Very useful - thanks
Couple of points:
Only in a small percentage of cases, we would require changes to be patrolled
before becoming the default view for readers. The proposal is to do so
initially in the case of biographies of living people
This is contradictory. BLP articles make up a
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Andrew
Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
This is contradictory. BLP articles make up a significant proportion of all
articles (something like 25% off the top of my head) so if you do it for all
BLP articles you are not doing it in a small percentage
2009/8/26 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
This post says that the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
trial will put biographies of living people under flagged protection.
Eek, sorry for that. I've corrected the post and added a note to the
bottom summarizing the correction.
--
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:38 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
And I got to call my fellow Wikipedians encyclopedia nerds on
national television ;-p
:-)
They used the example of Ted Kennedy in the intro, didn't they? I'm
wondering how close you both came to being asked about
Don't know if this has been posted yet (apologies if yes)
Recording available on iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight (intro
at the very start and then from 38:50). Not sure if non-UK people can view .
- Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
From: Phil Nash
Thanks for the figure - not bad estimate, considering it was off the top of my
head :)
I would add not all living people are in that category, so this is probably an
underestimate.
I still wouldn't call 13% a small percentage.
- Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
From:
It's also in snippet form at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8222397.stm
I have no idea whether this works outside the UK, though...
Mike
On 26 Aug 2009, at 12:12, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted yet (apologies if yes)
Recording available on
Someone should calculate how many articles have BLP tags somewhere on
them, and are not in the Living people category. I think that tool
Magnus magicked up a few days ago could do that now. This would give
an idea of how many articles outside of the living people category
have enough problems for
Local english tabloid puts it's slant on the news. Unfortunately we didn't get
any quote in there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208941/Free-edit-Wikipedia-appoints-volunteer-editors-vet-changes-articles-living-people.html
Wikipedia has been forced to abandon its policy of
2009/8/26 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com:
They hope the switch to volunteer editors will curb malicious tampering and
reduce the risk of lawsuits
We're all volunteers anyway aren't we on Wikipedia? Nothing has changed there?!
--
Regards,
Isabell Long. isabell...@gmail.com
I'm on BBC Radio 2 Chris Evans for a three-minute segment around
5:30ish (plus or minus who knows what) and Sky News around 7:15pm.
(Black shirt, no tie ;-) )
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
Just to explain: David's going to be on BBC radio 2, rather than me
(as per my previous email), as he's based in London and hence can get
to the BBC studio. The press like to geographically discriminate. ;-)
Mike
On 26 Aug 2009, at 16:19, David Gerard wrote:
I'm on BBC Radio 2 Chris Evans
There has been a centralised discussion on deprecating future
templates. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Deprecating_%22Future%22_templates
The templates were compared to the spoiler templates. Not to drag
all that up again, but I found the comparison
We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way
David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media.
Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for
some reason a really interesting thing to the British press? I have no
idea...
--
-
2009/8/26 Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com
We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way
David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media.
Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for
some reason a really interesting thing to
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
It's also in snippet form at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8222397.stm
I have no idea whether this works outside the UK, though...
That link worked for me, the whole show link about did not.
Props
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on BBC Radio 2 Chris Evans for a three-minute segment around
5:30ish (plus or minus who knows what) and Sky News around 7:15pm.
(Black shirt, no tie ;-) )
- d.
I enjoyed watching your interview on TV (via the
2009/8/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
2009/8/26 Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com
We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way
David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media.
Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for
some
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Yeah. It's difficult sometimes to get just how very mainstream
Wikipedia is. We are the big time. Normal people know what we are, at
least sort of.
snip
The hard part is that people have no idea how it works. So
2009/8/26 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I do hope some of the things being said in the papers are being
corrected, or something said somewhere.
It's ongoing hard work. Basically they write something awful, you
write a note thanking them for coverage, correcting their minor
details
Just to mention, the whole show also had an introductory piece by newsnight
explaining the changes, which was then followed by the interview which is
linked below.
- Falcorian alex.public.account+enwikimailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Falcorian
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Also, if you can find anyone at the London Paper who gives a hoot
about what they're producing any more (apart from the Em cartoon,
that's good), I'll give you a lollipop ;-)
Em's good, but Nemi's better! :-)
For what it's worth, we are getting a good amout of email asking about how to
help the project because of the BBC and NYT. Here's to that.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
Yes. We need all the help we can get!
Emily
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:33 PM, kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, we are getting a good amout of email asking
about how to help the project because of the BBC and NYT. Here's to
that.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM, kgnp...@gmail.comkgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, we are getting a good amout of email asking about how to
help the project because of the BBC and NYT. Here's to that.
Do we have a welcome mat rolled out and some magic pixie dust to tell
people to
Do we have a welcome mat rolled out and some magic pixie dust to
tell people to please not be BITE-y?
*pixie dust pixie dust* ;-D
We don't want a large influx of editors arriving to help after
reading about things in the news, only to run into someone
unfriendly or rules-bound.
I
Can't do anything but help as possible, from whatever forum. These are the
folks interested enough to click contact us, so there's certainly more.
-- Sent from my Palm Pre
Emily Monroe wrote:
Do we have a welcome mat rolled out and some magic pixie dust to
tell people to please not be
Can't do anything but help as possible, from whatever forum.
Perhaps I'm obsessing a bit, but clearly Signpost would at least run
an article about the increase of new users after the news. I would
assume you would be on Wikipedia longer, though, so yeah.
These are the folks interested
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other
day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I agree. Maybe have a Signpost-like note to everyone subscribed to
Signpost? Maybe have that actually in the Signpost? Something like
Editors note: There's an influx of newbies, so please be patient.
How will that work?
It would be interesting if someone did a study on initial interactions
between newcomers and oldbies to see if anything can be improved. But
IMHO the best way to avoid newbies getting bitten is to help them
avoiding newbie mistakes in the first place - a good interface, the
right help and a
Correction, it was a blog. I just don't remember where. If'n anyone else
does, please post. It was a good read.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be interesting if someone did a study on initial interactions
between newcomers and oldbies to see
So apparently all the press reporting is wrong. What's the real story?
For some reason, I've never actually come across these flagged
revisions, partly because they always seemed to be happening in the
future some time. What's the policy going to be?
So, quick questions:
1) Is this going to apply
Ok, Erik's post answered some of these:
So, quick questions:
1) Is this going to apply to every page?
No, BLP's and some others.
9) Can non-logged in editors see non-flagged versions?
Yes.
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
34 matches
Mail list logo
