-----Original Message----- From: · Firefoxman [mailto:enwpmail@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:58 AM To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making attack articles on us
Wouldent they deserve their own article?
No, except for their attack articles on Wikipedia, its just another tits and ass site, nothing special. So not notable enough for an article.
Fred
On 1/24/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: · Firefoxman [mailto:enwpmail@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:58 AM To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making
attack articles on us
Wouldent they deserve their own article?
No, except for their attack articles on Wikipedia, its just another tits and ass site, nothing special. So not notable enough for an article.
Fred
Hmm, but somehow certain other people whose only "notable" features are making sites with attack articles on wikipedia and calling Jimbo names, qualify?
I'm confused as to what our standard is.
Parker
From: "Parker Peters" parkerpeters1002@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: fredbaud@waterwiki.info, "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from makingattackarticles on us Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:21:44 -0600
On 1/24/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: · Firefoxman [mailto:enwpmail@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:58 AM To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making
attack articles on us
Wouldent they deserve their own article?
No, except for their attack articles on Wikipedia, its just another tits and ass site, nothing special. So not notable enough for an article.
Fred
Hmm, but somehow certain other people whose only "notable" features are making sites with attack articles on wikipedia and calling Jimbo names, qualify?
I'm confused as to what our standard is.
Parker
Our standard is non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, it turns out.
GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into something more. http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtaglin...
On 1/24/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, but somehow certain other people whose only "notable" features are making sites with attack articles on wikipedia and calling Jimbo names, qualify?
I'm confused as to what our standard is.
One of the prices we pay for openness is inconsistency - it's just the way it is. Over time this tends to correct itself, albeit slowly.
-Matthew
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 1/24/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, but somehow certain other people whose only "notable" features are making sites with attack articles on wikipedia and calling Jimbo names, qualify?
I'm confused as to what our standard is.
One of the prices we pay for openness is inconsistency - it's just the way it is. Over time this tends to correct itself, albeit slowly.
To take that a step further some of us (myself included) find it easier to accomodate that inconsistency for the sake of openness. The other side is more willing to sacrifice openness just to have things consistent.
Ec
On 1/24/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
To take that a step further some of us (myself included) find it easier to accomodate that inconsistency for the sake of openness. The other side is more willing to sacrifice openness just to have things consistent.
I wholly agree with you. The dynamism that makes Wikipedia good does not lend itself to rigid standards. Over time, some 'the way we do things' set up, but I feel that too much effort to make them rigid is counter-productive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Parker Peters stated for the record:
I'm confused as to what our standard is.
Parker
"Our"? In what strange sense are you using that word?
Oh. Of course. The same sense in which you used the word "leave."
- -- Sean Barrett | She had lost the art of conversation, sean@epoptic.com | but not, unfortunately, the power | of speech. --George Bernard Shaw