http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/29/teen_held_in_long-running_l...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wikipedia29apr29,0,3359667.story
The school website was not particularly helpful. No way I could find to email them, so someone who was willing to call had to be found. This is a good example of the horror that descends on the probably naive prankster. 16 cops and a psychiatrist...
Fred
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wikipedia29apr29,0,3359667.story
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after, uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but Special:EmailUser?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wikipedia29apr29,0,3359667.story
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after, uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but Special:EmailUser?
-- Chris Howie
Oh, but it's from a "Reliable Source", so it must be right!
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after, uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but Special:EmailUser?
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came across fine.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after, uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but Special:EmailUser?
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came across fine.
Yes, but I'm a technical person. Technical mistakes bug the crap out of me. :)
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came across fine.
Yes, but I'm a technical person. Technical mistakes bug the crap out of me. :)
I find it hard enough getting across the difference between "block" and "ban" :-)
- d.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came across fine.
Yes, but I'm a technical person. Technical mistakes bug the crap out of me. :)
I find it hard enough getting across the difference between "block" and "ban" :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Better get that straight before your RfA!
I still think it highlights a problem with being over reliant on such outlets as "reliable". My own "original research" has been that journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong. No solutions, just pointing it out.
On 4/30/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after, uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but
Special:EmailUser?
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came across fine.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/4/30 Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com:
My own "original research" has been that journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong.
That's the most we could ask of generalists. Details are far less important in the scheme of things.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com:
My own "original research" has been that journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong.
That's the most we could ask of generalists. Details are far less important in the scheme of things.
My thought process goes "if they can't get simple details right, details available on the front page of a Google search, how do I know the rest of the article is correct?" What else has been misinterpreted? Exaggerated? Downplayed?
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com:
My own "original research" has been that journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong.
That's the most we could ask of generalists. Details are far less important in the scheme of things.
My thought process goes "if they can't get simple details right, details available on the front page of a Google search, how do I know the rest of the article is correct?" What else has been misinterpreted? Exaggerated? Downplayed?
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
The same problem is true of almost every source you'll ever use. We can't really hope to be completely accurate - nothing is. Not newspapers, not books, not journals, nothing. In my office the journal Nature is the butt of jokes for printing so much wrong information - this is simply how life is. Reviewed, edited printed material from respected publishers is often wrong.
WilyD