On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:53, Ian Woollard wrote:
> In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not
> suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it).
>
Actually, per the settings defined at DefaultSettings.php,[1] specifically
the $wgExemptFromUserRobotsControl
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ian Woollard wrote:
> From: Ian Woollard
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia"
> Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 7:53
> On 23/05/2011, geni
> wrote:
> > Google's search results are entirely their business.
>
> Act
You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.
This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by
interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on
wiki-en.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ia
> You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.
>
> This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by
> interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on
> wiki-en.
There is a on-wiki discussion and there will be more, but this:
> By th
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
> These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's main
> author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum
> announced he might run for President, and then added to all the other
On 25/05/2011 15:23, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
>> These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's main
>> author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum
>> announced he might run f
> On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
>
>> These templates are all new creations by Cirt, the Santorum article's
>> main
>> author. They were created between 10 and 15 May, shortly after Santorum
>> announced he might run for President, and then added to all
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder
> I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take
> into account
> that even talking about the article on this list might
> affect ranking.
> What is needed is to improve the article; it is about a
> political act,
> not abou
Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> From: Fred Bauder
>
>> I don't want to get that clever, to the point that we take
>> into account
>> that even talking about the article o
> Let's just delete articles we don't like. It would simplify the
> wikilawyering.
Another straw man argument.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailma
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator wrote:
> Let's just delete articles we don't
> like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than
Googlebombing) purpose to list "santorum" in a nav template of 100 political
neologisms, and you co
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google
searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty
sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack
templates and are practically orphans.
Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an a
I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware
of it.
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than
neutral observers and reporters, in the political process.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware
> of it.
>
> As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though:
> to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather t
> I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't
> aware
> of it.
>
> As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem
> though:
> to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather
> than
> neutral observers and reporters, in the poli
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
>> I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't
>> aware
>> of it.
>>
>> As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem
>> though:
>> to what extent we as a project are happy to act as partici
> I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of Google
> searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here? I'm pretty
> sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even if they lack
> templates and are practically orphans.
>
> Nor am I surprised that someone who
With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or
came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion
started here.
Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not
have consensus that there is in fact a problem requiring being solved
here.
On Wed
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a
> wider problem
> > though:
> > to what extent we as a project are happy to act as
> participants, rather
> > than
> > neutral observers and reporters, in the political
> process.
> >
> > I'd say tha
> With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or
> came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion
> started here.
>
> Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not
> have consensus that there is in fact a problem requiring being solved
>
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> From: Ken Arromdee
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia"
> Date: Monday, 23 May, 2011, 21:56
> I'm skeptical that we should have an
> article.
>
> The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. I
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> With all due respect, Fred, I believe the article either complied or
>> came very close to complying with WP policy when this discussion
>> started here.
>>
>> Your opinion that it did not has been communicated, but you do not
>> have consensu
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, George Herbert wrote:
> From: George Herbert
> Again - you do not have consensus (here or there) that it
> violates the policy.
>
> We know YOU (and Andreas) are offended, but you're
> generalizing that
> your interpretation is and must be correct.
>
> That's not how cons
On 25 May 2011 11:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> By the way, [author]'s GA articles include
See, at this point you completely blew your credibility in this
discussion by slipping into ad hominem. That's where you wiped out all
gains from your previous posts in the thread. Don't do this if you
want
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard wrote:
> From: David Gerard
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia"
> Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 22:38
> On 25 May 2011 11:34, Andreas Kolbe
>
> wrote:
>
> > By the way, [author]'s GA articles incl
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the
Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's
a loophole in the definition of neutrali
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Wed, 25/5/11, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> From: George Herbert
>
>> Again - you do not have consensus (here or there) that it
>> violates the policy.
>>
>> We know YOU (and Andreas) are offended, but you're
>> generalizing that
>> you
On 25 May 2011 22:53, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Then you've missed the point. The point is not that [[Corbin Fisher]] is
> about a gay porn company. The point is that it's written in PR style,
> complete with a blue call-out box:
Except you did not say "PR style, with call-out box" - you said "gay
> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced.
The
On Wed, 25 May 2011, David Gerard wrote:
> Except you did not say "PR style, with call-out box" - you said "gay
> porn company", as if those three words were enough to make your point.
> You lose.
In this context, "gay porn company" is legitimate, because it implies a
COI.
___
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
>
> Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
> balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
> rumor (as long as it
On 25 May 2011 23:25, George Herbert wrote:
> We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr.
> Santorum. Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the
> real world is rather explicitly Not the Point.
Indeed. And attacking the author is particularly odious beha
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> >> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
> >
> > Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
> > balanced" is like claiming th
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard wrote:
> From: David Gerard
> > Then you've missed the point. The point is not that
> [[Corbin Fisher]] is
> > about a gay porn company. The point is that it's
> written in PR style,
> > complete with a blue call-out box:
>
>
> Except you did not say "PR st
On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ
You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sexual_slang#S
On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> It's not my fault if your eyes home in on the gay porn bit. :Þ
> You are forum-shopping this issue, and it's blatant and obvious.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms
> http://
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, David Gerard wrote:
> From: David Gerard
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia"
> Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 23:40
> On 25 May 2011 23:39, David Gerard
>
> wrote:
> > On 25 May 2011 23:36, Andreas Kolbe
> wrot
Kudos to Andreas for notifying Cirt so quickly after my suggestion,
but may I suggest that we review the rules for this mailing list?
Currently neither
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l#Rules nor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette which it links to
via a redirect
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> George,
>
> Can you please address a couple of points that I believe have been brought
> up in this thread. You may want to read the previous emails that more
> clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They are as follows:
>
> 1) This te
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert wrote:
> From: George Herbert
> > George,
> >
> > Can you please address a couple of points that I
> believe have been brought
> > up in this thread. You may want to read the previous
> emails that more
> > clearly elucidated the points first, or not. They ar
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> From: Andreas Kolbe
>
> > From: George Herbert
> > I don't agree with either statement.
> >
> > The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects
> on
> > Santorum) is
> > notable. It's covered in reliable sources. The
> > word itself would
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> From: Andreas Kolbe
>>
>> > From: George Herbert
>
>> > I don't agree with either statement.
>> >
>> > The event (Savage coming up with the term, the effects
>> on
>> > Santorum) is
>> > notab
On 25/05/2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> The common element is promoting a POV.
There's absolutely no ban against that.
NPOV is a property of the Wikipedia and articles, not editors.
In other words, users adding a POV to an article or articles in the
Wikipedia in general (provided it's a reliable
--- On Thu, 26/5/11, George Herbert wrote:
From: George Herbert
The Santorum controversy... article has 2 sentences on Savage and the
neologism, no coverage of the consequences on Santorum's career,
Santorum's comments regarding it, or critical or academic coverage of
the incident.
That by i
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about
> Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there was
> no
> anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its entire
> existence d
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:57, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word
>> about
>> Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there
>> was
>> no
>> anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its entire
>
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> No question the subject is notable. The question is how to handle it
> appropriately.
Think outside the box and merge it to the article on Dan Savage?
One criticism I have of the article on the neologism is that the
"background" section is t
>> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
>
> Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
> balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
> rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably
> bal
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
>>
>> Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
>> balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
>> rumor (as long a
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
>>>
>>> Having an article that associates someone with human waste be
>>> "reasonably
>>> balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere
>>> gerbil
>>>
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> None of the examples you cite are living people.
This reminds me again about a somewhat common misinterpretation of
BLP. BLP is not really motivated solely by the fact that a person is
alive, To the extent that WP:BLP goes beyond WP:NPOV, it
On 26/05/2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced;
>> it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many
>> disclaimers
>> we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit.
>
> Well said. That's the problem.
Quite the
52 matches
Mail list logo
