On 1 Oct 2009, at 03:33, Steve Bennett wrote:
> The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
> recorded and published. I wouldn't really care if there was some other
> way to identify anonymous users, but raw IPs? Ick.
Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) acc
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell :
>
>
>> 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
> o
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
>> qualitie
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> It's precisely the people that *think* they
> understand the wikipedia that usually become deletionists or
> inclusionists.
Read carefully:
"...WP:CLUE in some ways more speak[s] to the spirit of things..."
Same point. And agreed that it
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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
Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 30/09/2009, FT2 wrote:
>
>> 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 m
FT2 wrote:
> To add to this, note that "primary sources" are stated to include
> "...archeological artifacts; photographs.."
>
> NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the "writings about an
> artifact" are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are
> categorized as primar
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> And of course, it is this portion of policy that causes us issues with
> regards fiction. Since the work itself is a primary source.
> We haven't yet worked out to what extent a article on a fic
FT2 wrote:
> The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
> Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
> quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot
> summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliabl
2009/10/1 Surreptitiousness :
> You've misread me. The key question is, why should we summarise this
> plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at
> the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died
> off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a conse
On 10/1/09, Michael Peel wrote:
> Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) account is
> treated, and an IP account is treated? Perhaps using the former would
> give an indication to how the latter is treated? I tend to treat both
> as equally suspicious when I spot an edit by th
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness
wrote:
> FT2 wrote:
>> The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
>> Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
>> quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot
>> su
stevertigo wrote:>
>> PPCD:
>> - and "unfogiveable" only entered
>> +and "unforgiveable" only entered
The Cunctator wrote:
> Your edits have been submitted for review.
If it comes down to it, you can cuncate them without rejecting them
entirely. That is, if the software allows that. Vaporware I
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, FT2 wrote:
> To add to this, note that "primary sources" are stated to include
> "...archeological artifacts; photographs.."
>
> NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the "writings about an
> artifact" are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are
>
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 10/1/09, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>> Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) account is
>> treated, and an IP account is treated? Perhaps using the former would
>> give an indication to how the latter is treated? I tend to treat both
>> as equally suspi
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
> which way.
>
Indeed. And we are broadly fine with that, to an extent. A number of policy
and project pages explicitly point out that not everything will be 100%
cons
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
>> FT2 wrote:
>>
>>> The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
>>> Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
>>> quality sources. But what kind of sourc
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee :
> This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
> which way.
Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series
of quick hacks.
If you regard them as an immaculate stainless steel construction of
flawless design every comp
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Gerard wrote:
> > This is logical, but only proves that our rules contradict ourselves every
> > which way.
> Yes. The rules are not a consistent legal framework, they're a series
> of quick hacks.
The literal words aren't the only problem, though. Usually our rules are
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> And back to literal words... I'm really tired of the attitude "since the
> rules aren't meant to be taken literally, we won't fix them so that they
> make more sense if someone does try to read them literally".
Not really so. For example,
2009/10/1 FT2 :
> The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of
> definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability
> ("tl;dr"). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can
> spot improvements that others haven't, and they re
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, FT2 wrote:
> The problem is there comes a point where you can't improve them in terms of
> definitiveness without them being so long as to defeat easy readability
> ("tl;dr"). At that point we rely on the reader to figure it out. if you can
> spot improvements that others haven'
2009/10/1 Ken Arromdee :
> Well, the last time I ran into this was the way IAR is worded. For such a
> short rule it has a huge flaw: it says you can only ignore rules for the
> purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The result is people
> constantly claiming that you can't ignore
On 10/2/09, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Well, the last time I ran into this was the way IAR is worded. For such a
> short rule it has a huge flaw: it says you can only ignore rules for the
> purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The result is people
> constantly claiming that you ca
I depends on what one does. One cannot ignore the basic rules of BLP
any more than you can copyright, because they're requirements from the
WMF. And you can't ignore basic considerations about privacy, because
that's just as fundamental. But you can sometimes ignore a detail or
procedure connected
On 10/2/09, David Goodman wrote:
> I depends on what one does. One cannot ignore the basic rules of BLP
> any more than you can copyright, because they're requirements from the
> WMF. And you can't ignore basic considerations about privacy, because
> that's just as fundamental. But you can som
The reason I balk at using the SSDI or the census is I don't think we
should be using primary sources in this manner. There are numerous
pitfalls, including many errors of spelling and fact, to using these
sources. Historians and journalists should be evaluating these
sources, not us. In this par
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Rob wrote:
> The reason I balk at using the SSDI or the census is I don't think we
> should be using primary sources in this manner. There are numerous
> pitfalls, including many errors of spelling and fact, to using these
> sources. Historians and journalists shou
28 matches
Mail list logo
