2009/8/5 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Doesn't just removing the links from the templates altogether (and
then putting them back) do the trick as well? I suppose that might
annoy some people...
You could do that, but this way guarantees that if you get sidetracked
half way through
Carcharoth wrote
The annoying thing about some of these redlinks, is that when you go
looking for other pages where they are linked from, you run into
problems if they are linked from a template.
Another thing which is rather more than annoying is that plenty of quite
unreferenced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all!
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force, to work
together to come up with some firm recommendations and guidelines for
dealing with the issue, to be made to the
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
To be fair, many lists are somewhat unreferenced. But of course you can
add references to lists, and annotate them generally. There is no way
such templates are ever going to offer verification.
Hmm. I
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be handy if you could tell us what the
board resolutions are.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I notice that some people now are adding refs to 'genre' tags now, to
thwart the genre trolls. Not that that required any technical
fiddling, but I'm just saying in passing.
Genre tags? Genre trolls?
Carcharoth
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Given the recent Board Resolution on BLPs, I'm in the process of
structuring a Biographies of Living Persons task force,
Thanks for the info. It would be
Or perhaps you are misunderstand what I requested.
Being flip and hyperbolic isn't an effective way to argue.
I am not stating that *some* psychologists aren't saying that publishing
the (effective) answer-sheet is harmful.
I am stating that Psychologists are not saying this. That is, where is
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by
ArbCom, under the
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Cary  suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
community as a whole. I accepted membership in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Cary suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has
pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any
committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or
on 8/5/09 4:33 PM, David Goodman at dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
community as a whole.
Yes, that is quite clear.
I accepted membership in a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Cary  suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
open to all who wish to
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I notice that some people now are adding refs to 'genre' tags now, to
thwart the genre trolls. Not that that required any technical
fiddling, but I'm just saying in passing.
Genre tags? Genre trolls?
I use the word
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Aha! Thank you.
Hmm, well I can see a way I could help out with the Task Force, but it
would depend on some
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM,
Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think it is this one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
Aha! Thank you.
Hmm, well I can see a way I could help out with the Task Force, but
it
2009/8/5 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group
unless people don't like what they come up with.
I'm not being silly here, but couldn't that good-faith statement you
just made apply to *any* group?
Evidently not. I meant
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were
highlighted
on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in
preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because any edit to any
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Phil
Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I guess it would also be feasible and helpful if BLPs were
highlighted
on the usual Watchlist interface too? (Turn on and off-able in
preferences, perhaps?)
That would not be feasible, because
2009/8/6 Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk:
It can't catch all BLP problems as you've so wonderfully illustrated.
But it can show us a worthwhile subset, don't you reckon?
That would be one way forward; we now have abuse filters which detect and
revert the more gross edits, but as far as
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on
the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is
verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that
information should be allowed to be included, and should not be
forcibly stopped from
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Phil Nashpn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
There was a proposal what seems like a long time ago for Flagged
Revisions, which was somewhat controversial but was intended to be
introduced as a test
They're coming! They're coming!
There's a Jimbo speech linked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living_people
This won't catch edits which remove the category, and it won't catch
the 5-10% of BLPs which aren't in the category to start with, but it's
otherwise mostly what you want, I think.
Well done Andrew, that looks
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on
the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is
verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that
information should be allowed to be included,
24 matches
Mail list logo
