This quote from Danny is highly entertaining (from [[Talk:Harry Reid]]):
" It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February 2006. "
So far as I know, articles on Wikipedia continue to get edited on a regular basis; i.e. some changes may happen to the article in the next 100 years (though the way Jimbo and Danny are acting, maybe it won't!).
So I'm not sure why Danny is worried about trying to get the article perfectly "right" for a mythical 100-year-from-now viewer.
Or does he have a time machine he's not letting the rest of us know about?
This note: "The page is protected again. Reid's people did not threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here."
was also pretty unfathomably rude.
So much for respect for fellow editors. I guess some people are just more equal than others.
On 2/24/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
This quote from Danny is highly entertaining (from [[Talk:Harry Reid]]):
" It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February 2006. "
So far as I know, articles on Wikipedia continue to get edited on a regular basis; i.e. some changes may happen to the article in the next 100 years (though the way Jimbo and Danny are acting, maybe it won't!).
So I'm not sure why Danny is worried about trying to get the article perfectly "right" for a mythical 100-year-from-now viewer.
Or does he have a time machine he's not letting the rest of us know about?
This note: "The page is protected again. Reid's people did not threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here."
was also pretty unfathomably rude.
So much for respect for fellow editors. I guess some people are just more equal than others.
Um, well... Some people work full-time for the Foundation, and deal with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't have to worry about.
On 2/25/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
Um, well... Some people work full-time for the Foundation, and deal with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't have to worry about.
You mean people complaining about articles about themselves? Been there done that. Never had to resort to protection. With the exception of the newsmax incident things mostly worked out OK.
-- geni
On 2/24/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
Um, well... Some people work full-time for the Foundation, and deal with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't have to worry about.
You mean people complaining about articles about themselves? Been there done that. Never had to resort to protection. With the exception of the newsmax incident things mostly worked out OK.
I don't know the story behind what's going on with the Harry Reid article. Maybe you do, but from my perspective if an article is getting attention from the Foundation then there might be a reason, and giving them a few days to handle it isn't unreasonable. Anyway, there are almost a million other articles to edit!
Every time the Foundation intervenes on an article because they've received a complaint, there are many cries of overreaction. I think the perspective people are missing is that Jimbo getting a complaint personally is different from a user dealing with a complaint on the General Complaints page--because he runs the Foundation and it is responsible for Wikipedia's content. It's easy to forget that Wikipedia is *about* everything, and so it can seem big compared to the rest of the world, but actually it's very small; we are subject to legal action, bad publicity, and other inconveniences from complaining article subjects. Because average users don't have much perspective on how bad those inconveniences might be, or what the remedies might be, it is necessarily a Foundation issue to deal with complaints they have received.
(I'm assuming here the Foundation even got a complaints from someone about that article--I literally know nothing about what's going on. I just don't see how it could hurt to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
SCZenz
On 2/24/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
(I'm assuming here the Foundation even got a complaints from someone about that article--I literally know nothing about what's going on. I just don't see how it could hurt to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
History tells us that the only thing that maintains the quality of institutions is accountability and transparency. Please read [[The Transparent Society]].
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
History tells us that the only thing that maintains the quality of institutions is accountability and transparency. Please read [[The Transparent Society]].
Look at the CIA. They aren't very accountable, nor very transparent, but they've maintained a consisitent level of quality.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
History tells us that the only thing that maintains the quality of institutions is accountability and transparency. Please read [[The Transparent Society]].
Look at the CIA. They aren't very accountable, nor very transparent, but they've maintained a consisitent level of quality.
-- Sam
Certain conspiracy theorists beg to differ. :p
John
On 2/27/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Look at the CIA. They aren't very accountable, nor very transparent, but they've maintained a consisitent level of quality.
-- Sam
Certain conspiracy theorists beg to differ. :p
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
And, uh, you know that how? I don't expect many British teenagers to really be that deep in the loop for knowledge about the CIA's competency levels.
Chris
On 2/27/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
And, uh, you know that how? I don't expect many British teenagers to really be that deep in the loop for knowledge about the CIA's competency levels.
And what evidence do YOU have that I'm not a Chinese/North Korean/Russian/French spy???
-- Sam
On 2/27/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
And, uh, you know that how? I don't expect many British teenagers to really be that deep in the loop for knowledge about the CIA's competency levels.
And what evidence do YOU have that I'm not a Chinese/North Korean/Russian/French spy???
You are? Okay, I guess it's time for me to come out of retirement and... take care of business.
On 2/28/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
And what evidence do YOU have that I'm not a Chinese/North Korean/Russian/French spy???
Very impressive if true. I've never heard of a quintuple agent before, even in fiction. Must pay well. :)
Generaly they are not conected to any goverment. Cheack out the people mossad operatives brought information from when they were trying to track down those responcible for the 1972 Olympic incerdent. -- geni
On 2/27/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
And, uh, you know that how? I don't expect many British teenagers to really be that deep in the loop for knowledge about the CIA's competency levels.
Actually, the point isn't that the CIA is incompetent -- it's that it does things like fund dictators, sabotage democracies, set up secret torture prisons, kidnap people (and send them to torture prisons), try to arrange assassinations, spy on Americans, etc.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/27/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Look at the CIA. They aren't very accountable, nor very transparent, but they've maintained a consisitent level of quality.
Certain conspiracy theorists beg to differ. :p
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
So if they advised GWB not to attack Iraq what he thought of their competence was clearly reflected by his actions. :-)
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
Sorry in case my sarcasm was a little too dark (not the first time) -- I'm saying that the CIA are incompetant, and always have been!
We'd best stop using their world factbook as a source.
Pete, referring all to http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/CIA