http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history
I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive,
even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a
German TV producer.
Mathias
___
WikiEN-l mailing li
Keith Old wrote:
> Folks,
> The New York Times reports:
>
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/the-wikipedia-battle-over-joe-wilsons-obama-heckling/
>
>
> If journalism is the first draft of history, what is a Wikipedia entry when
> it is updated within minutes of an event to reflect changes
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> This is really a Commons question, but...why is so little effort made
> to promote bulk upload tools like Commonist? I've wasted countless
> hours struggling with the crappy web forms, when it's so easy to do
> using the right tool. None of
Carcharoth wrote:
> Actually, I think people end up picking the articles they are most
> interested in, or which have the most potential. The vast majority or
> article languish unless people systematically work through them. As an
> example, look at how successful the plan to bring all the WP:CORE
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/9/10 Surreptitiousness :
>
>> Andrew Gray wrote:
>>
>>> When you delete an article, there's a helpful function to remind you
>>> to delete the talkpage too. I suspect that getting people to remember
>>> to reinstate talkpages would be a lot easier if we had a coded
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Realistically, I think we're really
> only approaching the end of the middle of the initial stage. By which I
> mean the initial stage is to get as much written about as much as we can
> as possible.
I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
> I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates a
> feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first
> draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
>
Yeah, that's kind of where I
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> This is really a Commons question, but...why is so little effort made
> to promote bulk upload tools like Commonist? I've wasted countless
> hours struggling with the crappy web forms, when it's so easy to do
> using the right tool. None of
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Surreptitiousness
wrote:
> Mind, it could be an idea to have as standard a message posted to
> relevant WikiProjects when an article is up for FA.
There is already an expectation that this is done, as far as I know.
And when it is not done, someone usually does
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history
>
> I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive,
> even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a
> German TV producer.
>
> Mathias
Our policy apparently requires an investigation:
http:
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Surreptitiousness
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Mind, it could be an idea to have as standard a message posted to
>> relevant WikiProjects when an article is up for FA.
>>
>
> There is already an expectation that this is done, as far as I know.
>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history
>>
>> I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive,
>> even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a
>> German TV producer.
>>
>> Math
2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
> I think that depends upon your standards. From my perspective, when you
> consider we're staffed by a bunch of volunteers who usually have to
> learn about the subject before they can write about it, we ain't doing
> bad. I think what a lot of frustration and drama
Carcharoth schreef:
> The reason for this is that a seven-day discussion is more likely to
> get the "right" answer in the case of seemingly "obvious" hoaxes that
> are in fact true, but with reliable sources that it takes time to look
> up. Also, it takes time for enough eyes to read a deletion di
I have found that in practice obvious hoaxes will die via a snowball
close, and sometimes an experienced admin will simply ignore all rules
kill it out of hand. I think that's the right thing to do.
If contrary evidence shows up it's easy enough to rewrite or
resurrect, whereas presence of an ar
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> I have found that in practice obvious hoaxes will die via a snowball
> close, and sometimes an experienced admin will simply ignore all rules
> kill it out of hand. I think that's the right thing to do.
>
> If contrary evidence shows up it's
Sure there are articles that can be discussed for five days or so (is
it really seven now?) The administrators' noticeboard should not be
involved, and those who go there with evidence to support a non-hoax
should be firmly pointed at the admin's talk page or, if the admin
disputes the evidence, de
On 9/11/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Are you equating the phrase "out of process" to the word "speedy" ?
> I don't see those two as being the same thing.
Possibly you don't. But the speedy deletion has no process, the only
recourse is review.
___
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Sure there are articles that can be discussed for five days or so (is
> it really seven now?) The administrators' noticeboard should not be
> involved, and those who go there with evidence to support a non-hoax
> should be firmly pointed at th
If you know of any examples, you can leave them on my blog, or perhaps there's
even a wiki page somewhere for this?
[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/goldman-labor-squeeze
...
Second, Goldman characterizes Wikipedia as atypical in rejecting contributions
from paid/professional
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
> So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced for
> pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival material, such
> as the use of some material form the 11th edition of Britannica and images
> now in Co
2009/9/11 FT2 :
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>> So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced for
>> pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival material, such
>> as the use of some material form the 11th edition of Britannica a
David Gerard wrote:
> I think the shock was realising this is the product. Yes, that live
> working draft is the actual product. And this may actually be a
> feature.
>
> Distributions of Wikipedia content turn out to be secondary - the
> working site turns out to be the actual product.
>
> Flaged
> From: David Gerard
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Why the semantic web needs human review
> To: English Wikipedia
>
> Unfortunate results from trying to extract meaning from Wikipedia text
> by machine:
>
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/02/netbase-thinks-you-can-get-rid-of-jews-with-alcohol-and-sal
Semitic web?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a message dated 9/11/2009 8:39:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
> Possibly you don't. But the speedy deletion has no process, the only
> recourse is review.>>
My understanding and usage in-world has always been that "out-of-process"
means not that "we have a polic
In simplest terms, the idea is "wouldn't it be nice if edits that weren't
even /plausibly/ valid would get filtered out and not shown to the world as
our work and as encyclopedia content?"
The other idea is "We have tens of thousands of well meaning editors, can we
ask users who have shown they ca
2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
> Yes, the article will no longer be a working draft.
> Blimey, this really is a big change. Now I understand why I saw you on
> newsnight. Hmmm.
Yeah. I think it was on Newsnight because of journalistic August, but
it's big news in the Wikipedia editing communit
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> I'd put it this way: the business of "flagged revisions" indicates
>> a feeling that (for a physical book) would be that we have a "first
>> draft", and should proceed editorially rather than magpie-fashion.
>>
The six year anniversary of Arbcom is coming up, and I was just going
through some of the old Wikien posts. I kind of got sentimental -
being to some degree responsible for the regrettable institution we
now call formalistic dispute resolution.
Anyway. Libertudian ("liberty"+ 'tude" + "-ian" + "-i
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Anyway. Libertudian ("liberty"+ 'tude" + "-ian" + "-ism" ) concepts in
> the news brought to mind one particular post, this one from... myself:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-September/054047.html
>
> I have other faves, of
Charlotte Webb wrote:
> I don't get it. What are you trying to say?
Open thread. For sharing links to relevant or otherwise interesting
historical posts to this (maybe other) list.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
- "Surreptitiousness" wrote:
>
> Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
> kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod. Have
> we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites?
I think sometimes people forget that we have over 100,000 active editors, o
Someone sent me this classic post from Jayjg:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html
BTW: It's a bit hard to tell how much of that diff is just hidden citations.
Another reason for http://tinyurl.com/moverefs
Hm. Why not a Wikimedia limited URL shortening service?
Andrew Turvey wrote:
>> - "Surreptitiousness"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since prods can be undeleted by any admin without any
>>> kerfuffle, I can't see the harm in allowing a second bite at prod.
>>> Have we discussed amending PROD to allow second bites?
>>
>> I think sometimes people forget that we
After a prod is declined, the reason being given for declining it may
convince the person placing the prod that there was no good reason for
deletion--what then would be the purpose of sending to AfD, if nobody
any longer wants the article deleted.
If I decline a prod because I think that it will
On 9/11/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> My understanding and usage in-world has always been that "out-of-process"
> means not that "we have a policy that requires no process on this", but
> rather that it means "we have a process for this, which you did not follow
> properly".
>
That would apply to
Of course there's a process for speedy deletion--it's described where
you would expect, at WP:CSD. It explains how to nominate for it, how
to challenge it, and how to evaluate the proposals, and how to
challenge it. There are, to be sure, a number of people who use it
wrongly, but there is still a
38 matches
Mail list logo
