-Original Message-
From: Brian
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely
irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia
Fou
In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia
Foundation is.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Mark Nilrad wrote:
> Wikipedia says Wikipedia was "a complementary project for Nupedia".
> Citenzendium
-Original Message-
From: Anthony
To: wjhon...@aol.com; English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 6:19 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Citizendium
But not everyone is unwilling to write 50 words about themselves in
order to join Citizendium. I did it (http://tinyurl.com/cjo5hc),
though I no
> Oskar Sigvardsson
> If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there.
In watching this incident unfold, I've been impressed
regarding the way that the take-it-to-where-Jimbo-*is* strategy
appears to be *right*, as a matter of effectiveness. Despite the limited
-Original Message-
From: KillerChihuahua
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
Ye gods. "Propaganda ministry"? I was giving you due respect and
reading
you carefully until you spouted this nonsense.>>
-
It's a gre
-Original Message-
From: Alex Sawczynec
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Gerbils and NPA (Was: Re: An open letter to
Jimmy Wales)
I personally am having too much trouble figuring out why the hell anyone
would think it's even close to acceptab
When AfD was first used, there was no particular set period of time to
wait. Some articles which went through AfD (not talking speedy here),
were flagged and deleted within only 12 hours or so. Not that I
particularly remember one such incident or anything
Will Johnson
-Original Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tjC0mYfcrg
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/11 Andrew Gray
>
>
> The nominal time has been five days "or so" for quite a long time, but
> discussions have often been left a day or two longer due to lack of
> interest, or no-one being around to close it, or what have you. I
> remember it used to be routine for there to be a day's
Larry Sanger wrote:
>
>
> If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right
> to get it out there.
>
You Are JoeM, And I Claim My Five Pounds.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedi
2009/4/11 Al Tally :
> I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a
> minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since,
> what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my
> view to extend by 2 days. People will simply no
> David Gerard
>
> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).
David Gerard is speaking blithering nonsense. I presume he's
I haven't written anything on wikien-l in a long time, but I've been
following a bit of this thread about Larry Sanger's open letter and
thought I'd propose something.
Wikis are good for purposes other than creating encyclopedias, and it
might be interesting to see if Jimmy and Larry could u
Ye gods. "Propaganda ministry"? I was giving you due respect and reading
you carefully until you spouted this nonsense.
Bill Carter wrote:
> FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts
> about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligne
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Will wrote:
> We should codify against this somewhere. AFAIK, it's still an unwritten
> rule. But this is the second time a discussion about a significant change
> has been closed by someone who voted for it (the first being flagged
> revisions). The first time co
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Risker wrote:
> Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
>
> Risker
>
> 2009/4/11 George Herbert
>
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc
> wrote:
> > > > Al Tally
Risker wrote:
> Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
>
> Risker
>
It is really about time that Wikipedia regulated the means by which
policy changes are made.
Personally, I've long been in favour of a policy making body. However, I
understand many people p
We should codify against this somewhere. AFAIK, it's still an unwritten
rule. But this is the second time a discussion about a significant change
has been closed by someone who voted for it (the first being flagged
revisions). The first time could be seen as Jimbo's prerogative, but
SilkTork, AFAIK
George Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc wrote:
>>
>>> Al Tally wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arti
Wikipedia says Wikipedia was "a complementary project for Nupedia".
Citenzendium says Wikipedia was "an accidental spin-off of Nupedia". Is there
any reason to say that? How can a project be an "accidental spin-off" of
something else?
Noble Story
From: Carch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Ritzman wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedi
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
2009/4/11 George Herbert
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc wrote:
> > > Al Tally wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman
> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc wrote:
> > Al Tally wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc wrote:
> Al Tally wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days
>>>
>>
>> I wonder when the plan to inform
> Can someone who is not me go there and politely and nonspecifically remind
> everyone that AGF and NPA are important, that the community expects editors
> to discuss disagreements in a polite and constructive manner, and not
> resort
> to insults or abuse?
>
> My cold and grumpyness reading the s
Al Tally wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days
>>
>
> I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a
> minor cha
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days
>>
>
> I wonder when the plan to inform the community wa
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days
>
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a
minor change, but it's a significan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Tris Thomas wrote:
> Objection, what I think most people have said is that they think you are
> probably correct in this little issue about being a co-founder, but to
> be honest they don't really care & would prefer not to have their inbox
> filled with rubbish.
This is not a mere "personal dispute," Fred.
Anyway, I'm out of here.
> -Original Message-
> From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:51 PM
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Given Jimmy
>> Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the
>> community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop
>> those issues with respect to this list.
>
> Well, I'm about to bow out. But I did want want to say that you are
> completely wrong that
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever
was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been
optimistic.
I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently
operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press
Objection, what I think most people have said is that they think you are
probably correct in this little issue about being a co-founder, but to
be honest they don't really care & would prefer not to have their inbox
filled with rubbish. Most people seem to think that complaining here is
pointl
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Given Jimmy
> Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the
> community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop
> those issues with respect to this list.
Well, I'm about to bow out. But I did want want to say that you are
completely wrong that the Wik
George and Oskar, you are both making a fallacious argument. Of course
Wikipedia, as a reference resource, is not a battleground, a primary source,
or a discussion board. But WikiEN-L is, in case you didn't notice it, a
discussion board, and it is different from the encyclopedia. It also has a
g
> Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this
> list,
> but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open,
> transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. If he wants to
> take
> responsibility, as he does, as sole founder of the project, to re
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:
> David Gerard said:
> > > Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not
> > only on this
> > > list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an
> > > open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech.
>
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Larry Sanger
wrote:
> It certainly has changed since I wrote it.
>
> It looks as if you're trying to imply Wikipedia is not devoted to free
> speech, even in discussions about the community--even in discussions about
> the roles and public behavior of the most prom
David Gerard said:
> > Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not
> only on this
> > list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an
> > open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech.
>
>
> It isn't the last two of those things. You need to rere
You mean like the icons on this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals
Don't think there's a "master list", the icons are sorta culled from
different places. But one page with a lot of them is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuvola_SVG_icons (check the
subcats also)
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Larry Sanger
wrote:
> Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list,
> but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open,
> transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech.
This is completely untrue. Both wikip
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM, doc wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
> > That's not what wikien-l is for.
> >
> >
>
>
> So, to raise a more important point, which should be more pertinent to
> the purpose of this list, and of more immediate concern to Wikipedia's
> integrity.
>
> I thought I shoul
Larry Sanger wrote:
>> I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the
>> last 24 hours or so, but I did want to respond to this.
>>
>> Various people said:
> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash
>>> it out away
> from wikipedia servers, and away from c
George Herbert wrote:
> That's not what wikien-l is for.
>
>
So, to raise a more important point, which should be more pertinent to
the purpose of this list, and of more immediate concern to Wikipedia's
integrity.
I thought I should alert the august and serious readers of this list, to
the
2009/4/10 doc :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site
>> that's stopped that from happening.
> You mean co-founding, surely? ;)
*cough* The whole event was before my time, so I won't assert anything
I don't have sufficient third-party re
David Gerard wrote:
>
> So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site
> that's stopped that from happening.
>
> - d.
>
You mean co-founding, surely? ;)
Scott
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubs
2009/4/10 George Herbert :
> If you believe that you have a right to "raise hell" on this list... I
> request that the list moderators moderate Larry immediately.
So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site
that's stopped that from happening.
I'd hope he'd know how
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:
> I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the last 24
> hours or so, but I did want to respond to this.
>
> Various people said:
> > >> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash
> > it out away
> > >> from wi
2009/4/10 Larry Sanger :
> Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list,
> but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open,
> transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech.
It isn't the last two of those things. You need to reread "What
W
I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the last 24
hours or so, but I did want to respond to this.
Various people said:
> >> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash
> it out away
> >> from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't
> >>
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM, doc wrote:
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>> This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just
>> want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry:
>>
>> Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what
>> happened in the early days of
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just
> want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry:
>
> Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what
> happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You
> have dif
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> If he is telling the truth it seems like a perfectly legitimate request.
> Wikipedia obviously cares about the issue enough to have Wikipedia articles
> covering the subject and put out press releases mentioning it. If so, then
> Wikipedia sh
> Citizendium, I'd say, is backwards. A better drive would be to crib
> Wikipedia articles, improve them (outside the bounds of Wikipedia's
> processes, which means the replacement process can do whatever it likes)
> to
> FA status, and then replace them. That, I think, would work better than
> try
In a message dated 4/10/2009 12:49:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
purple.clou...@gmail.com writes:
> A better drive would be to crib
> Wikipedia articles, improve them (outside the bounds of Wikipedia's
> processes, which means the replacement process can do whatever it likes)
> to
> FA sta
Citizendium, I'd say, is backwards. A better drive would be to crib
Wikipedia articles, improve them (outside the bounds of Wikipedia's
processes, which means the replacement process can do whatever it likes) to
FA status, and then replace them. That, I think, would work better than
trying
In a message dated 4/10/2009 12:13:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:
> I couldn't actually submit the changes without signing
> up for a subscription (at least, a free trial subscription). I think
> the Britannica "editing by the public" move is more or less a gi
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM, wrote:
> Brittanica now allows any member of the public to edit (under moderation),
Have you tried to do this? I tested it out shortly after the editing
interface went live, and found that while I could access the text and
make changes, I couldn't actually subm
In a message dated 4/10/2009 9:25:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sen
In a message dated 4/10/2009 6:03:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
> So don't join.>>
--
That's exactly my point isn't it?
How many in-bound links are there to Citizendium?
How many in-bound links are there to IMDb?
IMDb now allows *any* member of the public to cr
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/10 Jon :
>
>> I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
>> thread. What is citizendium? Is there a linky?
>
>
> http://citizendium.org/
>
> It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia
2009/4/10 Jon :
> I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
> thread. What is citizendium? Is there a linky?
http://citizendium.org/
It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia
that isn't Wikipedia.
- d.
___
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/9 David Gerard :
>
>
>> Further note from Tara Hunt: "How not to build a community: Part I:
>> the anti-community "
>> http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html
>>
>
>
> David Shankbone comments:
>
> http://blog.shankbone.org
2009/4/9 David Gerard :
> Further note from Tara Hunt: "How not to build a community: Part I:
> the anti-community "
> http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html
David Shankbone comments:
http://blog.shankbone.org/2009/04/09/larry-sanger-vs-jimmy-wales/
"Per
I agree with the below.
And I'd also like to point out that NPOV is self-evidently *NOT* a big lie;
nor even a noble lie, maybe it's a white lie or an exaggeration at the very
worst. ;-)
2009/4/10 Oskar Sigvardsson
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter
> wrote:
> > These single article
There's one point worth mentioning here: your actual suggested policy
(found at the end of that p.) is:
While maintaining articles on FOSS software may be desirable, at the
same time Wikipedia is not a directory, and only active FOSS projects
with 3rd party references should be listed. Abandoned
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter wrote:
> These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, I'm
> talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal.
It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped
up", as you say, on
> There is a set of check boxes to identify the area in which you are
> going to be writing. There is no check box for "biography" which made
> me hesitate, so I checked the box for history.
>
> I don't need 50 words to state that my areas of expertise are in
> history, biography and genealogy. I
I guess you're referring to the part where they ask for a CV. But that
is only for "editors" not for "authors".
I really don't understand how Citizendium expects to get a following if
they are going to set the bar so high just to sign up for heaven's
sake. Any expert that wants to work on an
The thing with Citizendium is that I'm not particularly comfortable giving
out personal information to people that I don't even know enough to trust it
with. If one of these 'constables' decides it, they could have an outing
extravaganza -- and don't think it is an impossibility, either - they're n
71 matches
Mail list logo
