2009/9/6 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/6 David Gerard :
>> If your life is suffering from inadequate levels of stupid (I know!
>> Whose doesn't?), that looks like just the forum for you to get a topup
>> from.
> Why do you still read SEO sites? They are all that stupi
2009/9/6 Risker :
> 2009/9/6 David Gerard
>> What could possibly go wrong?
>> http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo-tools/115582-wikipedia-linking-tool.html
>> If your life is suffering from inadequate levels of stupid (I know!
>> Whose doesn't?)
2009/9/6 Charles Matthews :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I have a Google alert on "Wikipedia".
> JOOI, how many alerts a day?
Several, usually a few hits each. I get news and blog hits (as part of
my self-assigned task to keep up with the blog and media buzz). I get
them i
2009/9/6 Steve Bennett :
> Just to hijack the thread...Once a site is blacklisted, is there any
> way to link to it? I had the situation recently that I wanted to
> reference a site (squidoo.com from memory) but it was blacklisted.
You could probably spell out the name and not make it a link.
2009/9/6 geni :
> Of course they have a wiki of their own:
> http://blackhat.wikia.com/wiki/Blackhat_Wiki
w00t! Can't wait for the conspiracy theorists to get hold of that one.
It's *obviously* part of the WMF office space deal.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l ma
2009/9/8 Andrew Turvey :
> Working with some other editors, I started [1] to go through older unsourced
> living people biographies (BLPs) and either add references or propose for
> deletion under the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), the proposed deletion
> process (PROD) or the Articles for
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell :
> on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> (Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
> Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
> You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their writin
2009/9/9 :
> What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our
> first incident of a particular "fact" is a primary source, no matter
> what their source was.
You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term
is not the established meaning for this term
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell :
> on 9/9/09 4:50 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hmm. Writing styles - and editing styles - are indeed quite
>> distinctive. If someone suddenly writes something out-of-character
>> online, I'll tend to first assume someone e
2009/9/9 Apoc 2400 :
> On a more general note, PROD is relatively drama-free, but I wonder about
> the accuracy. Is it really good to let the hard work an editor that has
> since left Wikipedia be deleted based on 5 seconds of consideration and no
> discussion?
Anything PRODded can be undeleted
2009/9/9 Carcharoth :
> I have seen some PRODs deleted not as PRODs but as CSDs (and
> inaccurate CSDs as well). That sometimes gets me confused. PRODs can
> be undeleted, but I've never been 100% sure about CSDs. Do you need to
> ask the deleting administrator about those first?
Nope. Again, no
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews :
> I think an admin undeleting a speedy should always leave a note to the
> deleting admin, explaining why. The usual reason would be that a mistake
> of some kind (e.g. on copyright) has been made in applying CSD. If there
> is an issue of a judgement call on notability
2009/9/9 Charles Matthews :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> So making a
>> drama-free "clean up afterwards" procedure was considered the least
>> worst way of dealing with things.
> Hope you're right, David, since I'm over at CAT:CSD right now and
> reviv
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe :
> As a new page patroller, this kind of makes sense. I tag lots of
> articles for deletion via CSD or PROD. I get a lot of complaints from
> people who don't know wikipedia policy, and I gently guide them
> whenever I can (okay, take the PROD tag off *after* you've improved
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe :
> Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also has
a note asking for more and better references.
- d.
_
2009/9/9 Fred Bauder :
> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little
> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious.
I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case
was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about
po
2009/9/9 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/9 :
>> I really don't see this as IAR.
>> It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
>> reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
>> secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
>> flat
2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
> I think that depends upon your standards. From my perspective, when you
> consider we're staffed by a bunch of volunteers who usually have to
> learn about the subject before they can write about it, we ain't doing
> bad. I think what a lot of frustration and drama
2009/9/11 FT2 :
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>> So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced for
>> pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival material, such
>> as the use of some material form the 11th edition of Britannica a
2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
> Yes, the article will no longer be a working draft.
> Blimey, this really is a big change. Now I understand why I saw you on
> newsnight. Hmmm.
Yeah. I think it was on Newsnight because of journalistic August, but
it's big news in the Wikipedia editing communit
2009/9/12 Joseph Reagle :
> On Saturday 12 September 2009, Keith Old wrote:
>> http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed
> It'd be a lot bigger than that! That's not even the width of a basic
> multi-volume print encyclopedia.
yep - that's just the Featured Article
2009/9/16 Judson Dunn :
> Just FYI, I know people had talked about this before in the context of
> using reCAPTCHA on wikipedia. The consensus, if I remember correctly,
> was that while it was open source, they required you to use their
> servers which would be an unacceptable point of failure.
2009/9/17 Carcharoth :
> Really, there should be a section for restoration notes. Shoehorning
> them into the "Other versions" field doesn't really work for the cases
> where you want to make clear what the work done was. Either it is
> routine enough not to need crediting, or it is involved enoug
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brion Vibber
Date: 2009/9/17
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Beta edit toolbar disabled temporarily
To: Wikimedia developers
Due to compatibility problems on Internet Explorer after yesterday’s
code update, I’ve temporarily disabled the Usability Initiative’s
Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE tags in the text!
(Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steve Bennett
Date: 2009/9/18
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Article metadata separation from main wikitext
To: Wikimedia developers
2009/9/18 geni :
> 2009/9/18 David Gerard :
>> Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE tags in the text!
>> (Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
> this is going to create issues with {{reflist}} no?
>_< There's always one, isn't there ...
Fixin
2009/9/18 geni :
> 2009/9/18 David Gerard :
>> Hey kids! Sort out those BLOODY INSANE tags in the text!
>> (Something to add to AutoWikiBrowser for sure ...)
> this is going to create issues with {{reflist}} no?
I've noted possible problems with {{reflist}} in my A
2009/9/18 Steve Bennett :
> More parameters to is probably the right way to go:
Undoubtedly. {{reflist}} has many thousands of transclusions; surely
enough to rate software support. Go file a bug, or just code it ;-)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/9/18 Charles Matthews :
> Yes, good, but {{reflist}} is also progress and needs to be made compatible.
Shirley {{reflist}} should be made options for . Does it
do anything other than pretty formatting?
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@li
2009/9/18 George Herbert :
> I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to
> say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin
> actions and see if they're documented, justified, reasonable etc and
> give the admins feedback, request more writeup, ask for
> r
2009/9/18 Durova :
> You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
> have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
> discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
> restoration and creative input are mutually exclu
2009/9/21 Surreptitiousness :
> I'd really like some decent surveys conducted which let us
> know exactly what our users and readers want us to be, because without
> that, we're just blowing hot-air.
+1
Suggest this on the strategy wiki.
> We've lost the idea that our readers
> can let us kno
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/
\o/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An objectivist in a liberal blog? It happens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jimmy-wales/what-the-msm-gets-wrong-a_b_292809.html
(It's a piece about our remarkably accuracy-deficient coverage in the
media in the last month or so. What happens when there's nothing to
write about and people like me
2009/9/21 Gwern Branwen :
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/file-renaming-enabled-for-admins/
> Any news about when the rest of us might enjoy move functionality for
> files and not just articles?
Ask on the te
2009/9/22 Durova :
> A small group of people do digital image restoration regularly; we can hold
> focused discussions among ourselves. Perhaps there's a large gap in base
> knowledge between us and Wikimedians in general because when we bring
> concerns to a wider forum the discussion usually ge
2009/9/22 Durova :
> When this thread began I hoped more people would comb the collection in
> search of copyleft license violations. We have been losing FP volunteers
> over license violation problems.
That's a large statement, and it needs substantiation to convince.
Please list the examples
2009/9/22 Durova :
> No David, I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
> step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
> nonproductive. My previous attempts to clarify matters with specific
> examples led to accusations that I had taken the thread
2009/9/22 Durova :
> Am wrapping up a Google Document on another topic and planning a draft
> outline right now. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses;
> multitasking isn't one of mine. David's posts really looked like a bizarre
> attempt to bait me into a flame war just as the thread had
2009/9/24 Carcharoth :
> He said sections, not articles. WP:UNDUE applies within articles.
> Whether a version of WP:UNDUE should apply across the whole
> encyclopedia is essentially the question of notability repackaged. And
> when you spin sections out of existing articles to form new articles,
2009/9/24 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> If what happens with the roll-out of FR is going to be
> a reduction of pages semied or protected fully, that will
> be awesome and a definite proof of Jimbos thesis.
> If however the actual result is a shift in editing cultural
> attitudes (measured for instanc
2009/9/25 Surreptitiousness :
> Another thing that was good about early arbcom was the desire to
> challenge incivility and to accept cases which now would be refused as
The 2009 arbcom's main problem is a severe case of [[regulatory
capture]] by the worst violators of the civility rules. Note t
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on en:wn.
What did it feel like? Cur
2009/9/26 Charles Matthews :
> Traditionally, though, the problem has been underestimated. One need not
> adopt the language of "regulatory capture", as David Gerard does, to
> look the issues in the eye:
> (1) There is actually no substantive consensus position that unciv
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton :
> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/26 David Gerard :
>> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
>> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
>> editing dead.
> No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 10
Put 'em on Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_reflex
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moro_reflex_in_four-day-old_infant.ogv
(and cheers to Sage ;-) )
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from thi
2009/9/28 Durova :
> Congratulations! And thanks for your dedication to the project. You
> realize when he turns thirteen he's going to die of embarrassment over
> this...?
Only if he hasn't made admin yet.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@
There will be a slight delay ...
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Moeller
Date: 2009/9/28
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged
revisions) for English Wikipedia.
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Hi Greg,
a quick note on Sue's behalf
2009/9/28 Charles Matthews :
> OK, here's an old-style formulation: X is to current policy and
> policy-review discussions as RfAr is to the Workshop. What would X be?
That's probably horribly accurate, considering the arbcom tends -
fairly reasonably - to regard the workshops as somewhere annoy
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell :
> Quality is just the default.
> "Draft"(unflagged) "Checked" "Reviewed", perhaps?
I suspect it's actually important to get this right first time - on
en:wp, policy formation is by someone making up a makeshift apparatus
off the top of their head, then later editors a
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell :
> (I think established users forget how annoying becoming autoconfirmed
> is— you have to wake a week and make a bunch of edits to non-semied
> pages. This is pretty obnoxious when you just want to correct a simple
> error on a single article)
^^^ This.
Again, I reit
2009/9/30 Ray Saintonge :
> George Herbert wrote:
>> "Verifyable, but untrue" - where there's evidence to disprove but it's
>> not compellingly better quality data than the untrue data - is the
>> hard case. Either walk the narrow line and present both or pick one
>> and defend using it, staying
2009/10/1 Surreptitiousness :
> You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this
> plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at
> the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died
> off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a conse
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee :
> This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
> which way.
Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series
of quick hacks.
If you regard them as an immaculate stainless steel construction of
flawless design every comp
2009/10/1 FT2 :
> The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of
> definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability
> ("tl;dr"). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can
> spot improvements that others haven't, and they re
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee :
> Well, the last time I ran into this was the way IAR is worded. For such a
> short rule it has a huge flaw: it says you can only ignore rules for the
> purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The result is people
> constantly claiming that you can't ignore
2009/10/4 stevertigo :
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> Because it [IAR] reminds people that the true responsibility to be
>> a good Wikipedian lies with themselves, and not official police
>> or arbiters.
> Then do we even need WP:Civility, if we have IAR?
That's actually a subclass of [[m:Don't be
(spotted by Fuzheado)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/5/789941/-Wingnuts-Rewriting-the-Bible-to-Make-it-Less-Liberal
(context: the Conservapedia translation of the Bible.)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsub
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Wylie
My source for the death is a tweet.
It is a tweet from the official Bletchley Park feed, so I think it's
reliable enough ... but I've asked them for more, and a photo if they
can :-)
Remember: "reliable sources" is a guideline and requires the
application
2009/10/8 Carcharoth :
> Are we fully off-topic for this list yet? :-)
Absolutely on-topic - it's all about We're Here To Write An Encyclopedia!
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit
If you are in the US and you blog and are paid or receive oher
commercial benefits for it, the FTC requires you to reveal the
relationship:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/10/new-ftc-federal-trade-commission-guidelines-disclose-product-review-blogola-payola-favorable-blog-comments-more
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Microsofts-Bing-Adds-Reference-Page-634550/
http://www.bing.com/reference
Bing is attempting to differentiate itself with a nicer "reference"
page. Wikipedia quote at the top. (We're famous enough now that I
could say "of course.")
The search up top says "S
2009/10/9 George Herbert :
> This is very good data in the "how friendly are we to newbies" question.
> Thanks for running the test.
> Please send another update in a couple of more days at least, I am too
> busy to follow on-wiki but I want to see more of the results of this.
Needs writing up f
2009/10/8 Fred Bauder :
> This may apply from time to time to certain of our editors.
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm
Yes. It actually came up in a discussion of a particular company who
are known to employ astroturfers via their PR company.
The catch will be whether the recomme
2009/10/9 Durova :
> The report on National Public Radio the other day stated it was unlikely the
> FTC would be very aggressive about this. Yet the piece's principal focus
> was bloggers. It'd be an interesting question how they'd handle the matter
> when it bleeds over to Wikipedia.
About tw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_balloon_incident
Cheers to Bigtimepeace for this one. Read the detailed explanation.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing lis
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers :
> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
> criteria".
Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not
2009/10/30 geni :
> 2009/10/30 David Gerard :
>> 2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers :
>>> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
>>> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
>>> criteria are "
2009/10/30 Charles Matthews :
> So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the
> preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the
> deleting admin?
That was fatigue from dealing with too many people reacting as I
described. It is of course way less
http://identi.ca/tag/wikipediafundraisingslogans
http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23wikipediafundraisingslogans
Mine: "Give us the money or your homework gets it"
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailin
2009/11/12 Charles Matthews :
> Soxred93 wrote:
>> Maybe the Foundation is trying to teach us a lesson. Maybe they want
>> us to stop complaining about ads, so they intentionally run a bad
>> one. In the next few years, we'll have this to look back on and say,
>> "it could always be worse."
> It
2009/11/13 stevertigo :
> Well its tacky - if for no other reason that it presumes to represent
> Wikipedia's eternal presence. Which is an interesting thought about
> futurism, but one that needs an essay to link to. And the slogan is
> in SHOUTCASE, which everybody knows is the quasi-official f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80HZCap3aWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C66LOXsxVFY
(The first was a hit in 1983. The second, I have no idea of the provenance of.)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
2009/11/15 William Pietri :
> David pointed us to a variety of clever slogans written by the public.
> Isabell was speculating that most of them wouldn't work. I'm just saying
> that we don't have to speculate; we can run all the ones that don't seem
> blatantly counterproductive, and find out how
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners#An_update_on_the_fundraiser
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
-- Forwarded message --
From: Andrew Garrett
Date: 2009/11/16
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Downtime this morning
To: Wikimedia developers
Hi all,
There has been some downtime this morning (about 15 minutes) due to a
software update.
I pushed a software update, and immediately servers
2009/11/16 Ryan Delaney :
> No argument there. What's important about this case is that (as it has been
> explained to me, anyway) someone was deliberately writing a bad article with
> the express intention of being a pain in the ass. That's gaming the system
> in a disruptive way to make some kin
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers
I was struck by the repeated suggestions to look this stuff up on Wikipedia.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubsc
2009/11/17 Nathan :
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, stevertigo wrote:
>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554
>> Linked and digged from a current article. Quite chuckleworthy.
> Now that it is what it is, any idiot can look back and say it was
> obvious what would happen. Far more people got it
2009/11/23 Giacomo M-Z :
> Always paranoia, when you can't provide a satisfactory answer or
> explanation. If I am paranoid, let me tell you that you are quite pathetic.
> Having to have secret little chats because you can't have it all your own
> way on wikipedia. Who the hell are you anyway?
G
2009/11/25 Charles Matthews :
> Up to three BBC TV interviews will be occurring today. They are
> scheduled on the BBC News Channel for 5.50 pm, 7.50 pm (that should be
> me), and we think Newsnight.
I haven't had a call about Newsnight as yet - anyone got this one?
- d.
_
http://www.make-digital.com/make/vol20/?pg=16
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/11/27 Durova :
> It's hard to understand the conjecture that Wikipedia ties in with those
> plans. If anything, Wikipedia's habit of referencing historic news articles
> would help Mr. Murdoch's bottom line because it sends traffic to old
> articles, which can generate advertising revenue fr
2009/11/27 Bod Notbod :
> And the *most* newsworthy stuff makes it into Wikipedia. As a reader
> of Wikipedia I think it's absolutely great. As an editor I'm
> astonished at what fellow editors accomplish with topics. But if I put
> myself in the shoes of journalists and newspaper owners I would b
2009/11/27 Bod Notbod :
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> And the *most* newsworthy stuff makes it into Wikipedia. As a reader
>>> of Wikipedia I think it's absolutely great. As an editor I'm
>>> astonished at what fellow edit
iting V&A with a camera soon?
To: wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org
I have an afternoon to kill in London this Thursday and I own a
digital camera. I'm not sure I've ever been to the V&A, so I wouldn't
mind a visit. Give me a list of things to photograph!
2009/12/4 Da
I'd like to work out some way of advocating the "missing article"
lists to potential new contributors. On en:wp:
http://enwp.org/WP:WANTED
http://enwp.org/WP:MISSING
I've been writing new stub articles just from those in the past couple
of days. It reminds me of how and why I got hooked on writin
2009/12/5 altally :
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> I'd like to work out some way of advocating the "missing article"
>> lists to potential new contributors. On en:wp:
>> http://enwp.org/WP:WANTED
>> http://enwp.org/WP:MISSING
&
2009/12/5 Carcharoth :
> Give polite and constructive feedback on their editing, be gentle on
> what they are doing wrong, leave them with plenty of ideas for other
> things to do, and warn them that Wikipedia is a big place and some
> people they meet will be quite abrasive. If they are already a
2009/12/5 Carcharoth :
> Indeed. It is best, some say, to concentrate on what is most in demand
> (either by what links here, or by searching Wikipedia for the term and
> seeing how many articles mention it). I think 'missing articles' does
> factor that in. Oh, and one way to enculture new editor
2009/12/5 Carcharoth :
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Possibly. It strikes me that one way to recruit smart specialists
>> would be to point them at the redlink list in their specialty. "We
>> have some idea how far we need to go."
>
2009/12/5 Carl (CBM) :
> The difficulty I see for newcomers improving existing articles is
> that, as newcomers, they don't know which things they can change and
> which things they should leave alone.
[snip examples of highly-discussed wordings]
Any article relating to religion can be like this
2009/12/5 Sage Ross :
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> I'm working on the theory that "volunteers will work hard at whatever
>> they damn well feel like." This is one way to get n00bs in, and
>> doesn't preclude other approach
2009/12/6 Steve Bennett :
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Charles Matthews <
> charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Something for Commons, though?
> That's tricky, since Commons by definition only stores media, it doesn't
> have a framework of concepts to hang media off by default. That'
2009/12/6 Carcharoth :
> There *are* photo request places on en-Wikipedia, last time I looked.
> Let me look again...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_pictures
> That is a mixed system of topic pages of requests, and categories of
> articles where photos have been requested.
Ye
2009/12/6 Daniel R. Tobias :
> It's happened to me a few times, that I've created a new article
> where I thought there was a gap, then later found there to be one
> already under a slightly different name.
That'ds why quite a lot of my editing is actually creating redirects!
Usually when I want
2009/12/6 WereSpielChequers :
> One place to find "new articles from unconfirmed users" is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&hidepatrolled=1
> But I also find rich picking at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Empty_pages_for_speedy_deletion
> And sadly all to ofte
-- Forwarded message --
From: phoebe ayers
Date: 2009/12/6
Subject: [Foundation-l] reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Erik Zachte ran another analysis on the numbers and concluded that the
number of new editors on the English Wiki
2009/12/6 SlimVirgin :
> I don't know whether this one is something you'd be interested in, David.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Repetitive_Electrical_Impulse_Noise
> It looks interesting to me, but I have no technical knowledge, so there
> could be a problem
501 - 600 of 1165 matches
Mail list logo
