The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
http://www.kimvdlinde.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
Kim
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
http://www.kimvdlinde.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There's also a fact checker wiki project. You can have them have a go at referencing the thing...
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
Kim
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up
with
many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made
it
the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book
that
they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
http://www.kimvdlinde.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://www.kimvdlinde.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I could have done that. Do that myself at times, as when I fixed some pretty serious errors in the featured article of Sept 24.
Kim
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
There's also a fact checker wiki project. You can have them have a go at referencing the thing...
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
Kim
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up
with
many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made
it
the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book
that
they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
That's what I did to get [[List of unusual personal names]] under control. Since then, I've been reverting any addition that doesn't cite sources showing that (1) there exists a person with this name, and (2) the name is considered unusual.
On 03/10/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
That's what I did to get [[List of unusual personal names]] under control. Since then, I've been reverting any addition that doesn't cite sources showing that (1) there exists a person with this name, and (2) the name is considered unusual.
It's the sort of thing they have to do to keep [[Films considered the worst ever]] under control. It's clearly a useful article subject, but you need some real hardarses on hand to keep it usably referenced. [[List of longest novels]] was started with a referencing requirement.
- d.
On 3 Oct 2006, at 19:01, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? Have them remove any uncited crap. If ALA 2000 is a specific list with set entries, remove anything that shouldn't be there. Be bold!
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
That's what I did to get [[List of unusual personal names]] under control. Since then, I've been reverting any addition that doesn't cite sources showing that (1) there exists a person with this name, and (2) the name is considered unusual.
My (Japanese) niece has the longest name in Japanese history. There are various reasons for this, which I won't go into, but what would you like to see as a citable source for this?
On 04/10/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
My (Japanese) niece has the longest name in Japanese history. There are various reasons for this, which I won't go into, but what would you like to see as a citable source for this?
Third-party verification that this is actually noteworthy to anyone, at least.
- d.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Kim van der Linde wrote:
That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........
Go for it!
Nah, not me anymore. I have been harassed a bit to much for bold actions in the past.
Kim
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.
--Oskar
On 02/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book). Could some people deal with this list?
If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.
Now, now. Tag with {{fact}} and move the unsourced ones to talk. Be hardarsed about letting anything back in without sources.
- d.
On 10/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Now, now. Tag with {{fact}} and move the unsourced ones to talk. Be hardarsed about letting anything back in without sources.
- d.
Well yes I could of done that but I feel that in this case a more extream aproach is needed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
Now, now. Tag with {{fact}} and move the unsourced ones to talk. Be hardarsed about letting anything back in without sources.
- d.
I've added several dozen {{fact}}s as well as {{unsourced}} and {{hoax}}.
- -- Sean Barrett | Bad: all life stopping instantaneously, sean@epoptic.com | and every molecule in your body | exploding at the speed of light.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sean Barrett stated for the record:
David Gerard stated for the record:
Now, now. Tag with {{fact}} and move the unsourced ones to talk. Be hardarsed about letting anything back in without sources.
- d.
I've added several dozen {{fact}}s as well as {{unsourced}} and {{hoax}}.
Geni, why did you remove all my {{fact}} tags?
- -- Sean Barrett | Bad: all life stopping instantaneously, sean@epoptic.com | and every molecule in your body | exploding at the speed of light.
On 10/2/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Geni, why did you remove all my {{fact}} tags?
Umm I removed rather a lot of the article. Most of it was cruft.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Now, now. Tag with {{fact}} and move the unsourced ones to talk. Be hardarsed about letting anything back in without sources.
That makes sense. I think I'd combine that with the delete suggestion. I.e., cut and paste all the unsourced ones to a talk section immediately. Provides something to check against when unsourced entries are once again added. Asking to {{fact}} all that when almost all of it already has sat there unsourced for well over a week and then wait only to move most of it to talk a week later seems like a waste of time and effort.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)
--Jimbo
On 10/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
Personally, I tag something with {{fact}} when I believe it to be correct but it's unsourced and I don't know where to verify it myself. If I believe it's actually wrong, I prefer to move it to the talk page pending verification.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
Personally, I tag something with {{fact}} when I believe it to be correct but it's unsourced and I don't know where to verify it myself. If I believe it's actually wrong, I prefer to move it to the talk page pending verification.
That's more sensible.
The overdone tagging goes both ways. Sometimes the proper bold act is just to remove the tag, and other times to remove the alleged information.
Ec
Matt Brown wrote:
On 10/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
Personally, I tag something with {{fact}} when I believe it to be correct but it's unsourced and I don't know where to verify it myself. If I believe it's actually wrong, I prefer to move it to the talk page pending verification.
That's reasonable. I would recommend that more caution be used, of course, if the statement is one that we believe to be true, but *if false* would be in some way hurtful to someone.
--Jimbo
On Thursday 05 October 2006 03:41, Matt Brown wrote:
Personally, I tag something with {{fact}} when I believe it to be correct but it's unsourced and I don't know where to verify it myself. If I believe it's actually wrong, I prefer to move it to the talk page pending verification.
Which jives with the Template page which I found very instructional:
[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information: 1. if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use {{specify}} 2. if it is not doubtful, you may use {{fact}} or {{citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete. 3. if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use {{verify source}} tag to ask for source verification. 4. If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source. 5. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first. ]]
On 10/5/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)
But log in first. Being bold while being logged out generally amounts to being reverted.
Anthony
On 10/5/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
But log in first. Being bold while being logged out generally amounts to being reverted.
Being bold while being logged out looks like being a vandal!
(Hi from Muenster!)
Steve
On 10/13/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
But log in first. Being bold while being logged out generally amounts to being reverted.
Being bold while being logged out looks like being a vandal!
And here I thought looking like being a vandal would somehow involve making an article (or whatever page you're editing) worse.
Anthony
On 10/5/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)
--Jimbo
I agree, but in this case summarily removing all of the unsourced statements will result in a revert, or a revert war. If you place {{fact}} on all of the statements instead, it is much easier to delete them a week from now.
On 10/15/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)
--Jimbo
I agree, but in this case summarily removing all of the unsourced statements will result in a revert, or a revert war. If you place {{fact}} on all of the statements instead, it is much easier to delete them a week from now.
Yes, until there is a rule that unsourced statements may be removed immediately (which I would favor), using the {{fact}} tag for a week or so seems to be the best solution for statements which a) are fairly harmless if false, and b) might very well be true.
Now what would be nice is to have a way to keep track of this sort of thing so that within a week or so something is done to address the situation. But short of having someone code something up (someone was working on a mediawiki "tasks" feature which would probably work perfectly for this sort of thing), I'm afraid this would lead to too much instruction creep.
Anthony
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
I would not be suprised to find that the bible has been banned at some point in histoty.
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
Could be interesting I'll have a look.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 20:35, geni wrote:
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
I would not be suprised to find that the bible has been banned at some point in histoty.
Like today in Saudi Arabia, for example.
G'day geni,
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
I would not be suprised to find that the bible has been banned at some point in histoty.
The Bible *has* been banned, at several points in history. For example, it was banned during the Cultural Revolution in China, and its sale remains regulated today. And, as we all know, individual translations of the Bible (e.g. into German or English) were frequently banned in Mediaeval Europe.
The world is very big and very old.
<snip />
Cheers,
On 10/2/06, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
Kim
http://www.kimvdlinde.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On related news: Category:Banned books was disbanded today
Kim van der Linde wrote:
The [[List of banned books]] is a mess, and the way people have added challenged books to the list (ALA_2000 entries) and the clogging up with many doubtful entries (just listed without explanations etc) has made it the target of creationists who try to get a book listed that a book that they claim is banned, but which in fact is far from that (if their rational holds, the bible is banned book).
Could some people deal with this list?
I was just chatting with someone about this page the other day. Part of the problem is that the ALA puts out a very melodramatic list each year for "Banned Books Week". Upon close inspection, the books are very seldom "banned" books. They have sometimes been removed from school reading lists for stupid reasons, but still perfectly well available in the school library, etc.