WikiEN-l September 2012

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

36 participants
27 discussions

insanely stupid thing to post
by Kathleen McCook 09 Sep '12

09 Sep '12

When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for moderation; then this gets posted. Is there something one does to be unmoderated? On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:16 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: > > > That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or > > North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George > > Washington. > > > Fred, that's really an insanely stupid thing to post. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

4 3

"reliable source"-Roth is an elderly man googling
by Kathleen McCook 08 Sep '12

08 Sep '12

Good point. I am a teacher so tend to rely on refereed journals as reliable sources...tho science writer *J**onah Lehrer* even calls these into question. ============= On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com > wrote: > Depends on the explanation I suppose. But "reliable source" is jargon > too, in many cases. > > We do have difficulty communicating with non wikipedians. Not in a bad > faith way; it is hard to communicate with others. > > I just think we are too quick to blame the subject for "not > understanding us". When it cuts deeply both ways. > > Tom Morton > > On 8 Sep 2012, at 16:29, Charles Matthews > <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > On 8 September 2012 15:43, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com > >wrote: > > > >> Wow high and mighty much? > >> > >> I haven't had chance to look into this; but I bet I know what I will > >> find. Someone being a bit of a jerk to him, which has led to having to > >> take this approach. > > > > > > You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't > > "credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in WP's > > terms, that is a different kettle of fish. > > > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >

1 0

BBC article on Roth novel and Wikipedia article
by Carcharoth 08 Sep '12

08 Sep '12

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 "Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit" "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its end." Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists? I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? Carcharoth

5 6

How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins
by Kathleen McCook 08 Sep '12

08 Sep '12

The hazing of trying to be an administrator is also addressed in this series. More troubling is what the Roth article links to, namely: Atlantic, July 2012--" How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins" http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-ho… On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:28 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption > > that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in > > principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the > > editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia > > publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it > > near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? > > > It's near-impossible. The BBC didn't contact anyone for comment, > either; the article is strictly ex-culo. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

Editor retention
by Gwern Branwen 05 Sep '12

05 Sep '12

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532431335938862.h… September 2011 > Adding more editors “is one of our top priorities for the year,” says Howie Fung…aims to increase the number of editors across all languages of Wikipedia to 95,000 from 81,450 by June of next year. >From http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaZZ.htm using the >5 edits a month metric used in WMF docs: 1. July 2012: 76,400 2. June 2012: 74,402 3. May 2012: 76,956 4. April 2012: 75,141 5. March 2012; 76,274 The high water mark, incidentally, seems to have been March 2007 with 90,618 editors >5 edits that month. So we have been shrinking ~2.8k editors a year ((91 - 77) / (2012 - 2007)). In retrospect, my 75% prediction that this priority would not be achieved (http://predictionbook.com/predictions/3241) was ludicrously optimistic, given that the 95k editor mark has *never* been reached. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] iPhone replies
by Daniel R. Tobias 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 10:02:31 -04000, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > With some difficulty and a little cut-and-pasting, I can get some > semblance of properly formatted replies on one of those gadgets. Well, except for the fact that it doesn't generate messages with RFC-compliant line length, anyway. I still prefer to reply from a real PC, where I use Pegasus Mail to produce standards-compliant messages. A tool I created to check mail format compliance: http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html -- == 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/

1 0

iPhone replies
by Daniel R. Tobias 01 Sep '12

01 Sep '12

On Sep 1, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Wyatt wrote: > I have my iPhone mail's sig say that in order to explain the discrepancy in formatting caused when I switch to Thunderbird in the middle of an email conversation. With some difficulty and a little cut-and-pasting, I can get some semblance of properly formatted replies on one of those gadgets. Sent from my friggin' iPhone

1 0

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 September 2012