In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:16:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com writes:
Especially since they invited her to join the Advisory Board and she accepted... so she definitely wasn't just "dumped".>>
----------- Her in-wiki article does not state that.
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000500000000... )
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:19 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:16:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com writes:
Especially since they invited her to join the Advisory Board and she accepted... so she definitely wasn't just "dumped".>>
Her in-wiki article does not state that.
*wonders why people look to enwiki articles for internal Foundation information*
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Florence_Nibart-Devouard
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 21:24 -0400, Casey Brown wrote:
*wonders why people look to enwiki articles for internal Foundation information*
*Wonders what hopes we have if we can't even keep the bio of someone we know well up to date*
KTC
2008/8/14 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 21:24 -0400, Casey Brown wrote:
*wonders why people look to enwiki articles for internal Foundation information*
*Wonders what hopes we have if we can't even keep the bio of someone we know well up to date*
KTC
Knowing well is original research. But yes aside from really notable people and things are articles tend not to be totally up to date. This isn't generally a problem. Being say a season behind on a footballer or missing a uni prof's latest publications isn't a critical flaw.
*Wonders what hopes we have if we can't even keep the bio of someone we know well up to date*
I think it's simply a case of "somebody else will update this," rather than an inherent failure of our editing model. Articles do, by-and-large, get kept very up to date.
*AGK*
2008/8/14 geni geniice@gmail.com
2008/8/14 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 21:24 -0400, Casey Brown wrote:
*wonders why people look to enwiki articles for internal Foundation
information*
*Wonders what hopes we have if we can't even keep the bio of someone we know well up to date*
KTC
Knowing well is original research. But yes aside from really notable people and things are articles tend not to be totally up to date. This isn't generally a problem. Being say a season behind on a footballer or missing a uni prof's latest publications isn't a critical flaw.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Knowing well is original research. But yes aside from really notable people and things are articles tend not to be totally up to date. This isn't generally a problem. Being say a season behind on a footballer or missing a uni prof's latest publications isn't a critical flaw.
We're far more up-to-date than the competition. They update once a year or so, we generally do far better than that with anything but the most obscure articles.