On 7/5/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: Alexa's numbers are inconsistent. Don't count on them for anything.

On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: CNN *is not* our competition! Not even of Wikinews! We are *tertiary* sources, i.e. we summarize and coordinate what secondary sources make of actual facts on the ground (i.e. primary sources). We'd be impoverished and in trouble without CNN, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and all the rest of the "mainstream media" - We Don't Have The Money To Pay Reporters - and even if we did, that's not our purpose. Jesse Weinstein

On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: Parasitic isn't the word I'd use... Dependent, maybe. Yes - those are benefits we provide, and they are important; but they also have benefits we lack- personal/institutional authority and money to hire investigators/reporters being big ones. If you say that we should be aim to be a better first step in research than CNN, I might agree with you - I think we can get to that; but we certainly can't be a replacement. We work best together. Jesse Weinstein

On Jul 5, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: As does Wikinews; and if you wanted to research a current event, CNN might be a good first step in such research, making it a reference to that event. I fail to see your point. ;-) Jesse Weinstein

On 7/6/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: Nor The Price is Right. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Why is it that Wikipedians seem to have so much trouble accepting legitimate criticism? Wikipedia should be getting its facts *more* correct than the news outlets, not less. I remember a similar mess after the death of [[Jean Charles de Menezes]]. Wikipedia articles repeated unsubstantiated rumor as though it was fact. Even now the [[Kenneth Lay]] article doesn't provide a reference next to the assertion that "Kenneth Lay died from coronary artery disease". This should be unacceptable. Anthony

On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:51 PM, mboverload wrote: /me does a double-take. Someone using the name "mboverload", with a gmail address of the same form, is claiming that we shouldn't allow people to use pseudonyms to participate in Wikipedia? This is a pot calling for the abolition of all kettles, yes? (And don't try to claim that "mboverload" is your legal name...) This is presuming, of course, that the OP didn't merely mean to propose we ban editing without an account (which is a common, although incorrect, use of the term "anon user"). If that is what was meant, I'd merely point out that *We* *Have* *about* *Nine* *Hundred* *Thousand* accounts that don't participate in the community, and making a new account takes less than a minute. Requiring accounts is a (small) speedbump, nothing more - it's not even close to sufficient to make Wikipedia editors non-anonymous, even to other community members. mboverload, you've been asked before if you are merely a troll. Let this message be counted as another such query. Jesse Weinstein

So we ban users like 69.145.123.171, and only accept users who register, like Jason Gastrich? Um.... I'm thinking there is a word for this... oh, the word is NO. One puppy's opinion.... -kc-

mboverload wrote: Then perhaps you were unclear. I didn't say block them. I said "ban" them. Just as you did not say "vandals" you said "stop anon users from editing." You didn't say "vandalizing" you said "editing." You see my confusion. I appreciate you clarifying that you support the current methodology, which is to encourage and welcome any contributor, registered or not, and only block those who vandalize and disrupt. -kc-

On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:01 PM, mboverload wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm also unsurprised. Again, you don't clarify whether you mean: 1) Wikipedia editors who do not associate their editing with their legal name, or 2) Wikipedia editors editing without logging in. Further, "stop" is not entirely clear - edits are atomic transactions - either they have not yet happened, or they have already happened - it's not possible to "stop" them. It is possible to prevent a given user account and/or IP address from making future edits, for specified lengths of time. This does not directly translate to the ability to stop actual *people* from making future edits. In nearly all cases, we can make it harder for people to make future edits, and we can remove all traces of past edits they have made, but we can't entirely prevent them from making any edits. There are too many public computers out there. So, your statement is a non-starter - we can't do that. However, luckily, as I said, we have a large number of measures to make it *harder* for a given person to make future edits, and/or to cause their past edits to be more or less hidden, and most people who make bad edits can be successfully persuaded, by means of these measures, to give up on making future edits, at least for a while. That's the nature of Wikipedia (and the world at large). Well, since it's impossible, I suppose it's good you don't think we should do it. Not always. It can be removed from public view by deletion, and removed from the view of those with the sysop flag by use of the Oversight feature. But, most of the time, we don't do either of those things. Well, we do have an article (or 5) on [[Jesus Christ|Him]], but I'm not sure of the relevance. I hope readers of this thread will note that, contrary to being "obvious", what you stated is not even "possible". I viewed you as acting like one; it was not meant as a comment on your person, merely on your posts to this list. Nevertheless, on reflection, you do seem to be posting in good faith; I am less certain of my view at this point. As I said above, I'm sorry, but unsurprised. Jesse Weinstein

On Jul 9, 2006, at 5:17 AM, Ilmari Karonen wrote: I did suspect that might have been his "point", but if so, it's effectively a tautology - neither obvious, nor interesting, nor meaningful. One might as well say - "The only way to stop stop people from being Jews is to cause there to be no people-who-are-Jews." This doesn't really address any particular point. In any case, considering the metaphor I used above - I call [[Godwin's Law]] on myself. I think this dead horse has been beaten into the ground. I'm going to stop, now. Jesse Weinstein

On 7/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Legitimate criticism should be welcomed, but when the headline says "Wikipedia" as a whole has "confusion" and was "reeling," then that's sensational. Academics and reporters who know that I've published about Wikipedia ask me - "So, how is that crisis on Wikipedia on Ken Lay?" One even requested to do a TV interview about it. I've written a response on my blog to these folks, explaining the lifescycle of a Wikipedia article: http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/05/wikipedias-ken-lay-problem/ Since Wikipedia depends on the first-hand reporting from news outlets, it can only be as good as the ability of human editors to converge on the best version of "the truth" using those sources. -Andrew

On 7/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: In the last year, I have seen Wikipedia articles use much higher standards in attribution and referencing, so at least it's moving in the right direction. I encourage folks to use {{citeneeded}} liberally. Garbage in, garbage out? :) -Andrew

We certainly do do news in the sense that we have articles on current events. On 18/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: True, but not getting breaking news wrong in the first twenty four hours should be. Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a date of death, for instance). The guideline could be part of a template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who want to participate in such things. It'd be a win-win for Wikipedia and Wikinews. Anthony

On 7/18/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: We allow people to add whatever information they want, whenever they want. Any problems arising from people finding incorrect information on Wikipedia in the minutes after a major event are really a question of PR: people should not be expecting accurate information at Wikipedia so soon. I dunno. Reporting Ken Lay's death immediately seems right to me. But readers should be warned that it could be inaccurate. Our goal is an accurate encyclopaedia long term. Putting information that is half-accurate *now* is working towards that goal. Refraining from adding the information is not. Steve