On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Jon Q wrote:
>
>
> You''l find David Goodman has similar views to your own.
>
> Charles
And so I do.
But it doesn't take an ideal world to institutionalize BEFORE as a
requirement. Just an approximately 2/3 majority at a discussion. We'
Jon Q wrote:
> One observation I've made is that for a good part, the editors who regularly
> review content seem to look down upon many different types of sources online
> -- and while there are "real world" sources that aren't online, they don't
> seem happy unless they can easily click on some
s back to "sourcing" again, as
so many possible sources just "aren't good enough" for the perfectionists
batting away at these.
Jon
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:08:04 +0100
> From: FT2
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another sourcing problem
> To: English Wikipedi
This is a point comon to all codification.
For those who have clue about wiki, yes. For the many who don't, are
learning, do not want to be bitten, might be over-aggressive in
adding/criticising/removing, or want clearer guidance, we have detailed
policies that capture key points.
So while ideall
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
>it's a working environment where things do not need to be
> Fordist, and initiative and the guts to hold out for the right result
> are to be encouraged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism
Which bit of Fordism are you referring to her
Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 18/07/2010, FT2 wrote:
>
>> IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
>> solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic
>> problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
>> given case, large ov
On 18/07/2010, FT2 wrote:
> IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
> solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic
> problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
> given case, large overall) that important informati
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, FT2 wrote:
> So I would be okay with a solution that
> extended and built upon SELFPUB. For example:
It's a nice try, but it still has the limitation to not being about third
parties. We clearly can't just do away with that completely, but it needs
to be relaxed somehow.
___
1. the content is significant to the purpose of the article, or NPOV
would be compromised if absent;
2. the content is not published in a more reliable easily available source;
3. the author's details and the origins of the material
(authenticity) is not in significant good-faith question;
Can you explain and suggest what you mean here?
FT2
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> (Snip)
> Perhaps a rewording not using absolute terms
> might work better--NFCC has shown the disadvantages of using in an
> absolute sense things that need to be interpreted
>
> On S
I like the approach, but sources are more or less reliable, not
absolutely R or not-R. The factors you list affect the degree of
reliability, but where to put the bar so it can be used in Wikipedia
will vary with different subjects, and with different purposes. (for
example, the bar for document
IAR isn't for a regular, predictable, situation where a generic agreed
solution would be better, and not for a sourcing issue or "systematic
problem" like this. More and more often there is a chance (small in any
given case, large overall) that important information for an article may be
blog publi
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:43:05 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> en:wp does allow quite a few historic images under fair use. And no,
> they're not safe. But we're in this for the long haul, not a pretty
> page today.
If you post any fair-use images, you'd better be prepared to defend
them and jump thr
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
>>> Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
>>> and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
>>> establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
>>
>> We'd then have Wikiped
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
>> and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
>> establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
>
> We'd then have Wikipedia linki
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
> You are shifting ground there, of course. It is true that in a sense we
> have subordinated NPOV to RS, by saying we are not going to allow vague
> assertions that there is more than one side to a story, only things we
> can verify.
I'm disputing *whe
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Bod Notbod wrote:
> Put the character on a comics Wikia with all the desired information
> and have Wikipedia link to it. Presumably a Wikia on comics can
> establish its own reliable sources list to allow comic fan journals
We'd then have Wikipedia linking to something that's
On 16 July 2010 18:38, Bod Notbod wrote:
> If your desire is to overturn a central plank of Wikipedia policy -
> verifiability - then it would probably be wise not to present a "joke
> comic character" and a "fan fiction" dispute as plausible grounds to
> do so.
Indeed. Particularly when the se
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
> writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
> a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character
> who had
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
>> pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
>> laws and regulations. But there is an element where Commons (and to a
>> less
Carcharoth wrote:
> It is an interesting point that being hardline about copyright puts
> pressure on some organisations and governments to reconsider their
> laws and regulations. But there is an element where Commons (and to a
> lesser extent Wikipedia) is seen as acting like the copyright police
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth wrote:
>
>> One of the problems, though, is that the founding principle that
>> content must be freely licensed has resulted in large swathes of
>> images being declared forbidden (because you would need to
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Why is this any different from any other kind of "arcana"? And do people
>> really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
>> of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
>> wh
On 16 July 2010 08:53, Carcharoth wrote:
> One of the problems, though, is that the founding principle that
> content must be freely licensed has resulted in large swathes of
> images being declared forbidden (because you would need to pay to use
> them and you couldn't freely redistribute them).
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> And even this excuse doesn't work for the Bradley example. Having only one
> side of a dispute because one side of the dispute is a published author and
> can more easily get her side published in a reliable source certainly isn't
> "arcan
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Why is this any different from any other kind of "arcana"? And do people
> really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount
> of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business,
> whatever. If we wait until this b
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
>> And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
>> when
>> it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying "if it's not in a
>> reliable source, there's nothing you can do" misses the point. Sure there's
>> something yo
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
>
>> But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
>> published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
>> such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
>> like further reading.
On 15/07/2010, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> And the real point is that our reliable source concept is utterly broken
> when
> it comes to using blogs and other modern sources. Saying "if it's not in a
> reliable source, there's nothing you can do" misses the point. Sure there's
> something you can do:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
> But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
> published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in
> such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of
> like further reading.
The *character* is in a relia
My first instinct would be to ask what state of mind the comic writers
were in when creating these characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter-Eater_Lad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_Boy
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get
published in reliable sources, you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Fall_Off_Boy
Summary: A joke character with a similar name existed in comics fandom. The
writer who put this character in the comic book mistakenly thought he was
a preexisting character, and it's possible he confused him with the character
who had the similar nam
32 matches
Mail list logo
