On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Charles > As a consequence of various
sustained dirty tricks campaigns, no doubt
> all intelligent people editing Wikipedia pseudonymously, and for whom
> revelation of their real-life identity would be a disaster, simply
> stopped doing that.
Rightly so, no? You'r
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/6/21 Cormac Lawler :
>
>> I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness the
>> energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can be more
>> productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly nonsensical) than a
>> newspaper o
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
>
>> I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness
>> the energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can
>> be more productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly
>> nonsensical) than a newspaper
A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
out a person's religion.
I think most of us would clearly be wary of it because you could find out
what sort of *porn/sex* I like. I don't care if you know my religion (I'm
the spawn of Satan.)
I mean just imagine if so
Story has now been updated:
>> A flood of criticism has prompted a Montana city to drop its request that
>> government job applicants turn over their user names and passwords to
>> Internet social networking and Web groups
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Backg
Ok, I don't intend on becoming a checkuser or other dignitary that
requires real name identification, so, I think I'm good in that regard...
--Unionhawk
Andrew Turvey wrote:
> - "Steve Bennett" wrote:
>
>> From: "Steve Bennett"
>>
>> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors
- "Steve Bennett" wrote:
> From: "Steve Bennett"
> Ha, reminds me of how I got rapped over the knuckles for deleting a
> talk page. I thought I was being helpful! I saw the talk page, all the
> discussion looked old and no longer relevant, so I thought I'd clear
> it out for them. Heh.
I read "comprehensive" in this context to mean comprehensive coverage of topics
in the enclyclopedia - i.e. lots of articles - rather than comprehensive
coverage within a particular article.
- "Dahsun" wrote:
> From: "Dahsun"
> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Sunday, 21 June,
- "Steve Bennett" wrote:
> From: "Steve Bennett"
>
> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
> assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
> right.
I get the impression many wikipedia editors think anonymity is important.
However,
In a message dated 6/21/2009 3:02:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cormag...@gmail.com writes:
> But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's book, the reviewer
> singled out the collaboratively-written afterword as better written than
> Andrew's book, which he found "full of interest but r
Daniel R. Tobias wrot. e:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
>> assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
>> right.
>>
>
> You were apparently absent during the BAD
I was also absent during the BADSITES war, but... Anomnity is important.
--Unionhawk
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>
>> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
>> assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of court
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:58:08 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Is anonymity important to many Wikipedia contributors? I had sort of
> assumed we provided anonymity as a sort of courtesy, not as any real
> right.
You were apparently absent during the BADSITES Wars of a couple of
years ago, where one
2009/6/21 Cormac Lawler :
> I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness the
> energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can be more
> productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly nonsensical) than a
> newspaper open comment section does? What
Hi, picking up Charles's point "Another vertex is the FA people: in theory they
don't care about the topic, do care about optimising the writing to
the point where there is no obvious way to improve quality. The third
vertex is comprehensiveness". In my experience as an FA reviewer
comprehensive
Cormac Lawler wrote:
>
> I think what's interesting here is asking: how does Wikipedia harness
> the energy of the public (for want of a better word) in a way that can
> be more productive, useful (or at least less brain-sporkingly
> nonsensical) than a newspaper open comment section does?
Of co
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> > "Like Boiling a Frog", David Runciman.
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html
> >
> > >From the last issue of the London Review of Books, a long and chewy
> > article about Wiki
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Yes, but actually reading them too often makes one want to spork one's
> brain out.
The great unwashed are unwashed - so what? I'm generally happy to wade
through Joe Sixpack's uninformed opinion if there are a few gems here
and there. It was
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:51 PM, AGK wrote:
> One wonders what ramifications the High Court's decision in the "Night Jack"
> case has for UK wikipedians. Should we approach pseudonymous editing with a
> different perspective, now that the court has confirmed itself as unwilling
> to uphold the ano
19 matches
Mail list logo
