http://peacecorpsonline.typepad.com/poncacityweloveyou/2007/11/writing-for-w...
[[User:Reservoirhill]], getting on with writing the encyclopedia.
- d.
That's probably the best thing I've read by a relative newcomer in quite some time. Or maybe it's just nice to hear someone talk about building an encyclopedia for once.
On 11/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://peacecorpsonline.typepad.com/poncacityweloveyou/2007/11/writing-for-w...
[[User:Reservoirhill]], getting on with writing the encyclopedia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/11/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably the best thing I've read by a relative newcomer in quite some time. Or maybe it's just nice to hear someone talk about building an encyclopedia for once.
One can forget at times that the encyclopedia is the justification for the community, not the other way around.
(Not that Wikipedians aren't fun to hang around with. c.f. one pub conversation a couple of months ago with three en:wp regulars and one normal person, with us throwing around fabulously erudite historical trivia and WP jargon with the normal person looking increasingly boggled. It's nice to meet people whose brains naturally encrust with the sort of thing you'll see by hitting "Random page" a hundred times.)
- d.
You guys suck. Except for William Pietri. He's cool. I just got blocked on en.wp and wanted to crown it with being blocked here as well. So please do it. I never contributed anything useful ever anyway, I think we're on common ground as far as that goes. The status quo is just great. Long live Jimbo. Or not. You never know. ("DEATH TREAT ON WIKI_EN_L OMG WTF!!!1!")
Also likeable although a pain in the ass is Dan Tobias. You suck, but I like you. Does that make sense? What do I care?
David Gerard mostly sucks. You need a good fuck and a punch to your ugly face.
Fred Bauder only sucks. Big time. He's nuts. Anyone disagree? Please put me "on moderation" or somesuch. I'm determined to throw it all away. Not like those suckers who blank their pages or the like. I'm really into it.
Appears to be a case of posting while intoxicated, judging by his recent contributions on Wikipedia and his talk page ([[User_talk:Dorftrottel]]
-Matt
On 11/4/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Appears to be a case of posting while intoxicated, judging by his recent contributions on Wikipedia and his talk page ([[User_talk:Dorftrottel]]
Or perhaps "Willy on Wheels" stole his laptop.
On 11/4/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably the best thing I've read by a relative newcomer in quite some time. Or maybe it's just nice to hear someone talk about building an encyclopedia for once.
I can't help but think this is someone one deletionist away from being bitter; we burn our enthusiastic contributors rather badly. Sorry for the cynicism.
-Matt
Hey, I love the enthusiasm of the guy, but doing writing great articles on your shitty local band (doesn't seem to be in this case) is still writing about your shitty, non-notable local band. Enthusiasm doesn't contradict basic principles.
On 11/4/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/4/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
That's probably the best thing I've read by a relative newcomer in quite some time. Or maybe it's just nice to hear someone talk about building
an
encyclopedia for once.
I can't help but think this is someone one deletionist away from being bitter; we burn our enthusiastic contributors rather badly. Sorry for the cynicism.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/11/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, I love the enthusiasm of the guy, but doing writing great articles on your shitty local band (doesn't seem to be in this case) is still writing about your shitty, non-notable local band. Enthusiasm doesn't contradict basic principles.
And if you don't have principles you aren't worthing of breathing! Freedom Liberty and whatever else the dry old cry is.
You only love the enthusiasm in words. You actually hate it because it tarnishes your beautiful prestigious selective "encyclopedia".
Peter
And if you don't have principles you aren't worthing of breathing! Freedom Liberty and whatever else the dry old cry is.
You only love the enthusiasm in words. You actually hate it because it tarnishes your beautiful prestigious selective "encyclopedia".
I guess I forgot people on this list might be in a shitty local band...
On 11/4/07, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/11/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, I love the enthusiasm of the guy, but doing writing great articles
on
your shitty local band (doesn't seem to be in this case) is still
writing
about your shitty, non-notable local band. Enthusiasm doesn't contradict basic principles.
And if you don't have principles you aren't worthing of breathing! Freedom Liberty and whatever else the dry old cry is.
You only love the enthusiasm in words. You actually hate it because it tarnishes your beautiful prestigious selective "encyclopedia".
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/4/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I forgot people on this list might be in a shitty local band...
More accurately, I think, many of us disagree with 'non-notable' as it seems to be defined by some, and think that many minor subjects are still worth documenting if sufficient good sources can be found.
-Matt
Of course they're worth being documented. That doesn't mean they're worth being documented -on Wikipedia-. I have no problem with blog indexes, band fansites, web directories, telephone books, or any other form of documentation. That doesn't mean we should be any of those.
On 11/5/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/4/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I forgot people on this list might be in a shitty local band...
More accurately, I think, many of us disagree with 'non-notable' as it seems to be defined by some, and think that many minor subjects are still worth documenting if sufficient good sources can be found.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Of course they're worth being documented. That doesn't mean they're worth being documented -on Wikipedia-. I have no problem with blog indexes, band fansites, web directories, telephone books, or any other form of documentation. That doesn't mean we should be any of those.
I think that any band who would be included in a specialist encyclopedia of their genre/era should be included on Wikipedia, at least briefly. No need for lots of unverifiable detail.
-Matt
I'm not so sure. I like the idea of undue weight in NPOV. I think it's an important principle. I think people forget that "edit" often means "cut" (in fact, for most who have the position of editor, their major role is to cut and exclude). That's not a -bad- part of the editing process, it's a necessary one. People tend to throw around "delete" like it's a dirty word, when really an editing process without it just leads to confusing, disorganized, crufty material.
Or to put it more shortly, sometimes we're giving undue weight to something by including it at all.
On 11/5/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Of course they're worth being documented. That doesn't mean they're worth being documented -on Wikipedia-. I have no problem with blog indexes, band fansites, web directories, telephone books, or any other form of documentation. That doesn't mean we should be any of those.
I think that any band who would be included in a specialist encyclopedia of their genre/era should be included on Wikipedia, at least briefly. No need for lots of unverifiable detail.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Todd Allen wrote:
I'm not so sure. I like the idea of undue weight in NPOV. I think it's an important principle. I think people forget that "edit" often means "cut" (in fact, for most who have the position of editor, their major role is to cut and exclude). That's not a -bad- part of the editing process, it's a necessary one. People tend to throw around "delete" like it's a dirty word, when really an editing process without it just leads to confusing, disorganized, crufty material.
Or to put it more shortly, sometimes we're giving undue weight to something by including it at all.
That puzzles me.
I agree we should delete confusing, disorganized or crufty material, naturally. But could you tell me more about how we could give a subject undue weight by including it?
I'm trying to think of some topic where we could verify the material in reliable sources, but the very inclusion of which would violate undue weight. It would seem that if somebody were to bother publishing something solid on the topic, that would imply an audience, so we'd have no reason not to follow suit eventually. Could you give some sort of example?
Thanks,
William
It's so ironic that a post that began as a delighted note about someone focusing on encyclopedic writing rather than notability debate morphs into...a notability debate.
On 11/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
I'm not so sure. I like the idea of undue weight in NPOV. I think it's an important principle. I think people forget that "edit" often means "cut" (in fact, for most who have the position of editor, their major role is to cut and exclude). That's not a -bad- part of the editing process, it's a necessary one. People tend to throw around "delete" like it's a dirty word, when really an editing process without it just leads to confusing, disorganized, crufty material.
Or to put it more shortly, sometimes we're giving undue weight to something by including it at all.
That puzzles me.
I agree we should delete confusing, disorganized or crufty material, naturally. But could you tell me more about how we could give a subject undue weight by including it?
I'm trying to think of some topic where we could verify the material in reliable sources, but the very inclusion of which would violate undue weight. It would seem that if somebody were to bother publishing something solid on the topic, that would imply an audience, so we'd have no reason not to follow suit eventually. Could you give some sort of example?
Thanks,
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
It's so ironic that a post that began as a delighted note about someone focusing on encyclopedic writing rather than notability debate morphs into...a notability debate.
That's probably where we're heading, isn't it? Sorry! I withdraw my question.
Thanks,
William
Matthew Brown wrote:
I think that any band who would be included in a specialist encyclopedia of their genre/era should be included on Wikipedia, at least briefly. No need for lots of unverifiable detail.
Agreed! I originally thought of Wikipedia as the world's best general encyclopedia. Britannica++, I guess. But now I think of it as the union of all the plausible specialist encyclopedias. As long as we can verify the material, naturally.
It's fun to browse through Amazon's listing of circa 32,000 things in their encyclopedia category:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_9/?rh=n%3A21%2Cn%3A11713
Not all of these are what I'd call encyclopedias. But it does make me wonder how are coverage is on grasses for livable landscapes, or Russian criminal tattoos, both of which have their own encyclopedias.
William
Quoting Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
On 11/4/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I forgot people on this list might be in a shitty local band...
More accurately, I think, many of us disagree with 'non-notable' as it seems to be defined by some, and think that many minor subjects are still worth documenting if sufficient good sources can be found.
Agreed, if reliable secondary sources exist about a shitty local band then we should have an article about it.
On 05/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
On 11/4/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I forgot people on this list might be in a shitty local band...
More accurately, I think, many of us disagree with 'non-notable' as it seems to be defined by some, and think that many minor subjects are still worth documenting if sufficient good sources can be found.
Agreed, if reliable secondary sources exist about a shitty local band then we should have an article about it.
It seems that we're dangerously close to agreeing here. Three people agreeing about the concept of notability on enwiki - is the world going to explode? :-)
Yrs,
On 11/4/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I can't help but think this is someone one deletionist away from being bitter; we burn our enthusiastic contributors rather badly. Sorry for the cynicism.
If that really is cynicism, then cynicism really is a virtue.
—C.W.
Haha, of course cynicism is a virtue. Wikipedia would drive you mad otherwise - besides, one avoid disappointment this way.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:13:40 -0600 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Write stuff and take pictures!
On 11/4/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I can't help but think this is someone one deletionist away from being bitter; we burn our enthusiastic contributors rather badly. Sorry for the cynicism.
If that really is cynicism, then cynicism really is a virtue.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Feel like a local wherever you go. http://www.backofmyhand.com
On 11/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://peacecorpsonline.typepad.com/poncacityweloveyou/2007/11/writing-for-w...
I saw the link and thought it had to do with "Writing for Wik" as in, you know, "editing on behalf of User:Wik". I laughed.
—C.W.