2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
Quality is just the default.
Draft(unflagged) Checked Reviewed, perhaps?
I suspect it's actually important to get this right first time - on
en:wp, policy formation is by someone making up a makeshift apparatus
off the top of their head, then
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what
Durova wrote:
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law of
Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives have
been known to get their facts wrong. The more distant, the more likely a
mistake.
Your presumption here is that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Durova wrote:
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the
brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon
the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong.
The more distant, the
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
An example of the kinds of problems you bump into when depending on
primary sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swampyankdiff=prevoldid=312682486
But there should be no problem under policy for pointing out BOTH what
a respectable primary
George Herbert wrote:
Verifyable, but untrue - where there's evidence to disprove but it's
not compellingly better quality data than the untrue data - is the
hard case. Either walk the narrow line and present both or pick one
and defend using it, staying aware that more info may clarify the
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious
qualities), then
Cary Bass wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is
IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He
was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in
1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Durova wrote:
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the brother-in-law
of
Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon the matter. Relatives
have
been known to get their facts wrong. The more
Policies and rules don't work that way, exactly. They're a bit zen, they
point to the moon, but they aren't the moon themselves. if you want a formal
policy that everyone /must/ follow, then 5 pillars, or WP:CLUE are in some
ways more speaking to the spirit of things, rather than the detail of it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all, this is a reminder that office hours will be tomorrow, Thursday,
October 1, at 1600 UTC (9:00 AM PDT) and feature Rand Montoya.
The IRC channel that will be hosting Rand's conversation will be
#wikimedia-office on the Freenode network. If
On 9/30/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I reiterate that all experienced editors should try editing as
an IP for a while. See how well our propaganda matches the way we
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really
12 matches
Mail list logo
