Samuel Klein wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
moderator
Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care
anymore?
/moderator
Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the
discussion. Perhaps
Ken Arromdee wrote:
The same argument can be made about any issue which just involves privacy and
not even danger to lives. If you search for Brian Peppers on the Internet,
you can still find all the information you want; that's not an excuse for
Wikipedia to have the article.
But then
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word
when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm,
rather than to help their income.
Methinks that posting was a
2009/8/2 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
moderator
Does this thread have anything to do with this list? Does anyone care
anymore?
/moderator
Magic 8-ball says... no. Not that there's anything wrong with the
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:37 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Efforts like the Wikipedia Selection for Schools are important to help
too (and feed into 0.7 and 1.0). Remember, that's a real actual
encyclopedia DVD being used in actual schools and hugely popular with
teachers, based on
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Ben Kovitzbkov...@acm.org wrote:
attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go
away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page
clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it.
That attitude is anti-wiki. I can diagnose far more
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Dan
Dascalescuddascalescu+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone
sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to
the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that
any of
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the
Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for
much longer.
the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of
follow-the-leader. NPOV is
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
(I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little
ways can contribute by adding a note
on 8/2/09 12:26 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
The moral obligation is in ensuring the
On 02/08/2009, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
Dunno about that. I do know that an expert can be
Jay Litwyn wrote:
One reason they are not publicly archived is so that discussions are not
driven into DCC for want of not being held to word, quoted, or caught
displaying a degree of ignorance or a prominent prejudice that you actually
want to be argued out of. It can be live and off the
David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
So first you need to show that there is an obligation to do anything
[[pro bono
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
My own take on the deletionist/inclusionist divide (which,
admittedly, has little if anything to do with Wikipedia's
inclusion policies as currently
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of
public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed
and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That's a strange dodging of the question.
If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential
patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support
the removal of the blots?
The fact is that I'm not
Do experts have an obligation? No. Educators and those whose goal is
to improve the world's knowledge, yes. And everyone has a motivation
to contribute driven by public interest, but not everyone recognizes
it.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On
2009/8/2 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
That's a more obvious dodging of the question. You're basically saying I'm
not going to tell you if this argument could possibly be productive, which
is fundamentally dishonest.
Refusing to answer a hypothetical is hardly dishonest.
- d.
I recently created three lists of winners of scientific awards, partly
because it needed doing, partly to see how good our coverage is now
(and how many articles remain to be written in such fields) and partly
to take a more systematic approach to checking links.
This is a nice writeup. It would make a good addition to the lists
discussion page you link.
An essay on this that ties into other ways to convert reliable
datasources into pages via a list-creation step (sometimes resulting
in a list, sometimes resulting in a topic outline, and sometimes
As a Randian I would have to say that no, I have no moral obligation to
give up my effort for any compensation other than that compensation which I
declare as my due.
This is not to say that Ayn Rand would not contribute, only that the
compensation of such contribution must be that which
Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange:
A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia?
B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it
A: Who told you to do it
B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it.
A: So you yourself
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ben Kovitzbkov...@acm.org wrote:
attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go
away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page
clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it.
That attitude is anti-wiki. I can diagnose far more problems
Only as much as off-duty doctors, lifeguards, EMTs, etc. have to
attempt to save someone's life. Good-samaritan laws exist for a
reason.
~A
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:26, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially
everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is
available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries
(slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with
absolutely impeccable official
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
I don't think I'd ever go chiding
But who is heard when people read a Wikipedia article? *An expert* is not
heard, that is, no particular expert is heard, because we have no
attribution. Cited sources are heard, where sources are cited, for a
particular
sentence. But even then we get citation creep when those sentences
Charles Matthews wrote:
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of
public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed
and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate
it?
This is a really good point.
Subject-matter
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Ben Kovitzbkov...@acm.org wrote:
Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter
expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and
collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other
occupation.
Librarian? Nah. There are lots of
29 matches
Mail list logo
