On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
I'm not sure about bot-seeded and maintained topics. You need to have
the human editors to go with that. Having bots doing stuff *without*
humans working with them and complementing them, tends to be a recipe
for disaster.
> Rather than wait
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:40 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if
> they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about
> their client, not necessarily to directly promote them.
Yes. Treated properly, this energy could be
I think continued monitoring of an article by a skilled PR operative
would result in an informative, well-referenced article, which notes, but
does not dwell on negative aspects. As noted, such an effort would have
to integrated with our usual editing patterns.
Here's the question: If you can't te
They may presume that the presence of stuff that hasn't yet been
de-pufferied (I made that word up) means that what they write will
stay. But the key point is lack of control. If you put something on
Wikipedia, you cannot control the content and that is what a lot of
people fail to understand. It b
That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR
editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not
tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff
from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any
negative info
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if
they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about
their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields
I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of
them have proved open to
Michael Peel wrote:
>> There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking here.
>> If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were done by
>> transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages
>> organised by both language and topic?), how could that be
On 2 Apr 2010, at 11:21, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
>> wrote:
>>> Samuel Klein wrote:
* interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles
about the
same topic
>>> On the final point, the "poster" style
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
>> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links
>>> might be handy. We have a few places were having a "set of links" as
>>> a first class member of the wikiver
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>> A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links
>> might be handy. We have a few places were having a "set of links" as
>> a first class member of the wikiverse would be useful
>> * external links
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less,
but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its
advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova wrote:
> Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult po
Samuel Klein wrote:
> A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links
> might be handy. We have a few places were having a "set of links" as
> a first class member of the wikiverse would be useful
> * external links or further reading
> * a list of images related to an article
12 matches
Mail list logo
