Some people won't be satisfied until Wikipedia has no BLPs.
2010/1/21 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember also that The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain
the
article to demonstrate
2010/1/22 James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com:
Some people won't be satisfied until Wikipedia has no BLPs.
No true Strawman will be satisfied until authority reassures him
Wikipedia has no BLPs.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. You can correct subtle
mistakes, misunderstandings, and sometimes errors of fact in the
process of sourcing (I sourced a bio the other day where the husband
of the person
Re [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people]]
The sad thing about the current deletion spree is that it started only
a fortnight after DASHBot started gently chiding authors about their
supposedly unsourced BLP contributions. I think the next logical step
would be to have a
Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
And to disagree with Gwern: sourcing matters. snip
-- phoebe
I don't think Gwern was saying that sourcing is irrelevant, only
thatunreferenced BLP is a blunt measurement that doesn't return
At 07:34 PM 1/21/2010, Ryan Delaney wrote:
Repeat after me: Pure Wiki Deletion. Pure Wiki Deletion.
- causa sui
Pure Wiki Deletion.
Well, I'd add a note to the article. PWD deals with the problem
without destroying the work that was done on the article, it is there
for anyone to recover. The
So, on a lighter note, I recently got sick tired of running site:
search after site: -wiki search in Google, and began looking for some
way to automate it.
I discovered that one can make a 'custom' Google search:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Google_Co-op
It allows one
Roger Davies has posted an excellent comment on the civil disobedience
aspect of these events here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Casediff=prevoldid=339367826
I've seen much talk today of doing the right things the right way and doing
the right things
At the same time,
*Always leave something undone.
**Give the author a chance.*
*Build the web.*
*Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.*
and
*If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing,
rather than deletion.*
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Cool Hand
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
period for unsourced BLPs, but any tagged biography that does not become
sourced must be scrapped.
pendantry
biography != BLP
BLP = biography of living person
Those people who have been safely dead for a
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:20 AM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
At the same time,
*Always leave something undone.
**Give the author a chance.*
*Build the web.*
*Do not disrupt Wikipedia to
This is, of course, the second settlement agreement. The first was scrapped
when serious objections emerged from from numerous parties, including the
justice department. I would not count it as a done deal until after the
fairness hearing when Judge Chin may or may not approve it.
Frank
On
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Those people who have been safely dead for a while, it tends to be
easier to establish notability and find sources (they are also less
litigious).
There's an idea. Some people assert that Elvis is still alive. Why
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
me. eh?
You older Wikipedians run along now; you've had your day. The adults
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
You older Wikipedians run along now; you've had your day. The adults
are talking now - I are serious editors, this are serious website.
Funny how BLPs have been the most serious threat facing the project,
so serious that
On 22/01/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone.
I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email.
Tone is one thing, but I'm more concerned about the complete lack of
process here.
Am I correct in thinking that a
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/01/2010, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
This is really not the attitude that we want to project toward anyone.
I'm very disappointed by the tone of this email.
Tone is one thing, but I'm more
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being there. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that out
of the 500, 1 or 2 of them
Jimbo has never been an active editor.
The BLPs aren't being deleted for being shoddy, they're being deleted for
not having references.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Does anyone have a summary of the articles deleted in the present
blood-crazed axe frenzy? Is there a list up? And/or a description of
the general type of BLP deleted?
I understand many were hardly-viewed articles with no edits in the
last six
2010/1/22 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being there.
[[John Seigenthaler]]
2010/1/22 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
If this does not meet the standard for disrupting Wikipedia to make
a point, I do not know what would.
Evidently. WP:POINT is about doing something you *don't* want to have
happen to make a point, not about doing things spectacularly in
general.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Chicken Little is a fairly good comparison. I see in this group of
BLPs only the possibility of potential problems. I am waiting for
evidence that any of those deleted without checking so far has done
harm by being
2010/1/22 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
You probably won't be getting that evidence, since the way the policy
is in place, the burden of proof isn't on the person removing the
content-- it's on the person adding it. That's not just how BLP works,
but the verifiability policy as well,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
a) 'challenging' and removing any references
b) instantly deleting the article for being unreferenced
In theory, an administrator could do
I think we should also note that one of Wikimedia's own was involved in
this project from the beginning. In his professional capacity (not as a
volunteer Wikimedian) former en.wp Arb - James Forrester (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester) has played an important roll
in achieving the
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
I started with all the links listed in
27 matches
Mail list logo
