Here's an example article from Cpedia about Barack Obama (basically,
read and weep):
http://www.cpedia.com/wiki?q=Barack+Obama
After skimming over it really quickly (especially read the end), words
cannot describe it as far as the tone of the article is concerned.
-MuZemike
On 4/13/20
/2721/2482
-MuZemike
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
;s that lack of flexibility that I believe has sunk Citizendium (and
other online encyclopedias like Brittanica and Google Knol) long ago.
-MuZemike
On 4/17/2010 7:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 April 2010 12:44, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>
>
>> Using
>> the CZ m
earch box could easily be doubled.
Other than those recent changes, both which came within the past 36
hours IIRC, I like vector as a whole. Looks more modern and crisp than
monobook.
-MuZemike
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
), increased questioning of literally every decision made,
increased criticism (general and specific) of adminship and
administrators, higher RfA standards, etc. The list goes on.
-MuZemike
On 5/26/2010 6:34 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators mean
.
Of course, it can also be argued that disallowing such editing may
indeed help in smart article creation by reducing the number of crap
articles (I mean complete crap) that gets created. There is probably
some tradeoff there in new page creation as far as anon creation is
concerned.
-Mu
guard despite the numerous on- and off-wiki
discussions, watchlist notices, and anything short of having a bot send
messages to all 12 million + registered users.
-MuZemike
On 6/8/2010 6:15 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
> If you really want to know i the community is ready... why are posting
> on the
Have there been any other media outlets, blogs, etc. who see Pending
Changes as a "loosening of controls"? I haven't; perhaps I've been
hanging around with the community too much who say it will be more
restrictive than before :)
-MuZemike
On 6/14/2010 6:39 PM, Risker wrot
From NetworkWorld.com, which I'm not sure they're painting a more
positive or more negative picutre of pending changes:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/62518
-MuZemike
On 6/14/2010 8:46 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 15/06/2010, MuZemike wrote:
>
>> Hav
I think those "clueless" people out there (or those who are just plain
ignorant) are beginning to know how exactly the "wheel" was invented.
-MuZemike
On 7/23/2010 7:49 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> David -
>
> Please don't toss napalm on the fire.
>
> Than
rity of them hover around and
devote all their time and energy to only a select few articles like
Obama or heaven forbid Pikachu, for instance.)
-MuZemike
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
ers who aren't around anymore, dispute on procedures to grant
this (i.e. simple request, "requests for adminship"-type voting, etc.)
I'm throwing this out here to see what people would think. Any thoughts?
-MuZemike
___
WikiEN-l mail
As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer making a
bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits?
Personally, I started out making lots of small edits, but lately I've
been the opposite of that.
-MuZemike
___
Wik
Is it me, or when I saw the word "focus group", I started to develop
some bad feelings about this?
-MuZemike
On 10/5/2010 8:49 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
> the 2010-2011 fundraiser,
e
worst fighting games of all time, failing on many levels.
That is why I am very wary and cautious about focus groups, as they tend
to blindly serve their clientele instead of giving actual feedback on
whatever their assessing.
-MuZemike
On 10/6/2010 3:24 PM, James Alexander wrote:
>
cepts tend to do better in a wiki environment (not just
Wikipedia) than most others who do not.
But this is coming from a person who specializes in building up
already-existing articles over trying to create brand new articles from
scratch.
-MuZemike
On 10/11/2010 1:51 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
So we got Conservapedia and some other conservative website accusing
Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. What else is new, or what else are
we to expect?
-MuZemike
On 10/13/2010 8:45 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Is there anything on this list:
>
> http://www.conserva
t; varies.
That comes to my question regarding whether or not we are here to build
an online community or an online encyclopedia. Should we focus outwards
toward the reading/viewing audience, or should we focus inwards towards
the editors?
-MuZemike
___
What? No "Toilet paper orientation"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
Proof positive that Wikipedia is still going strong when we have weird
articles like these.
-MuZemike
On 10/21/2010 2:36 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> A list has been prepared by Alastair Pl
ideo games!!!!!
-MuZemike
On 11/6/2010 6:28 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 22:52, Carcharoth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Fred Bauder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07FOB-medium-t.html
>>&
terminology); that is, our article on "Abraham Lincoln" contains much
more verifiable information than, say, "Venezuela at the 2010 Pan
American Games".
-MuZemike
On 11/29/2010 11:33 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Stubs and how to handle them seem to be controversial still (
longer stubs. We need to keep that in mind when assigning a
number or percentage of stubs on en.wiki, as the numbers will most
certainly be off.
-MuZemike
On 11/29/2010 1:15 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>> Stubs and how to handle the
s the most efficient
way to go.
-MuZemike
On 11/29/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
>> So does clicking "Random Article" and (gasp) judging for one's own self
>> what is a stub produce a figure v
o right,
and that's when the threats start flying.
-MuZemike
On 12/7/2010 10:31 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html
>
> '“Wikipedia is a complex culture, and sometimes it can feel like the free
> encyclopedia everyone can edi
[citation needed]
-MuZemike
On 12/9/2010 10:55 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray
> wrote:
>> On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So does clicking "Random Article" and (gasp) judging for
I thought I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch seeks to shut down
Wikipedia because of its "free information" threat to his and other
similar media empires.
-MuZemike
On 12/21/2010 1:58 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Since Wikipedia grew and became more ambitious in its scope, ther
conclude that we have come
full-circle with regards to previous thread, which discussed briefly the
dominance and level of "monopoly" Wikipedia has over the freely-editable
portion of the Internet.
-MuZemike
On 12/28/2010 7:56 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Wikipedia makes a better
On 12/28/2010 9:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemike wrote:
>> We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to
>> comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over
>> all the other wikis in that is immen
This has always been the place for such (IMO, healthy) meta-discussion
to occur, which what I think this is.
-MuZemike
On 12/31/2010 12:04 AM, quiddity wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:48 PM, quiddity wrote:
>>> Also, it m
ch I did not touch, so consider
this an early "bug report" of sorts :)
-MuZemike
On 12/29/2010 7:16 AM, Magnus Manske wrote:
> I see three parts that will be required for a fully functional demo:
>
> 1. Conversion of wikitext into "HTMLized" code as input for a HTML e
uot;Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia with Larry
Sanger"); at least that was the vibes I received late Friday evening.
-MuZemike
On 1/14/2011 10:56 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> "Wikipedia is celebrating its tenth anniversary! To mark the occasion,
> Wikipedia is showcasing content not norma
rt is also learning how to
interact and socialize with other people who are not necessarily your
family.
-MuZemike
On 1/18/2011 1:27 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> on 1/18/11 2:10 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>>
>>>> The importance to the individual of c
Yeah, we suck. However, we must be doing *something* right, otherwise
Wikipedia wouldn't have achieved the success it is currently enjoying. I
think that was what Jimbo was referring to in his last interview with
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.
-MuZemike
On 1/19/2011 2:33 PM, George He
ing
admin) AfD gets somewhere between 70-100 new deletion discussions per day.
-MuZemike
On 1/19/2011 7:16 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> http://notabilia.net/
>
> It is rather an impressive piece of analysis. Was wondering what others think.
>
> I found out about it from here:
>
&g
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
be problems with me.
-MuZemike
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
y. (Note that I am not just talking about Wikipedia but most any
wiki in general.)
-MuZemike
On 2/9/2011 1:30 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Re Ian Woolard's query:
>
>> As the Wikipedia moves towards some arbitrary definition of notional
>> 'completion',
be
moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing).
-MuZemike
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 1:37 PM, Fajro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>>
>> in the encyclopedia game? I s
Why does Conservapedia come to mind :)
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 7:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
> 'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
> inaccurate it would make the Fox News net
That wouldn't solve anything, except further draw a hard line and create
an even larger rift between editors. If we strive to be an "open
community" where we bring people together, then we would collectively be
making it more closed by doing this.
-MuZemike
On 4/8/2011 1:26 PM
e entire one-dimensional
political spectrum.
-MuZemike
On 4/10/2011 9:21 PM, Ancient Apparition wrote:
> Conservapedia seeks to rewrite history, it makes Convservative Christians
> look like uninformed idiots, most Christians ALREADY KNOW that man did
> land on the moon, the earth isn&#x
d when they *do*
accomplish something genuine and good.
-MuZemike
On 6/24/2011 7:59 PM, Howie Fung wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We’re testing a new tool for expressing appreciation to other users and are
> hoping that you’ll help test it and give us feedback. You can find a more
> detailed ratio
ly don't like
change. Many times, the community in general does hold back many
additional innovations the developers may come up with solely for the
sake of "process". This article parallels such conflict between
"process" and "development":
http://radar.oreil
feedback system, as with all others, are not
perfect and comes with systemic flaws.
-MuZemike
On 7/14/2011 7:56 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Do we have stats yet that measure whether this is encouraging editing,
> or diverting even more people from improving the pedia to critiquing
>
I'm quite sure spam is not allowed here.
Now if you excuse me, I got to go find a Canadian pharmacy that sells
Cialis at low prices.
-MuZemike
On 7/25/2011 1:16 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> http://nudesportz.com/google.php
>
> ___
>
Hence the one comment on the Wikimedia blog article
(http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/15/%E2%80%9Crate-this-page%E2%80%9D-is-coming-to-the-english-wikipedia/)
about the survey poll: http://www.vizu.com//poll-results.html?n=138785
50.5%
It will be griefed like YouTube comments.
-MuZemike
On
More powerful than Oversight, as well.
-MuZemike
On 9/8/2011 12:07 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Andrew Gray
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think we've discussed the "outline of X" articles much on this
>>> list, which surpri
lopers "boldly" turn relatively minor
features on without "community consensus", as seen at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_90#Watchlist_emails
. That is, people complain up and down about it. It is impossible to
have everyone hap
" may not also be desirable,
especially if the results may be close to 50-50, because you then
alienate too much of the community that way.
-MuZemike
On 9/17/2011 3:54 PM, Alan Liefting wrote:
> Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of
> changes to p
le=Kevin_Spacey&diff=298662379&oldid=298662328.
http://kevin.spacey.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_st_tropez.php
http://justin.bieber.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_st_tropez.php
http://david.guetta.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_st_tropez.php
-MuZemike
On 10/6/2011
could be extended to any open
wiki) is ultimately a communal effort with individualist aspects; proper
balance between the two key aspects need to be maintained in order for
the wiki to remain open to those to edit.
-MuZemike
On 10/10/2011 9:23 AM, petr skupa wrote:
> Boldness
>
> In
plete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing
articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good
way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though,
especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.
-MuZemike
On 10/1
atabase reports tend to get neglected also.
-MuZemike
On 11/3/2011 12:58 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> That's a good idea as well, though some might see it as trampling on
> the stuff swept under the rug (making it less visible). But you are
> right that some backlogs don't re
Taken straight from the novel Lord of the Flies, I am sure :)
-MuZemike
On 11/27/2011 8:32 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>> Without knowledge, myths are born. With myths, fear is born. With fear,
>>> intolerance is born. With intoleran
e you cited is a bit too high, but
not by much.) or at least to the maximum size default for thumbnails
that can be set on "My preferences", which is 300px.
Needless to say, usage in the article plays a big part in inclusion, as
well.
-MuZemike
On 7/3/2012 6:21 PM, Ken Arromdee w
55 matches
Mail list logo
