I have come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of BLP's
need to be semiprotected at the very least. I am still thinking
through the best way to implement such a change, but the current
situation is not acceptable.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/16/08, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:03 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
What I was referring to, is issues that come *here*, as unresolved, or
problematic. Viewing the history of this mailing-list we have very few
*real*
*substantial* BLP issues. So the natural conclusion is that the vast
majority
Michael here's the point.
Do we have a problem with the *current* BLP process?
That's the question on the table.
Some people are in a reactionary mode, regarding a *few* issues, and wanting
to change major systems, based on a few issues. That is not a productive
stance.
A more
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobr...@gmail.comwrote:
You know, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. It certainly would solve a lot
of problems... Semi-protection would keep out the majority of drive-by
vandalism. Thinking out loud (er, sort of) here, obviously there's a
The targeted person's reaction is secondary to him. And the targets are,
most likely, chosen at random. He is more stimulated by seeing his work
there, in print, than anything else. It's like some persons who write
graffiti on a wall; they are less interested in the reactions of those who
For context, here is (so far as I am aware) the last time
semi-protection of BLPs was discussed on-wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_18#Semi-protecting_all_BLPs
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
You should never code *for* the exceptions, only the mode.
I'd think that if the exceptions are human lives, you should code for the
exceptions.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
What could possibly go wrong?
(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
So far as I can tell, these links are used by humans to denote
synonimity. Using bots to assert synonimity based on transitivity
might probabilistically work for at most a few hops. Beyond that, the
bots will get it
2008/12/16 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
What could possibly go wrong?
(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish the wikipedia
In a message dated 12/16/2008 12:45:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
I'd think that if the exceptions are human lives, you should code for the
exceptions.
---
The exceptions are not human lives. They are human discomfort. No one
2008/12/16 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
What could possibly go wrong?
(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish the wikipedia
We need more of these things.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Tue, 12/16/08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Scientists told publish in Wikipedia or else
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:24
2008/12/17 Wily D wilydoppelgan...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/16 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2008/12/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Sounds like a fantastic idea. Only problem seems to be that they
publish
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The exceptions are not human lives. They are human discomfort. No one
is dying.
You have to have a rather thin skin, or very little real-world experience to
be greatly annoyed at some vandal calling you a slimy ass bitch or
Well I think he is... I know that there was a case some time ago where
excessive vandalism came from the IP of an asylum.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.comwrote:
On 16 Dec 2008, at 04:14, Thomas Larsen wrote:
What amazes me is that this guy, a
In a message dated 12/16/2008 4:17:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mor...@gmail.com writes:
The hard case is when Wikipedia is repeating allegations that we can
source to an offsite source. That's where the serious disagreements
about what to do are taking place.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and
I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could
use a footnote in each of their long
Hi,
So, if I read this correctly, anybody wanting to get an article
published in this particular journal will need to write an article for
Wikipedia first?
That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Personally, I object to writing any full-blown article on Wikipedia
from conscientious
Or *not*.
{{fact}}
Repetition only makes something a fact in church.
Sorry, I don't understand your point here.
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?
Repetition only
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to Virginia, my
local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to the mounties (feds).
Jurisdiction issues, ay. I will make up a list of links to the offenses,
just in case they actually get back to me and request more information.
Or *not*.
{{fact}}
Repetition only makes something a fact in church.
Sorry, I don't understand your point here.
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?
Repetition only
In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
larsen.thoma...@gmail.com writes:
Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
effectively enough against libel?
-
The
It would help if the list is posted somewhere, so others who are
reporting can use the list too.
X!
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:58 PM [Dec 16, 2008 ], Jay Litwyn wrote:
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to
Virginia, my
local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to
Jack has a mother Jill, and Jack is wikipedian that believes everything
written, verifiable, and with a high degree of liklihood is encyclopedic,
even when it comes to [[biographies of living persons]]. In a nutshell, if
it is not permanent legacy information that will hav effects beyond the
As I read their announcement, the intention is to have the Wikipedia
article be non-technical. The first paper being reported there seems
to be appropriate to Wikipedia. But then, its a comprehensive paper,
on a suitable broad topic. If it is their intention to apply ttheir
proposal to imilar
wjhon...@aol.com says this does not meet WP:RS. I *meant* to fail WP:RS.
This reminds me that not everyone really perceives jokes, even when, at the
point of this, there doesn't seem to be any possibility of getting a
reliable source. I think you could link to it from WP:BLP and WP:RS, and the
I don't like this writing that sounds like mind-reading. There's a point
where one of his sock puppets is complaining about Psychonaut, which is one
of his early creations beating himself up.
He is more stimulated by seeing his work
there, in print, than anything else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LtWintersaction=history
This guy seems more like what I've read about Grawp than Psychonaut.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
29 matches
Mail list logo
