http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10309840-71.html?
Despite the fact that this guy has many of his facts are wrong, he does
have some element of truth.
"Oh, Lordy. It's just like the Senate, isn't it? The bigwigs know best,
control the most important committees, and generally swan around in
limos
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> That would be stupid because they'd either resign immediately or be
> ineffective.
>
Not wanting to be an admin is not necessarily the same thing as
wanting to not be an admin. [[Sortition]] worked admirably for Athens.
--
gwern
___
Abd it seems your slant has shifted, or maybe your shift has slanted.
At any rate, perhaps you could restate your proposal, focusing on what
you think should be advisory and what proscriptive. I don't anyone is
*expecting* experts to do this or that, but that is quite different
from stating th
<>
Experts do not determine what sources are reliable. Consensus does.
<< There are two meanings for "reliability." Reliability in RS, I
claim, depends solely on the publisher, and reliability in this sense
is about notability, and certainly not about reliability in the
ordinary sense, that w
At 05:01 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
>The problem comes not in finding sources, but in establishing due
>weight, convincing anyone that a crank idea is a crank idea and so forth.
That something is a "crank idea" is rarely found in the highest
quality reliable sources. So trying to establish it is d
At 02:27 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
>I'm glad you finally agree with me :)
>Everyone can edit. Experts and non-experts together.
>Anyone can find a source stating that "cats have retractable claws".
>Supposed experts should be able to find that souce faster.
>
>I'm not really interested in an exper
Again you made broad assumptions. The quoted part below is a normal
quotation within an email reader. However it then appends *all the
previous discussion* as well.
By it, I mean the email program, not me. I could of course manual cut
off the remainder of the email each and every time I post
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:35:46 EDT, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> This double-quoting to which you refer is a new "feature" of some mail
> readers.
> Cute isn't it? Not.
> It's hard for me to learn how to use it without pissing off sensitive types
> ;)
>
You've managed an even sillier style in some
2009/8/14 :
> editing. You might find 200 online sources that state that Mary of Parma was
> born
> in 956, but I can show that none of these are realiable sources. My own
> opinion on when she was born has nothing to do with anything, sources are what
> matters.
The problem comes not in fin
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:29 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 8/14/2009 11:24:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> sainto...@telus.net writes:
>
>
> > Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the most punitive minded to
> > gravitate toward this sort of police work.>>
>
>
> We should
In a message dated 8/14/2009 11:24:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
> Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the most punitive minded to
> gravitate toward this sort of police work.>>
We should only choose as admins those people who do not want to b
In a message dated 8/14/2009 8:58:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
a...@lomaxdesign.com writes:
> No, they may be expert, but biased, or not good at explaining how
> they know what they know. Absolutely, the best experts can do this,
> and will. But it can also be a lot of work, and many experts w
Emily Monroe wrote:
>> Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
>>
> True. Maybe we can do something along the lines of "Four 12-24 hour
> civility blocks, and you'll be blocked indefinitely." or live
> indefinite blocks up to the community. I'd prefer the latter.
>
Fo
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>> Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
>> editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
>> explain it in the article?
>
> It's quite possible to ex
At 01:49 AM 8/14/2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>An expert editor is not a source, the have to edit using sources, just
>like anyone else does. Their personal opinions have and should have
>nothing to do with building articles neutrally. Neutrality is not the
>result of a single editor, it is the
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Here is the point. If an expert can't explain the subject to other
> editors who are not experts, how in the world are they going to
> explain it in the article?
It's quite possible to explain it to other people while being unable to explain
it t
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> That's right. I proposed that we *treat* self-proclaimed experts as
> having a COI, i.e., the same basic rules. A badge of honor, not a
> shame. No more arguments about whether a situation is a real COI or
> not. You claim to be an expert, please
Hmmm ... a mail with seven unedited wikien-l footers, and two
contra-flow top posts on top of around four going down the page. What is
more, the content includes two replies by people who provided wrong info
off the top of their heads. I'm going to sound grumpy, but this list can
do better with
I have the impression that that's only available to admins?
Emily
On Aug 13, 2009, at 8:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
> It's simpler than that. "Move" has an option not to leave a redirect.
>
>
> FT2
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Carcharoth >wrote:
>
>> There is no draft namespace (yet). That would h
Erik Moeller, Fri Aug 7 00:59:55 UTC 2009:
>The Polish Wikipedia has hacked together a neat little pop-up tool for
>reporting errors in articles. To see it, go to
We on it.wiki have considered this possibility, too. The aim is to
explain people that they can actually get things fixed (maany don't
2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards :
>> Dear Wikipedians,
>>
>> We're making a 4-part documentary series marking 20 years of the World
>> Wide Web, Digital Revolution. ). This comprises an interactive website
>> (http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution/), and four documentaries for
>> broadcast on BBC Two at t
21 matches
Mail list logo
