:45:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
The Google-Wikipedia cabal strikes again!
**************Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on
AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?ncid=emlcntusmusi0…)
Article in the Signpost: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia
Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans]]. But in my view calling an article with
two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
Charles
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:29:29 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> Sorry, Bono has rights to islands in the Caribbean. Jimbo owns Florida
> (except Clearwater, which is owned by Scientology, and the Everglades,
> which are owned by Carl Hiaasen) and we have the Arbitration Committee
> yacht cruising between them.
...and the part owned by Disney, and the part that's a Cuban
government in exile, and the secessionist Conch Republic in the keys,
and the sovereign Seminole Nation, and the part that's still not sure
who they voted for for president in 2000.
--
== 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/
Sam Blacketer wrote:
"[The article] Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'."
Actually, it says "hot topics [..] will have to be scrutinised by arbitrators chosen from Wikipedia’s most active volunteer contributors."
"Administrators" don't make content decisions. And an administrator who makes decisions about content is no longer acting as an administrator, they are acting as an editor. "Arbitrator" suffices, and gives appropriate connotations.
What was interesting about it was the fatalism and give-up-ness, as if somehow people didn't make these criticisms before, and as if those criticisms' dismissal with extreme prejudice never happened.
-s
Original message:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article56…
Slightly confused article headed "The wiki-snobs are taking over" by Giles
Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the
author claims "My entry features at least two errors, one libellous (unless
my mother has been keeping a dark secret, I am not Roy Hattersley's son)"
which has me befuddled since there is no entry on Giles Hattersley nor was
there ever one (unless it's been oversighted).
--
Sam Blacketer
That's why *you* do it. It's not why *I* do it.
Sometimes years after I've seen a movie, I can't quite recall how it ended,
and I'd like to know that without needing to watch it again.
In a message dated 2/7/2009 7:35:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alvareo(a)gmail.com writes:
I'm not saying I'd rather have a one-line plot, I'm just saying that
spoilers aren't that necessary. You go to the article to see if you go
watch the movie, not to read it because you didn't get the chance to
watch it.
**************Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on
AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?ncid=emlcntusmusi0…)