On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Goodman wrote:
But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs?
I've had a look at some stats. See
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
According to these tables, Ma
But what is the relative rate of new edits between the de and en WPs?
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Risker,
>
> This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about
> pending changes.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>> Having
Risker,
This is a rather belated response to some points you raised earlier about
pending changes.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Risker wrote:
> Having been very involved in the trial, I would not re-enable the use of
> Pending Changes until significant changes to the proposed policy are ma
The pending changes stuff should probably be restarted in a new thread
(or the subject line changed, whichever is best). I've never been
clear, though, how 'recent changes' works, let alone pending changes.
Take a recent edit I reverted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madeleine_Astor&di
On 18 April 2012 12:41, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem is not the ratio between editors and biograp
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the
> ratio
> > of editors editing within policy vs edit
On 18 April 2012 06:22, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman wrote:
>
>
>
> The problem is not the ratio between editors and biographies, but the ratio
> of editors editing within policy vs editors who come only to write a
> hatchet job or an infomercial. This i
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM, David Goodman wrote:
Thanks for picking the topic up again, David.
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
> unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> Under existing BLP and notability policy, we have criteria for article
> existence/non-existence. If the subject makes or can be helped to
> articulate a case under that policy that they shouldn't have an
> article, then the reasonable thin
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, George Herbert wrote:
The particular case here where the local radio personality objected so
much, we're reading too much in to. They had an idiosyncratic
reaction and did a bunch of actions that made the situation worse and
called more attention to themselves. Their press
On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote:
> Why would you not find yourself in a similar situation if employed by
> a published scholarly encyclopedia and were told "This guy is just
> notable enough, write a brief bio of him for the next version"?
The difference is, there is (usually) an intermediary b
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote:
>
>
>
>> The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting
>> with sensitive BLP subjects.
>
> That is not always the case.
>
> What would *you* do if you cleaned up and expanded an article on
On 4/17/12, George Herbert wrote:
> The key problem here - IMHO - is not-sensitive editors interacting
> with sensitive BLP subjects.
That is not always the case.
What would *you* do if you cleaned up and expanded an article on a BLP
you had never heard of before (to 'do the right thing'), an
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
subject
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>>> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
>>> subject in consideration about whether we should have an artic
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
>> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
>> unless an exception can be made according to other Wik
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> It would be better to have a rule to never take the views of the
> subject in consideration about whether we should have an article,
> unless an exception can be made according to other Wikipedia rules, in
> particular, Do No Harm. People h
On 16 April 2012 14:12, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
> malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
> are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
> articles or not, promotional or criti
The problem arises in the cases of articles which are libelous,
malicious, or manifestly unfair. Other instances, other than people who
are clearly notable, are not relevant; it doesn't matter whether we have
articles or not, promotional or critical, so it doesn't matter if the
subject has the powe
If we let people delete articles on themselves, they will delete
those articles not closely conforming to their own idea of
themselves, and this gives them a veto power over content. No BLP will
then be other than promotional. In my experience the problem with
most little-watched articles, bio o
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.
>
> George Willi
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
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
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
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 17:55, 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
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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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
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
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
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
>
> > One of those would be me :)
> > A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians
> &
> > individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an
>
On 29 March 2012 15:38, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> It would certainly be useful to have an agreed "approach" from our side.
> What even might work? Our natural sort of starting point would be FAQ-like,
> but that probably doesn't fit the bill. Neither would a simple "set of
> instructions", given
On 29 March 2012 15:38, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> I noticed that in the Bell Pottinger meltdown Lord Bell switched from
> saying that the PR operatives had not actually broken the law (i.e.
> minimalist on professional ethics), to a line that WP was really just too
> complicated and fussy about i
> On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>
>> I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
>> media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic.
>> The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if
>> you're caught with *what other
On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
> I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
> media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic.
> The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out "if
> you're caught with *what other people*
> Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the
> Facebook page:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
>
> I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising.
>
> I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
> media person), Ri
On 29 March 2012 10:20, Thomas Morton wrote:
> I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :)
It's not a threat from us, it's saying "you don't want what happened
to Bell Pottinger to happen to you."
I'm surprised to see (repeatedly) that the press and public get m
I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :)
We also (reading that blog post) disagree on a few other aspects as well.
Which is why I am eager to see input from a broad swathe of Wikipedians on
these issues.
Tom
On 29 March 2012 10:17, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29
On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton wrote:
> One of those would be me :)
> A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians &
> individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an
> email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night).
> If y
One of those would be me :)
A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians &
individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an
email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night).
If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that wo
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the
Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/
I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising.
I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new
media person), Richard Symonds a
48 matches
Mail list logo
