- Original Message -
From: "Nathan"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>
> Your own history, Peter, proves that you are incorrect; you are,
&g
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Goodman"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Oh yes and how could I forget this monstrosity
http://en.wikipedia.o
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian
> wrote:
>>
&
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> I am not qualified to judge articles on philosophy on my own
> und
> >We were talking
> > about very aggressive editors who know absolutely
> nothing of the subject,
> > and drive away specialist editors.
> >
>
> I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among
> the expert
> as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not
> necessarily
> mean a
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
>
>We were talking
> about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject,
> and drive away specialist editors.
>
I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among the expert
as well as the non-expert editors. Expe
> Citing sources doesn't help because if Wikipedians don't
> like the
> sources, they want to know why we've chosen this source and
> not some
> other. No matter how canonical it is, it'll be questioned,
> because
> they don't realize it's part of the canon.
You can make an argument based on how
- Original Message -
From: "SlimVirgin"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:54 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
>
> But there has to be
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
> The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
> you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
> uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation
> as a debating tactic.
Unless we all sti
10 matches
Mail list logo
