2008/12/11 Andrew Famiglietti [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, I'm just curious as to why on earth they have decided to do this. Why
host an (awful) machine translation of the french site when you could just
as easily host the english wikipedia content? What gives? Does anyone have
any idea?
- Andy
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM, geni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hosting the English wikipedia will get you hammered with a duplicate
content penalty so you tend not to rank very high in search results.
In theory a machine translation of French would avoid that.
--
geni
From the Astronomy
Diffs or it didn't happen!
:)
Michel
2008/12/11 Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com
Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article...
I've been getting into a fairly nasty feud on a popular culture
article in which I added an academic criticism section, summarizing
articles I
There's a limit to how much I can comment if you don't want to give
the specific example (your summary of the events will undoubtedly be
incomplete and biased by your opinions - that's always the way with
this kind of thing). What I will say is that the important principle
here is that of
Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article...
I've been getting into a fairly nasty feud on a popular culture
article in which I added an academic criticism section, summarizing
articles I could find on the subject.
This seems to me well-supported by numerous policies. But it
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote:
Diffs or it didn't happen!
Have the folks on the lists forgotten how to use contribs:
You can easily find examples in Phil's contrib history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tori_Amosdiff=prevoldid=257127013
Michel wrote:
Diffs or it didn't happen!
:)
I see the smiley, so perhaps I shouldn't come back with a serious
response, but this interests me.
It is very, very difficult to discuss a general issue on this
list. If you (1) provide a specific example, people immediately
dive in on the specifics
2008/12/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com:
Michel wrote:
Diffs or it didn't happen!
:)
I see the smiley, so perhaps I shouldn't come back with a serious
response, but this interests me.
It is very, very difficult to discuss a general issue on this
list. If you (1) provide a specific
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Avoiding making this a de facto RFC on a given article...
Not knowing what article you were talking about, (which is helpful in
some situations) my expectation in a reader-role with wikipedia is
that articles would have
2008/12/11 Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org:
After seeing the diff linked, and the fact that this is the Tori Amos
article, yes, I think your audience/local-editorship for this article
is probably significantly non-standard, more opinionated, and
motivated than most subjects. Tori fans are
On 12/12/08, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Scholarship in the arts is not primarily opinion, but analysis
based on study of the primary sources, the same fundamental approach
used on all other subjects.
[/snip]
You're right--and I guess this issue brings us down to the
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Thomas Larsen
larsen.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/08, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Scholarship in the arts is not primarily opinion, but analysis
based on study of the primary sources, the same fundamental approach
used on all other
In a message dated 12/11/2008 9:00:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
That's all I'm asking in this general discussion, recognition that there
is a problem.
--
In the articles I've worked on, and I mostly work on biography and a little
on
13 matches
Mail list logo
