I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Today.27s_featured_article
- d.
2009/7/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Today.27s_featured_article
- d.
It got 207K pageviews over the day. Previous days featured article only got 31.9K. Apparently our readership in general likes 13th century British history.
geni wrote:
2009/7/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Today.27s_featured_article
- d.
It got 207K pageviews over the day. Previous days featured article only got 31.9K. Apparently our readership in general likes 13th century British history.
A lot of the discussion was at Talk:Main Page, with some more at the article talk page. Note, though, that almost all the people who seriously objected to it were IPs and users with very few edits. So, it seems to have gone over pretty well with our users, most of whom probably didn't care enough to comment one way or the other.
Firestorm
Anthony Simone wrote:
A lot of the discussion was at Talk:Main Page, with some more at the article talk page. Note, though, that almost all the people who seriously objected to it were IPs and users with very few edits. So, it seems to have gone over pretty well with our users, most of whom probably didn't care enough to comment one way or the other.
I suspect frequent editors of Wikipedia have long since become desensitized to obscene language, thanks to the constant stream of it that gets inserted into articles as vandalism, and written all over their user talk pages as revenge for reverting that vanadalism. I for one enjoy reading about history and etymology, and have read articles on obscene words and euphemism sequences with interest.
The featured article choices that really rile me are the pop culture trivia, like individual episodes from TV series.
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything.
-- Tim Starling
2009/7/10 geni geniice@gmail.com:
It got 207K pageviews over the day. Previous days featured article only got 31.9K. Apparently our readership in general likes 13th century British history.
Damn you that was a coffee moment.
- d.
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything.
I did like the bit in the Signpost where he complained that Andrew Lih's book only mentioned FA twice.
Charles
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything.
I did like the bit in the Signpost where he complained that Andrew Lih's book only mentioned FA twice.
Do you have a date or link for that?
Carcharoth
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I can hardly believe there was no angst here, of all places, on yesterday's featured article. Did someone fail to think of the fictional children?
Good discussion on Raul's talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Today.27s_featured_article
There was a nice FAQ at the top of the article talk page as well. Well, when I say nice, it did take a bit of an exasperated tone, and was at times a bit casual in the language used, but it was a nice thought to have a FAQ to head off objections and answer questions.
Carcharoth
Tim Starling wrote:
I suspect frequent editors of Wikipedia have long since become desensitized to obscene language, thanks to the constant stream of it that gets inserted into articles as vandalism, and written all over their user talk pages as revenge for reverting that vanadalism. I for one enjoy reading about history and etymology, and have read articles on obscene words and euphemism sequences with interest.
A good recommendation on those lines, is our article on the man who coined the phrase "Make love, not war."
That phrase is not all he is known for. [[Gershon Legman]]s brick sized work on dirty jokes is one of the most cherished treasures I found as a pre-teen, while playing hookie from school, and spending leisurely days combing through the bookshelves of the Helsinki University Library.
The featured article choices that really rile me are the pop culture trivia, like individual episodes from TV series.
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything.
+1
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything.
I did like the bit in the Signpost where he complained that Andrew Lih's book only mentioned FA twice.
Do you have a date or link for that?
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-20/Wikipedia Revolution]], just after he says Lih overstates the importance of Meatball Wiki.
Charles
If anyone is inspired to try a sequel there was a Mount Whoredom in colonial Boston. Center left, second hill from the shoreline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston,_1775bsmall1.png
-Durova
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I suspect frequent editors of Wikipedia have long since become desensitized to obscene language, thanks to the constant stream of it that gets inserted into articles as vandalism, and written all over their user talk pages as revenge for reverting that vanadalism. I for one enjoy reading about history and etymology, and have read articles on obscene words and euphemism sequences with interest.
A good recommendation on those lines, is our article on the man who coined the phrase "Make love, not war."
That phrase is not all he is known for. [[Gershon Legman]]s brick sized work on dirty jokes is one of the most cherished treasures I found as a pre-teen, while playing hookie from school, and spending leisurely days combing through the bookshelves of the Helsinki University Library.
The featured article choices that really rile me are the pop culture trivia, like individual episodes from TV series.
But whatever offends you about a feature article choice, regular Wikipedians probably know that there's not much point trying to convince Raul654 of anything.
+1
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l