Re Ian Woolard's query:
>As the Wikipedia moves towards some arbitrary definition of notional
>'completion', can anyone point to a board or mechanism in the
>Wikipedia which is specifically for maintaining and ensuring technical
>accuracy of articles?
I'm not sure who if anyone thinks we are complete or anywhere near
completion. But there are lots of boards and mechanisms that concern
themselves with the accuracy of articles, most if not all the
wikiprojects involve people who are concerned about the projects in
their remit.
The death anomalies project just focuses on death anomalies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Living_people_on_EN…
We also have the typo team and the BLP noticeboard among many
different ways in which Wikipedians can collaborate to improve the
pedia.
WereSpielChequers
On 9 February 2011 18:48, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2011, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> "It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a
>> goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we
>> need some rules to organize our work. Third, we make the rules really
>> complicated to fit every corner case. Fourth, we completely forget the
>> goal of those rules and we apply them blindly for the sake of it.
>> Fifth, we punish or kill those who don't follow the rules as strictly
>> as we do."
>
> To be perfectly honest, I've not really seen that happen; although
> people will often get their work reverted for not following rules. I
> cannot think of a single example of people getting banned for not
> following rules (other than copyvios and behavioral rules).
>
> I've much more often seen people, or even worse, groups of people,
> tearing up rules and just doing something fairly random, often because
> they think it "reads better" or because they just don't like something
> or other(?)
>
> One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is actually that of accuracy. It's
> not that it doesn't happen, in fact it very frequently is accurate,
> but accuracy only occurs because individuals put it into articles,
> whereas there are often groups of people quite happy to systematically
> remove accurate information.
>
> As the Wikipedia moves towards some arbitrary definition of notional
> 'completion', can anyone point to a board or mechanism in the
> Wikipedia which is specifically for maintaining and ensuring technical
> accuracy of articles?
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
For years it was slightly bugging me that the "Most wanted articles"
function is deactivated. On en.wp, the last cache was generated in
October 2009.
Well, I cooked an alternative. Listing all non-existing articles that
have at least 10 links from article namespace, updated daily:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/most_wanted.php
Many of these links are due to templates, which I can do little about.
I hope it will still be useful to some.
Cheers,
Magnus
On 6 February 2011 14:19, wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> http://www.i-freelancer.org/php/wikipedia-expert-wanted-to-delete-article/
> I'm quite willing to contact them, afd each article on their list, and if
> consensus is that any merit deletion, I will donate the proceeds to the WMF.
Don't forget all the corresponding "create an article for hire" posts.
For added entertainment, post that the article was a paid-for creation
or deletion, and invite critique of your technique.
- d.
Some company wants to delete their competition's Wikipedia articles ?
Delete its own article to clear controversies ? :)
Somebody wants to try a sting operation , to find what kind of articles they
want to delete ? Will be very interesting!
Regards
Tinu Cherian
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On doc.wikipedia at
ntlworld.com
Sent: 06 February 2011 14:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist wanted for hire
It would be instructive to know what articles they are worried about and
why. I find that most people wanting articles deleted have a good reason
and, while deletion may not be justified by Wikipedia's "rules", there are
often problems with the articles that we ought to address.
People wanting articles created are a different matter - it is inevitably
vanity or promotion.
Scott
PS> Can anyone tell me how to stop the system attributing my posts to
"Wiki"? Or how to stop it top-posting? (Technical ignorance.)
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 06 February 2011 14:25
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Deletionist wanted for hire
On 6 February 2011 14:19, wiki <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
http://www.i-freelancer.org/php/wikipedia-expert-wanted-to-delete-article/
(spotted by Tinu Cherian)
> I'm quite willing to contact them, afd each article on their list, and if
> consensus is that any merit deletion, I will donate the proceeds to the
WMF.
Don't forget all the corresponding "create an article for hire" posts.
For added entertainment, post that the article was a paid-for creation
or deletion, and invite critique of your technique.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi,
Wikipedia is a great system to organize a set of articles, and it has a
large help system as well. But newcomers and mid-termers alike would
have lots of similar questions about the system, specific guidelines, or
techniques of writing articles.
StackExchange <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StackExchange>, a free
Question and Answer network of websites would start a website dedicated
to Wikipedia and Wiki questions if the community only supports the
project by voting for it. This website would have a very unique set of
features that cannot compare with the way Wikipedia handles questions,
simply because it is different. In Wikipedia questions are added to
pages, much like a forum. In StackExchange, questions are added to a
database that is searchable where each question can be voted for by the
community.
* Database of questions, listings by vote, or by newest/oldest
* User accounts with ranking system per user based on helpfulness
* Answers are voted for by users, and best answers show on top
* Tagging and searching for questions by tag (eg. 'syntax',
'images', 'audio')
I'm writing here to call for the support of Wikipedians around the
world, simply for our own benefit. If we can vote for this site and
visit it regularly to answer questions then Wikipedia could grow so much
faster since newcomers would have an intelligent and easy-to-use
platform for their questions and troubles.
1. Please start on this proposal page
<http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/13716/wikipedia-and-wikis>.
2. You'll need to login (link on the top)
3. Then you have to click the "Follow" button (or "Commit", if available)
4. When the site begins you will get a link to it on the same page.
Thank you!
Tomjenkins52 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tomjenkins52>
(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
HTML and mucked up the formatting)
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent
dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their
responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an
open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with
the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process.
Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we
can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our
project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no
involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal
charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on
which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect
those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple
document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all
the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community,
it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe
that they could approve such a document without taking on the
oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a
lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation.
The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive
aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of
governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through
careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
You need to put that in context. Namely, is The Sun used in non-BLP
articles as well? And the real question is how much do BLPs rely on
newspaper sources in general, as opposed to (say) references to
published biographies?
Carcharoth
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM, wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=t
> hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch
> &advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth
> Sent: 04 February 2011 16:13
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news
>> aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the
>> community likes it that way.
>
> Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts
> are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover,
> or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those
> network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and
> particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge
> there.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>