On 4/21/06, Kirill Lokshin
kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The practical question here is how we go about determining which admins are "problematic".
Indeed.
It is probably worth remembering that this whole sorry argument began
with one of the few dozen people least likely to get desysopped by any such test...
If you mean the unprotect/desysop/block mess, certainly.
If we make some (possibly quite incorrect) assumptions about why Danny moved in the way he did -- to wit, that at least a partial reason for keeping office actions less visible is the leaking of deleted information -- it becomes less clear. Would desysopping the (assumed) admin(s) passing this information to wikitruth -- ignoring for the moment the question of whether we can catch them -- help in avoiding the need for this sort of secrecy in the future? Or will office actions need to be kept under wraps even if there's no danger of admins interfering?
Kirill Lokshin _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
Why should we worry about Wikitruth? They claim to be the "Scandal Sheet that anyone can edit." It will probably be a ghost site within a year.
If we need to use Office for whatever reasons, we need to use Office. The fact is that if an article meets out standards such as NPOV, no original research and verifiability, it shouldn't have problems with Office. It is the articles which don't comply with these standards that run into problems. If we have an article which is a stub for a day or so, we have plenty of time to expand it in a way consistent with our policies
We shouldn't worry about what Wikitruth thinks or says.
We should take notice of considered criticism from whatever source whether it be Nature, the Guardian, USA Today or the blogger who raised concerns about some of our biographies such as Jane Fonda. I have seen nothing on Wikitruth that indicates that we should consider its criticisms seriously. We certainly should not change our policies because of them.
A brief inspection of Wikitruth has given me no reason to consider its comments to be considered criticism. It is a derivative of Wikipedia and of little interest to the wider world.
Regards
*Keith Old*
I don't