Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
DG raises an interesting writing issue, nevertheless. Remember Pownce?
This is the startup over which Andrew Lih went ballistic - with risk
of distortion in my hindsight, the point at the time was that Lih
thought a press relea
On 6 February 2013 08:20, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Pownce is clearly a footnote by now. One of WP's purposes is to host
> such footnotes. So the writing issue boils down to reducing froth to
> footnote coverage.
I went on a massive cleanup of [[OpenOffice]] recently. It had a lot
of stuff that
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 08:20, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
>
> DG raises an interesting writing issue, nevertheless. Remember Pownce?
> This is the startup over which Andrew Lih went ballistic - with risk
> of distortio
On 6 February 2013 09:07, Tom Morris wrote:
> Pownce is an interesting example of why we need to keep these kinds of
> articles around: every time a new social network comes along, people
> jump on to it like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Showing them the
> many failures and closed serv
On 2/6/13, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
Yeah. But that is a bit of a canard in some cases. It is a question of
whether coverage endures and continues or peters out. i.e. Whether
people/sources (the right sort) write about somethi
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F
>
> How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]],
> [[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time and got lots of
On 6 February 2013 13:06, Carcharoth wrote:
> On 2/6/13, Charles Matthews wrote:
>> Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
>
> Yeah. But that is a bit of a canard in some cases. It is a question of
> whether coverage endures and continues or peters out. i.e. Whethe
I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
which rates do people have access to it?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On
On 6 February 2013 14:04, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
> Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
> knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
> to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
> which rates do people have access to
> I think you are all dancing around the real subject.
> Is wikipedia meant to help people have access to
> knowledge, to apportion access to knowledge, or
> to be a gate-keeper on which knowledge and at
> which rates do people have access to it?
Wikipedia is a summary of generally accepted knowle
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F
>>
>> How to write about things like [[Citizendium]], [[Conservapedia]],
>> [[Veropedia]] - things that were notable at the time and got l
>> If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
>> notable, no?
>
> No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
> significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is irrelevant.
My bad. My comment was based on the apparently mistaken
On 6 February 2013 15:14, Fred Bauder wrote:
> However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out information which is no
> longer of interest to readers or editors. Perhaps this could be one
> criteria justifying deletion, or perhaps some other form of archiving. We
> could maintain an archive of d
Oops -
"the thesis that salience or its perception changes over time begins
to look tenable"
is the point I was hoping to make.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.
>>> If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
>>> notable, no?
>>
>> No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
>> significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is
>> irrelevant.
>
> My bad. My comment was based on the apparentl
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be
notable, no?
>>>
>>> No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in
>>> significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is
>>> irr
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
> by at least occasional publishing of information about in in contemporary
> reliable sources.
That's not strictly tenable, as the range of history is so vast that
contemporary historians only ever write about a small portion of it,
and even then sometimes only bri
> On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> by at least occasional publishing of information about in in
>> contemporary
>> reliable sources.
>
> That's not strictly tenable, as the range of history is so vast that
> contemporary historians only ever write about a small portion of it,
> and even then som
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or
> journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the
> canon of knowledge and could then be archived.
Maybe, but I don't think you can generalise. You have to inspect each
in
On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth wrote:
> On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or
>> journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the
>> canon of knowledge and could then be archived.
> Maybe, but I don't t
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:33 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth wrote:
>> On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or
>>> journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the
>>> canon of k
21 matches
Mail list logo
