kq wrote:
>New rule! "We will have only [[brilliant prose]] on this site.
No, there are lots of other ways to contribute, such as copyediting,
filling in the various lists and date pages, hunting for copyright
infringements and vandalism, NPOVing, educating newcomers etc. I just
don't think that creating more stubs helps the project in any way.
On the other hand, I completely agree with the gist of the rest
of your message: send your girlfriend, don't send your mother.
Axel
Brion wrote:
> Is there still interest in restoring those old versions?
YES! Restoring the history of contributors is required by the license
anyway.
Axel
!> For those not already aware, we can already do that. You'll need to
!> type (or copy) a URL like this directly into the address line in your
!> browser:
!>
!> http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66…
!>
!>
!> The IP used there (66.47.62.78) is for Helga Jonat; you can substitute
!> any other as required. This is very useful for tracking anonymous
!> vandals, so I'm keen that everyone should know about it.
!
!Would there be any objection to making the IP addresses as listed in
!Recentchanges and History be direct links to the contributions list?
!
!-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Actually, that's what I wanted all along. Thanks for suggesting it, Brion.
Ed Poor
What does that mean?
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <wikipedia-l-admin(a)nupedia.com>
An: <jansson(a)gmx.net>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. August 2002 21:54
Betreff: Your message to Wikipedia-l awaits moderator approval
> Your mail to 'Wikipedia-l' with the subject
>
> Re: [Wikipedia-l] Restoring pre-January edit histories (was Re:
> Undelete...)
>
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
>
> The reason it is being held:
>
> Message may contain administrivia
>
> Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
> notification of the moderator's decision.
>
>All I need is the ability to track "all articles written by a single
> >IP"....
For those not already aware, we can already do that. You'll need to type
(or copy) a URL like this directly into the address line in your browser:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66…
The IP used there (66.47.62.78) is for Helga Jonat; you can substitute any
other as required. This is very useful for tracking anonymous vandals, so
I'm keen that everyone should know about it.
Tim (Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Regarding Mirwin's essay --
I generally agree with what you've said, mike. Just thought you should
know that this has been going on for close to a year now. Wikipedians
have left partially because they were too fed up with their time being
wasted by Helga. In almost every case, one of us (often me) has broken
down her work, explained where the problems are, and asked for sources
and/or clarification of very specific points. We've also offered to
help turn what she comes up with into effective English. Sometimes,
we've put together essays on sources and use of documents that have made
it into different articles. Other times, we've gone out and looked at
her sources ourselves (they are often from highly biased minority
opinion sites or books that are hard to find because they are incredibly
outdated local histories in German), and found that either there was a
fair body of criticism or that she'd quoted out of context.
You are absolutely right about minority opinions -- as long as they are
valid ones. Helga's views on the Heimatvertriebene are generally quite
valid and need to be expressed (I would say it's analogous to the fight
by Roma and gay activists have placed on their inclusion as victims of
the Holocaust -- its only recently that any real research has been done
on the topic, but as it comes to light, it is included in the
mainstream). HOWEVER, she does nothing to help create a collegial
atmosphere where we can add PROVABLE claims in a neutral POV. IMO, her
irredentist views are pretty much insupportable -- not because they are
not accepted by the mainstream, but because she is just wrong. Taken to
an extreme, Helga's arguments could be used to prove that Iberia belongs
to the Irish (choose a group of Celts) -- although she'd probably stop
at the Visigoths, since they're Germans.
Plus, she's accused other wikipedians of drinking too much (Michael
Tinkler) and insulted me on many occasions, to which my fovourtite
response is still from the much-missed Paul Drye "Pot. Kettle. Black."
Jules
Regards,
Julie Hofmann Kemp
253-638-1944
206-310-3461
>
>
>I basically disagree with all of your proposals, which shouldn't be too
>surprising
>since I'm responsible for most of the entry. And being from New York I have
>a certain personal weight on it.
>
Yes, I expected you to respond.
>But a general philosophy that I believe is true for the entire encyclopedia
>which applies here in particular is: Don't remove information. If someone has gone
>to the effort to add information to Wikipedia, and you feel it is poorly
>presented, then improve the presentation. Don't delete it. There's no good reason to
>get rid of the subpages. They should be edited such that they follow a pyramid
>structure of general overview to specific information, but specific information should
>not be lost.
>
Well, we have some rules about what Wikipedia is not. Nr. 14 says: "A
news report". Many of the current entries
violate that, so they'll at least need some big rewrite. Many others
need NPOVing. Other articles such as "personal experiences" of course
NEVER belong in an encyclopedia.
>We are under *no* constraints of size. This is not paper.
>
Yes, but it is an encyclopedia. Also, it was proposed to move the
non-encyclopedic parts, not delete them.
>Similarly, with the casualties (and I'm working on correcting the missing
>persons/ casualties list--it's pretty inaccurate, but oddly, about the only one
>available on the Net), just because the current entries aren't full now doesn't mean they shouldn't
>be in the Wikipedia. There is tons of biographical information about nearly every one
>of the victims available; which should be added to Wikipedia.
>
Why? Every day I can read about at least a dozen of people that died. I
could enter an article on them. "John Doe died on date X in a traffic
accident." Not very useful, right? Or should we also list the 6 million
Jews, and millions of other people that died because of some kind of
artrocity? Have articles about each Palestinian killed by an Israeli
soldier?
>If you don't care about them, then ignore the entries, instead of deleting
>them. Other people do care. And that should be the criterion for what deserves to
>be in Wikipedia. As long as it follows the basic stylistic guidelines, any
>topic is worthy of entry.
>
With discussions going on about removing articles that say "A city in
Arizona", I think "A person that died on 9/11" is of the same category.
Also, the fact that some people care about an article does not
automatically mean it belongs in Wikipedia.
If these articles were not about an incident that happened in the USA,
most of these pages would have long been re-worked, adapted or deleted.
Jeronimo
New rule! "We will have only [[brilliant prose]] on this site. If you do not write brilliant prose, you may prefer to donate your time somewhere else, or perhaps spend your time sulking in the corner."
Or, as Charles Bukowski said (I was an English major, and so I took particular delight in this passage [recognizing more than a little truth in it]):
editorial
the only ones who can write is us. nobody else can write but us. we are the only ones who can write. I don't understand why other people can't write. send money. send your wife--for one night. we do this for love.
we hate war. we like guitars. we paint. we swim. we know everything. the world is evil. we are not evil. send money. we send love. we send love everywhere. send your girlfriend--for 2 nights. don't pay your income tax. blow up the troop trains. smoke pot. sell pot. write your president. write your gov. write your mother for money and send it to us. don't send your mother--at all. literature and the world are in bad shape. we are dying. legalize rape.
no payment for poetry.
yours, love,
Charles Bukowski
----
In short: are stubs an embarassment? Yes. Should we try not to write them? Yes. Should we delete the ones we have? No, just add to them when possible. Alternatively, we might hire the Comic Book Guy to drop in periodically and say "worst article ever." ;-)
Cheers,
kq
You Wrote:
>Axel Boldt <axel(a)uni-paderborn.de> writes:
>
>> I can't see any possible use for stubs.
>
>I agree with everything Axel wrote in the above message.
>Stubs are embarrassing.
>"Jeroen Heijmans" <j.heijmans(a)stud.tue.nl> wrote:
>> Why? Every day I can read about at least a dozen of people
>> that died. I could enter an article on them. "John Doe died
>> on date X in a traffic accident." Not very useful, right? Or
>> should we also list the 6 million Jews, and millions of other
>> people that died because of some kind of artrocity? Have
>> articles about each Palestinian killed by an Israeli soldier?
> Yes, we should. The entries should be more complete, but yes,
> I do think there should be entries on everyone. As long as
> they're entered by hand, the numbers won't get out of hand.
I actually lean toward Cunc's side of this issue. I don't have any
problem with the existence of articles on even the most obscure
subjects, including individuals who might not be of interest to a
traditional encyclopedia. However, I don't want the database filled
with stubs either. I think the best approach in situations like this
is that if a person has only a one- or two-line bio, that bio should
appear next to his name on a page with a list of other names of
related people. For example, a list of victims of a disaster, or
members of some group. There's no need to create a separate page for
such individuals unless there's a full page or more of material on
him.