On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real needs."
Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia work.
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real needs." Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia work.
I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs verboten.
- d.
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real needs." Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia work.
I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs verboten.
All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real needs." Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia
work.
I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs verboten.
All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.
Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.
On 30/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.
e.g. SlimVirgin, in emails at the time WP:RS was congealing.
- d.
On 5/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules
would
be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to
real
needs." Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making
Wikipedia
work.
I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs
verboten.
All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.
Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.
Indeed. I was astonished to see a discussion on [[Talk:Paul Krugman]] referring to BLP and RS to support the contention that blogs can never be cited as sources. I've written more than one FA based on, among other sources, a blog which has been cited by no less than the BBC. Should these FAs be defeatured?
Johnleemk
On 5/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.
Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.
Direct them to the policies, particularly V and BLP.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real needs."
Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia work.
As I understand it, NPOV *was* there from the beginning, but NOR was developed to deal with pseudoscientific physicist kooks.
Also see [[User:Kim Bruning/Lost functionalities]]. ~~~~
On 30/05/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Also see [[User:Kim Bruning/Lost functionalities]]. ~~~~
Interesting page. Without a doubt, the Wikipedia of today is not the Wikipedia I joined 3 years ago. I'm no longer particularly convinced that either modus operandi is/was sustainable.
There's a case for using the wiki model only to collaborate on article content, not management (I'm not suggesting immutable management structures; just not as "flexible" as wiki model).
Zoney
on 5/30/07 10:01 AM, Zoney at zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
There's a case for using the wiki model only to collaborate on article content, not management (I'm not suggesting immutable management structures;
How about a creative one to suit the particular creation.
Marc Riddell