[WikiEN-l] Attack Site Wars, Episode VII... The Return of the Essjay

[White Cat]

http://www.google.com/trends?q=jimmy+wales+wikipedia%2C+brian+peppers+wikipedia%2C+essjay+wikipedia%2C+iraq+war+poll&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Now thats a more accurate way to look at it.

   - White Cat


On 6/27/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to add that the news article is merely a statistical update on
> the war in Iraq. The poll is probably note-worthy only as statistical raw
> data. Aside from that it is not very notable at all. We do not want/need
> "opinion polls by month" chain articles.
>
> People's right to vanish is an important aspect to any Wiki (or community
> for that matter) unless the wiki enjoys being a dick to its former users.
> Unless there is disruption, there is no reason not to observe "right to
> vanish." Who would want to contribute to a wiki which actively mocks former
> members?
>
> Essjay had contributed to the project a great deal and is not given half
> the courtesy he deserves for that. Vandals who had done nothing productive
> (aside from MediaWiki fixes to prevent their vandalism) like MARMOT are
> given a greater courtesy. For example Jimbo even deleted the vandalism
> related sub pages out of courtesy to MARMOT. Frankly I feel people are being
> unfair to Essjay.
>
>            - White Cat
>
> On 6/27/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq yes, thats fine. But an
> > article about the spesific poll is not. An article on wikipedia is fine, an
> > article on every minor dispute is not.
> >
> >      - White Cat
> >
> > On 6/27/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/27/07, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Headline on CNN right now is "Poll: War support at new low" do we
> > > have an
> > > > article of this poll? We write articles on events unless they are
> > > notable
> > > > enough for the entire year rather than day.
> > >
> > > [[American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq]]
> > >
> > > > A notable event would be Jimbo deciding to shut down the site
> > > (wikipedia)
> > > > for example which would IMHO only be notable enough to be mentioned
> > > on the
> > > > article on [[Wikipedia]]. Probably the coverage would be one or two
> > > lines,
> > > > max a paragraph. Not a full article, that can be on wikinews
> > > (maybe). Essjay
> > > > incident however isn't even worth a single line mention on article
> > > > namespace.
> > > >
> > > > I also think that Essjay article is in violation of the spirit of
> > > "right to
> > > > vanish". I do not particularly ''like'' Essjay but this mocking of
> > > him even
> > > > bothers me. I ask myself this question: "will I be mistreated like
> > > him if
> > > > circumstances are right?"
> > >
> > > The spirit of "right to vanish" is one important to MeatballWiki, not
> > > to an encyclopedia. In fact, it contravenes the mission of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but them's the breaks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 6/27/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jun 25, 2007, at 8:30 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/25/07, Anirudh <anirudhsbh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 1) An incident which has coverage (in some cases front-page) in
> > > most
> > > > > > major US newspapers and newsmagazines rises to the level of
> > > notability
> > > > > > under any rational interpretation of the word.
> > > > >
> > > > > In many cases, yes.  But actually in most cases, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a very big routine news story today:
> > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6238740.stm
> > > > >
> > > > > Widely covered:
> > > > > http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&client=firefox-
> > > > > a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%
> > > > > 3Aofficial&ncl=1117582711&hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > But I think we can all say that this study does not deserve an
> > > > > encyclopedia article.  It's just a routine "filler" news story.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think if you survey the front page of CNN or BBC or the New York
> > > > > Times each day, you will find that the vast majority of news
> > > stories
> > > > > are not about things which are encyclopedic in nature, and we end
> > > up
> > > > > not writing about most of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > This may or may not have relevance in the EssJay notability
> > > debate,
> > > > > but just saying "it was in a lot of newspapers" doesn't really
> > > help
> > > > > settle the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Jimbo
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
>