The criteria are the same as for any other source: whether it is used
in publications that are acknowledged to be reputable. It is the way
the outside world looks at it.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Charles Matthews
wr
At 04:34 AM 3/7/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>What I'm seeing from
> > Mr. Matthews is an argument, that, no, the guidelines should prevail,
> > and we should not change the guidelines to reflect actual practice.
>I'm certainly not saying that, and it doesn't represent
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>> To an extent this is true, but no more (or less) than saying "all
>> volunteers are weird". And they are. There are bound to be exceptions,
>> but I find that with almost every single volunteer there is either
>>
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> To an extent this is true, but no more (or less) than saying "all
> volunteers are weird". And they are. There are bound to be exceptions,
> but I find that with almost every single volunteer there is either
> something mentally wrong, or there is something seriously lacki
You could also ask why people work for money for encyclopedia
publishers. I know some people who have worked as researchers at print
encyclopedias, and they sure as hell didn't do it for the money (the
pay was rubbish). It is not quite the same as volunteering for free,
but the same altruistic aims
To an extent this is true, but no more (or less) than saying "all
volunteers are weird". And they are. There are bound to be exceptions,
but I find that with almost every single volunteer there is either
something mentally wrong, or there is something seriously lacking in
their social life.
I'm no
David Gerard wrote:
> This is beautiful and true, and you must watch it:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkF5o6KPNI
>
> (I have been at a pub with a trivia quiz where the table of
> Wikipedians didn't enter because "it wouldn't be fair.")
>
>
Thank God it doesn't reinforce any stereotypes. Oh,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 05:25 AM 3/6/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>> > Wikipedia painted itself into this corner.
>> >
>> Indeed, said corner being #5 website in the world according to recent
>> Comscore figures. The onus is still on those who think the system
