Go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Darren%40nocuffs
A series of articles headed "Article by Darren Kavinoky" (http://www.gotadui.com/) on the stages, processes and implications of DUI and related charges (growing marijuana, possession with intent to supply etc.)
Now get this: not one of them has ever contained a link to his site.
Wow!
A knowledgeable person, a practitioner, contributing content albeit in doubtful format, but nonetheless referenced to penal codes. Vanity? Or the first steps to a seriously useful contribution?
Guy (JzG)
On 5/18/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A knowledgeable person, a practitioner, contributing content albeit in doubtful format, but nonetheless referenced to penal codes. Vanity? Or the first steps to a seriously useful contribution?
Weird, and they all end with "*If you or a loved one was arrested for DUI, please contact a skilled defense lawyer immediately."* ** I don't get it, but I don't see that they're OR either. Maybe {{tone}} would be better. They're weird topics for articles anyway, and not all very suited to Wikipedia. Asked him what his game is?
Steve
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/18/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
A knowledgeable person, a practitioner, contributing
content albeit in
doubtful format, but nonetheless referenced to penal codes.
Vanity?
Or the first steps to a seriously useful contribution?
Weird, and they all end with "*If you or a loved one was arrested for DUI, please contact a skilled defense lawyer immediately."* ** I don't get it, but I don't see that they're OR either. Maybe {{tone}} would be better. They're weird topics for articles anyway, and not all very suited to Wikipedia. Asked him what his game is?
If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?
My feeling is that the information is encyclopaedic, but would be better placed elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_Beverage#Legal_considerations looks good. I note with some amusement that this section is illustrated with a beachfront sign from Corangamite Shire Council. [[Image:AlcoholConsumptionSign.jpg]]
This editor could be a valuable contributor so long as he fits in with our ways and stays off the booze.
-- Peter in Canberra
On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:40:19 +1000, you wrote:
If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?
Yes, why not? Seriously? Much more useful than yet another article on a minor Pokémon character.
My feeling is that the information is encyclopaedic, but would be better placed elsewhere.
Well yes. But I couldn't think where, either.
Guy (JzG)
On May 17, 2006, at 11:44 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?
Yes, why not? Seriously? Much more useful than yet another article on a minor Pokémon character.
My feeling is that the information is encyclopaedic, but would be better placed elsewhere.
Well yes. But I couldn't think where, either.
We should aspire to become an encyclopedia of law. Seriously, the great thing about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia can be more than a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia can replace specialized enyclopedias like encyclopedias of philosophy and encyclopedias of law (if the latter even exist yet).
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
We should aspire to become an encyclopedia of law. Seriously, the great thing about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia can be more than a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia can replace specialized enyclopedias like encyclopedias of philosophy and encyclopedias of law (if the latter even exist yet).
Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
--Peter in Canberra
On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
We should aspire to become an encyclopedia of law. Seriously, the great thing about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia can be more than a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia can replace specialized enyclopedias like encyclopedias of philosophy and encyclopedias of law (if the latter even exist yet).
Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
That's just our development pattern. In the end we will have stable versions that are verified accurate.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
That's just our development pattern. In the end we will have stable versions that are verified accurate.
And therefore obsolete. Law, both legislation and common law, changes rapidly nowadays.
You could have an encyclopaedia of legal basics, but having an uptodate comprehensive legal reference using volunteer labour is probably a very big ask.
Pete, awed by the vision
On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
That's just our development pattern. In the end we will have stable versions that are verified accurate.
And therefore obsolete. Law, both legislation and common law, changes rapidly nowadays.
There's no reason stable versions couldn't be vetted weekly or biweekly. Law still does not change as quickly as technology.
You could have an encyclopaedia of legal basics, but having an uptodate comprehensive legal reference using volunteer labour is probably a very big ask.
Having an up-to-date comprehensive encyclopedia using volunteer labor is a very big task :)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
On May 18, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Peter Mackay wrote:
Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a casual reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?
That's just our development pattern. In the end we will
have stable
versions that are verified accurate.
And therefore obsolete. Law, both legislation and common
law, changes
rapidly nowadays.
There's no reason stable versions couldn't be vetted weekly or biweekly. Law still does not change as quickly as technology.
You could have an encyclopaedia of legal basics, but having an uptodate comprehensive legal reference using volunteer labour is probably a very big ask.
Having an up-to-date comprehensive encyclopedia using volunteer labor is a very big task :)
No argument there, and Wikipedia is a stunning achievement by anybody's standards. However I was thinking that the sort of people who are capable of ensuring that legal articles are accurate, uptodate and dependent are usually busy and highly paid. Asking senior lawyers to work on a legalopedia in their time off is a step up from asking Star Trek fans to compile lists of trivia.
Compiling useful legal articles and then keeping them up to date isn't something your average editor can do. How do we check credentials, for example?
Pete, barrister-at-home
On May 19, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:
Having an up-to-date comprehensive encyclopedia using volunteer labor is a very big task :)
No argument there, and Wikipedia is a stunning achievement by anybody's standards. However I was thinking that the sort of people who are capable of ensuring that legal articles are accurate, uptodate and dependent are usually busy and highly paid. Asking senior lawyers to work on a legalopedia in their time off is a step up from asking Star Trek fans to compile lists of trivia.
Yeah, and the same for asking knowledgeable computer scientists, mathemeticans, or philosophers to contribute. Then again, many lawyers work pro bono giving actual legal advice and representation— certainly editing Wikipedia is easier than this.
Compiling useful legal articles and then keeping them up to date isn't something your average editor can do. How do we check credentials, for example?
Non-lawyers can still cite lawyers, if lawyers write and publish these sorts of resources (law school textbooks perhaps?).
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Yeah, and the same for asking knowledgeable computer scientists, mathemeticans, or philosophers to contribute. Then again, many lawyers work pro bono giving actual legal advice and representation— certainly editing Wikipedia is easier than this.
Perhaps why, much to my surprise, the computer science areas of Wikipedia are particularly poor. I would have thought they would be the strongest areas, but articles on anything which can't be demonstrated with a snippet of C code are pretty lamentable.
Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etl
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps why, much to my surprise, the computer science areas of Wikipedia are particularly poor. I would have thought they would be the strongest areas, but articles on anything which can't be demonstrated with a snippet of C code are pretty lamentable.
Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etl
Err, I wasn't finished yet. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_Relationship_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_warehouse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28computer_science%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning ({{expert}}) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Workflow_Analysis
In general, lots of bullet points, but no sources. Little to no academic journals cited to analyse how the concepts fit together. On specific technologies or products the articles are usually pretty helpful. But for trying to understand general concepts like enterprise resource planning...Wikipedia will not (currently) even get you off the ground.
(I would change my original statement to refer to information systems or software engineering rather than just computer science)
Steve
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
In general, lots of bullet points, but no sources. Little to no academic journals cited to analyse how the concepts fit together. On specific technologies or products the articles are usually pretty helpful. But for trying to understand general concepts like enterprise resource planning...Wikipedia will not (currently) even get you off the ground.
(I would change my original statement to refer to information systems or software engineering rather than just computer science)
Steve
People tend to write about their hobies rather than the stuff they have more formal expertise in. I tend to write about canals rather than chemisty for example.
On 5/18/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If we allow this set of articles, then why not have others covering every other aspect of Californian criminal law? And for the other 49 states. And federally? And then for every other jurisdiction in the world?
Well, there are lots of problems with them, such as that they define their scope particularly badly. But in general having lots of information on certain aspects of a certain legal system does not strike me as a bad thing. Having that information presented as advice or a series of essays is incorrect though. That can be worked on however.
This editor could be a valuable contributor so long as he fits in with our
ways and stays off the booze.
Definitely. Although apparently he has removed some {{AFD}} tags which is just not the done thing. I gather there are a few people who would love to know what he's really up to.
Steve