Dear Wikipedia contributors,
Your valuable opinions are needed regarding users' motivations to contribute to
Wikipedia. This topic is currently investigated by Audrey Abeyta, an
undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. You can
read a more detailed description of th
I noticed a thread on Jimbo's talk page that is partly related to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_radical_idea.3B_BLP_opt-out_for_all
Tarc suggested:
"Any living person, subject to identity verification via OTRS, may
request the deletion of their article. No discussion
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent developments,
however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:27, Carchar
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
> developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
> barking mad territory.
>
> No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
OK, but what
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent developments,
however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into barking mad territory.
No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
I would suggest as a modest propo
On 4 April 2012 15:10, Carcharoth wrote:
>
>
> We *should* have a category of BLP stubs, but I can't find it. Maybe
> someone can cross-reference the BLP category and the "people stub"
> category (and its sub-categories) and find out how many are BLPs.
>
> In principle that shouldn't be too hard
On 4 April 2012 16:24, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> I would suggest as a modest proposal that we do away with "Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia". I've already suggested that we do away with the IAR
> clause "to improve the encyclopedia".
>
Oh, I don't know, it still has explanatory value. "Comprehensiv
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On 4 April 2012 15:10, Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>> We *should* have a category of BLP stubs, but I can't find it. Maybe
>> someone can cross-reference the BLP category and the "people stub"
>> category (and its sub-categories) and find out how
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" constantly gets misinterpreted to mean "we
may never allow other concerns to take precedence over being
encyclopediac". This is wrong.
Mmm. There is a certain rather blinkered singlemindedness that can set in
with some p
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
>> BLP is a good idea and we got it for good reasons. These recent
>> developments, however, forget that we are *an encyclopedia*. It's into
>> barking mad territory.
>>
>> No. We will not go to removing bios on demand on my watch.
>
> I would suggest as
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I would prefer we limit content to encyclopedic content. Obviously
> aggregating news, especially about individuals, is incompatible with that
> purpose.
Large amounts of Wikipedia articles on recent topics are nothing more
than aggregating fr
On 4 April 2012 17:55, Carcharoth wrote:
> Large amounts of Wikipedia articles on recent topics are nothing more
> than aggregating from news sources.
A lot of this will be the canonicalisation of any rubbish in a
newspaper as a Reliable Source. If you don't want your article
deleted, put as ma
On 4 April 2012 17:55, Carcharoth wrote:
>
> I wonder, how much of the early editing (first 2-3 years), was on news
> topics?
Probably relatively little because there weren't many editors and those
that were were concentrating on copying other encyclopedias.
> How much was on historical topic
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:34, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> I didn't pull this out of thin air, after all--I was replying to someone
> who, with complete seriousness, said that we shouldn't delete a BLP because
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
I did not say that, n
On 4 April 2012 17:28, Carcharoth wrote:
>>> In principle that shouldn't be too hard to do, with Catscan 2.0 to
>> intersect categories for you. In practice the toolserver can't be taken for
>> granted. And it seems that the naive way of doing this produces a list that
>> is just too big (I took
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 at 20:16, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Catscan has always been quite slow - it's fair enough, I suppose, when
> you consider it's having to match item-by-item in two very large and
> dynamically generated lists! I wonder if it's possible to tell it to
> just return a figure for m
Well, not really. Apparently it's common in some US elementary schools.
http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/10557/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailma
On 4 April 2012 20:16, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> Putting these together, I would make a wild stab at saying that it is
> unlikely more than half our BLPs - about a quarter of a million
> entries - are stubs. I'm not sure I'd go as low as 100,000, but it's
> interesting how divergent the estimates fr
Lovely...
Yes it ''should'' be a poem about Wikipedia.
Tightening up on new user accounts and some sort of revision control
will go a lng way towards improving Wikipedia.
Alan
On 5/04/2012 7:39 a.m., David Gerard wrote:
Well, not really. Apparently it's common in some US elementary schoo
After the past week or so, I think we're at the "sinking into the
moss" stage. Maybe putting out a few roots.
--
Peter in Canberra
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikime
20 matches
Mail list logo
