Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the source is reliable". Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/11/2009 5:44:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
It depends how querulous and idiotic they're being, and if they can get a couple of their mates to be querulous and idiotic as well.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
2009/1/12 WJhonson@aol.com:
Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the source is reliable".
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
- d.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/12 WJhonson@aol.com:
Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the source is reliable".
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
- 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
There is a tremendous difference between "won't accept just anything" and "won't accept anything". Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean you're done, and can say "I've got it sourced, these horrible people just won't accept it!"
On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is a tremendous difference between "won't accept just anything" and "won't accept anything". Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean you're done, and can say "I've got it sourced, these horrible people just won't accept it!"
"A few blogs" and "A blog entry by Richard Bartle, one of the most recognized experts on MUDs" are rather different.
I mean, which part of WP:V's section on self-published sources, exactly, are you suggesting that Bartle doesn't meet?
(Mind you, there have been some clever lunacies trying to discredit Bartle. The fact that it's possible he's played the game is one of my favorites. I wish I were making this up.)
-Phil
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is a tremendous difference between "won't accept just anything" and "won't accept anything". Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean you're done, and can say "I've got it sourced, these horrible people just won't accept it!"
"A few blogs" and "A blog entry by Richard Bartle, one of the most recognized experts on MUDs" are rather different.
I mean, which part of WP:V's section on self-published sources, exactly, are you suggesting that Bartle doesn't meet?
(Mind you, there have been some clever lunacies trying to discredit Bartle. The fact that it's possible he's played the game is one of my favorites. I wish I were making this up.)
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so."
In at least one of these sources, the author is pretty clearly pushing for inclusion of an article. Also, we're not simply talking verifiability, but notability. A self-published source can, as above, in limited circumstances provide verifiable information, but it does nothing to show notability.
My questions are: Who cares how many pages they have deleted? How does it influence the guy visiting his user page? What's so cool about deleting pages?
-- Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 22:56, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/12 WJhonson@aol.com:
Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the source is reliable".
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
- 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
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all sincerity, the following.
1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no evidence) that its author played the game in question. 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games submitted)
And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources it does have. That particular glory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(onli...)
Meanwhile, an actually promising proposal for fiction notability that had multiple parties, both inclusionist and deletionist, onboard is now being derailed by two or three people who are holding the "No retreat, no surrender, no loosening of standards for fiction" line with no willingness to compromise, openly saying they'd rather treat each article as a battleground than loosen standards to something that approximates the practical consensus on fiction. One person compared the keeping of fiction articles by the community to Jim Crow laws. In all seriousness.
I have spoken of the toxicity of deletionists, but this is beyond toxicicity. This is an active cancer - and one that the arbcom has, historically, been too chicken to take on.
Just how much commitment to removing content for the sake of removing content needs to be demonstrated before we can say that it violates policy and just block the idiots?
-Phil
See? Even if I put the formalsource for my Waters interview, it would be put as "unverifiable"
-- Alvaro
On 12-01-2009, at 12:19, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all sincerity, the following.
1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no evidence) that its author played the game in question. 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games submitted)
And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources it does have. That particular glory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(onli... )
Meanwhile, an actually promising proposal for fiction notability that had multiple parties, both inclusionist and deletionist, onboard is now being derailed by two or three people who are holding the "No retreat, no surrender, no loosening of standards for fiction" line with no willingness to compromise, openly saying they'd rather treat each article as a battleground than loosen standards to something that approximates the practical consensus on fiction. One person compared the keeping of fiction articles by the community to Jim Crow laws. In all seriousness.
I have spoken of the toxicity of deletionists, but this is beyond toxicicity. This is an active cancer - and one that the arbcom has, historically, been too chicken to take on.
Just how much commitment to removing content for the sake of removing content needs to be demonstrated before we can say that it violates policy and just block the idiots?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikipedia's War on Gaming History and Threshold RPG Article by Michael Hartman (4,659 pts ) Published on Jan 10, 2009 Wikipedia is currently dominated by a powerful deletionist movement. MUDs and Gaming History are frequent targets, and Threshold RPG recently found itself in the Wikipedian crosshairs. Wikipedia has lost its way, and obscure, interesting content is constantly in jeopardy of disappearing. Tags: Wikipedia, rpg, threshold, mmo, mud
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows-platform/articles/22166.aspx
rcasm> That's a blog, so it doesn't count. </sarcasm>
While we've discussed this, there are some new points, and I think the canvassing problem is one of the worst. It ends up meaning that the people who are affected by a change never get to participate in the decision, because it's impossible to inform them witbhout "canvassing" or "meatpuppets".
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
rcasm> That's a blog, so it doesn't count.
</sarcasm>
While we've discussed this, there are some new points, and I think the canvassing problem is one of the worst. It ends up meaning that the people who are affected by a change never get to participate in the decision, because it's impossible to inform them witbhout "canvassing" or "meatpuppets".
It's also a newbie problem. Some of the accounts in question are improving, on a steep learning curve. Others never came back or show little activity or interest in the rest of Wikipedia (normal behaviour for most new accounta). Such incidents also show the worst of how Wikipedia can treat newcomers.
Carcharoth
Please see the "To boldly delete what no one had deleted before" thread. - White Cat
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.comwrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all sincerity, the following.
1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no evidence) that its author played the game in question. 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games submitted)
And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources it does have. That particular glory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(onli...)
Meanwhile, an actually promising proposal for fiction notability that had multiple parties, both inclusionist and deletionist, onboard is now being derailed by two or three people who are holding the "No retreat, no surrender, no loosening of standards for fiction" line with no willingness to compromise, openly saying they'd rather treat each article as a battleground than loosen standards to something that approximates the practical consensus on fiction. One person compared the keeping of fiction articles by the community to Jim Crow laws. In all seriousness.
I have spoken of the toxicity of deletionists, but this is beyond toxicicity. This is an active cancer - and one that the arbcom has, historically, been too chicken to take on.
Just how much commitment to removing content for the sake of removing content needs to be demonstrated before we can say that it violates policy and just block the idiots?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/12 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here from observation of the phenomenon.
This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all sincerity, the following.
1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no evidence) that its author played the game in question. 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games submitted)
And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources it does have. That particular glory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(onli...)
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
Michel
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...)
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion. Not quite ideal in some ways, as this is a deletion, not a blanking (as the summary says), and these two actions (deletion and blanking) are very different, but you are best off asking the admin involved what happened there, though he may be unable to tell you much more.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS
Carcharoth
The admin should at least give you a ticket number so that his action can be reviewed by other otrs members.
On 1/13/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...)
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion. Not quite ideal in some ways, as this is a deletion, not a blanking (as the summary says), and these two actions (deletion and blanking) are very different, but you are best off asking the admin involved what happened there, though he may be unable to tell you much more.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...)
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now reads "The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in html comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.orgwrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&oldid=263769784
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now reads "The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in html comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You high or something? - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to have disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th... < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...) < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now
reads
"The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in html comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
You high or something?
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to
have
disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&oldid=263769784
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now
reads
"The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in
html
comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell. - White_Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
You high or something?
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to
have
disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th... < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...) < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia
OTRS
service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now
reads
"The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in
html
comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 1/14/09 9:38 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
- White_Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now it may take an observatory telescope to detect it but it's there. But that light will only remain there provided we all keep questioning. The important things are, take nothing as "gospel", take nothing as a "given". We must all keep questioning.
Marc
Unfortunately neither your nor my fancy words will resolve the dispute. - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/14/09 9:38 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
- White_Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
inexorable
decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for
posterity
is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now it may take an observatory telescope to detect it but it's there. But that light will only remain there provided we all keep questioning. The important things are, take nothing as "gospel", take nothing as a "given". We must all keep questioning.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 1/14/09 10:49 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately neither your nor my fancy words will resolve the dispute.
- White Cat
Very true, WC. That would take re-thinking the process. Hmmmm.
Marc
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 1/14/09 9:38 AM, White Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
The Phoenix will surely rise again. How soon? Time will tell.
- White_Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
inexorable
decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for
posterity
is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now it may take an observatory telescope to detect it but it's there. But that light will only remain there provided we all keep questioning. The important things are, take nothing as "gospel", take nothing as a "given". We must all keep questioning.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apple!?
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
You high or something?
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
<snip>
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to
have
disappeared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th... <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA... )<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now
reads
"The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in
html
comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apple was an engine of innovation from about 1976 to 1991 with overlapping breakthrough projects (1976-1983: Apple I/II) (1978-1985: Macintosh) (1986-1992: Powerbook). It then entered a period of decline, reaching a nadir in the mid-nineties.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Apple!?
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an inexorable decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of innovation before they lose steam (see SRI, Xerox PARC, GNU, Apple). Perhaps Wikipedia will enjoy a rebirth, but I expect its natural successor to emerge under a different umbrella. Fortunately, the important thing for posterity is that Wikipedia's core assets are under a free license.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
You high or something?
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
<snip>
> Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD? It seems to
have
> disappeared: >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_%28online_game%29&oldid=263769784
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Th...
> > The edit summary just says "oops".
The deletion log helps in cases like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game
)<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3AA...
"OTRS Courtesy blank"
What probably happened is that someone who was unhappy with some of the things said in the heat of the moment e-mailed the Wikipedia OTRS service and asked for a courtesy deletion.
The entire discussion needed to be deleted, apparently. The page now
reads
"The result was *delete*." with the rest of the deletion summary in
html
comment.
I'm officially weirded out. :)
Michel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
You high or something?
- White Cat
I gather from this that you are not familiar with Cunc's curmudgeonly conscience. :-)
Ec
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote
Long live deletionism!
I gather not being familiar with it is a good thing... - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
You high or something?
- White Cat
I gather from this that you are not familiar with Cunc's curmudgeonly conscience. :-)
Ec
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
wrote
Long live deletionism!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
...If they don't believe a given item can have reliable sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on their
user pages - then they just won't accept anything.
This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen...
I am an avid inclusionist; I am no deletionist. I am a fan of MUDs, having played and written them. I am not a rabid nutter, nor an apologist for same. But I just took a look at [[Threshold (online game)]] for the first time, and y'know, it's marginal.
I bring this up *not* to suggest that the article deserves deletion. But a reasonable person could reasonably conclude, based on reasonably-written notability and sourcing policies, that this article did not quite make the cut. If it's "obviously" "reasonable" for this article to be kept, I suspect our notability and sourcing policies would need a significant amount of relaxing in order to make that conclusion unambiguously clear.
Currently (and aside from any ministrations by rabid nutters), our notability and sourcing policies are rather carefully designed to exclude cruft which obviously, reasonably does not belong in the encyclopedia. If they then "wrongly" suggest deleting this article, what we have is another nice example that what's obvious and reasonable to one person is not to another. And Wikipedia is long since big enough for these differences of opinion to occur.