On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Luna wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wrote:
>
>> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper". That
>> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
>> which to describe whatever we want.
>>
>
> Indeed. Our size l
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:59 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> The stable concept of "deletionism" isn't anything more than the
> waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal
> system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, "inclusionism"
> sort of became a misnomer - few disagre
(Composed yesterday, delayed by system crash)
wjhon...@aol.com:
>> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to>> fiction
>> details.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Yes, that is one side of the argument. It doesn't explain why the
> argument exists and is so prevalent.
The concept about
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Cathy Edwards wrote:
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
I'll offer two reasons:
1) Because editors are unable, in gen
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
> That we have a rule which says we can break rules makes for the
> most perplexing conversations.
One problem is that the rule which says we can break rules is poorly worded.
If you didn't already agree that you can break rules (and therefore didn't
2009/8/18 :
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, with
> a single editor should be deleted". That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability". And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
I'm really not sure that prohibiting cases where only one of our
ed
We do have such articles. The example you want is each bus stop in
NYC and each mayor of Sleepy Hollow, pop 10,000. Santa Cruz at 50,000
is marginal.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM, wrote:
> I just explained why. Some pe
pedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
2009/8/18 :
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more,
with
> a single editor should be deleted". That would be a ground-level bar
> on &q
they so richly deserve.
Will "Skeletor" Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
You would delete all these articles I've created that no-one else has
2009/8/18 :
> Only if I can write a corollary, "Any article 90 days old or more, with
> a single editor should be deleted". That would be a ground-level bar
> on "notability". And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
What about new page patrollers tagging and categorising? Do they co
ground-level bar
> on "notability". And also an interesting exercise in cobweb control.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luna
> To: English Wikipedia
> Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians f
lish Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wrote:
> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper". That
> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited am
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wrote:
> OK the other side of the argument is "Wikipedia is not paper". That
> is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
> which to describe whatever we want.
>
Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical. We're no long
pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
2009/8/18 :
> I just explained why. Some people would find three thousand articles
on
> "Superman" is be overwhelming.
> It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway
stop in
>
o matter the source,
provided it's been published in some format previously. A video box
cover is a publication format. So reading names off it, is not
original research.
-Original Message-----
From: Surreptitiousness
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 2:01 pm
Subject
2009/8/18 :
> I just explained why. Some people would find three thousand articles on
> "Superman" is be overwhelming.
> It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway stop in
> New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.
No, you just explained one side of the argument. An
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
> details.
> Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
> Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
> Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and t
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:54, David Gerard wrote:
> And that extends to even
> having an article at all - for many subjects, having a Wikipedia
> article can be a curse.
>
Not that that has ever stopped anybody from creating an autobiography
--
Jim Redmond
[[User:Jredmond]]
__
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
>
>> 4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.
>> What exactly counts as "consensus" is another industrial-sized can of
>> worms. I think we slipped into "rough consensus" long ago, and are now
>> drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitut
I just explained why. Some people would find three thousand articles on
"Superman" is be overwhelming.
It's a similar situation to having separate articles on each subway stop in
New York City or each Mayor of Santa Cruz.
In a message dated 8/18/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
2009/8/18 :
> It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
> details.
> Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
> Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
> Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that art
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Let's say we have an article on Superman, and also on each of the various
Superman comic runs that have appeared in the past 50 years.
Now make an article on *each* comic issue, and then in that article
describe the
Although as I've said before WikiNEWS is for "NEW" not for old.
So where do you put old investigative journalism ?
In a message dated 8/18/2009 10:07:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
particularly when you have editors who confuse an
encyclopedia with investigative
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
>
>> This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
>> harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
>> target.
>
>
> Mmm. BLPs became special (a) in the wake of the Siegenthale
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
> This is about 95% of the truth, actually. Other articles *can* cause
> harm in exactly the same way, but are not as obvious or attractive a
> target.
Mmm. BLPs became special (a) in the wake of the Siegenthaler foulup
(b) when we became likely the top Google hit on any gi
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
>>> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
>>> work, these days. However hard you try,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards :
>
>> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
>> area,
>
>
> It's because they're special, because they can cause (and have
> caused) damage to people in a way that other articles can't. (
2009/8/18 Kat Walsh :
> 4 out of 5 Wikipedians agree, consensus = 80%.
> What exactly counts as "consensus" is another industrial-sized can of
> worms. I think we slipped into "rough consensus" long ago, and are now
> drifting into supermajorities as a rough substitute, with occasional
> exception
2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards :
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area,
It's because they're special, because they can cause (and have
caused) damage to people in a way that other articles can't. (And the
same applies to material about living people in other art
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
>> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
>> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution tha
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
>> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
>> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
>> everyone will accept.
>>
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews :
> *What if the article on Mr. Darcy were written in an in-universe view,
> in other words not offering the perspective with the fourth wall removed?
I think we've pretty much reached a consensus there. While some people
write from an in-universe perspective, there have
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Well said. That debate was resolved back in the days when we actually
> reached consensus occasionally! There are too many people for that to
> work, these days. However hard you try, you never find a solution that
> everyone will accept.
>
Hmmm, that seems to assume conse
Cathy Edwards wrote:
> This is all so interesting - thanks.
>
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
>
[[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] indicates some
2009/8/18 Cathy Edwards :
> This is all so interesting - thanks.
>
> I think I have a good idea why BLP are a hot topic of debate in this
> area, but why do you think fiction is contentious - because it's in
> danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia?
Good question. I think it is because fictional t
2009/8/18 Brock Weller :
> The 'deletionists' (and I use that word somewhat ironically, we don't have
> meetings or leaders or even a philosophy beyond 'improve the encyclopedia')
> vs the 'inclusionists' (I always thought that word was chosen as a catch-all
> to cast the other side as slightly evi
a.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 17 August 2009 18:29
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
2009/8/17 Carcharoth :
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Cathy
Edwards wrote:
>
>
>
>> 1. The inc
The 'deletionists' (and I use that word somewhat ironically, we don't have
meetings or leaders or even a philosophy beyond 'improve the encyclopedia')
vs the 'inclusionists' (I always thought that word was chosen as a catch-all
to cast the other side as slightly evil, much like you can't help but f
2009/8/17 Carcharoth :
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Cathy Edwards wrote:
>
>
>
>> 1. The inclusionist / deletionist debate peaked a few years ago
>
> It did? Maybe I haven't been paying attention. I was under the
> impression that notability guidelines were still a topic of heated
> debate a
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Cathy Edwards wrote:
> 1. The inclusionist / deletionist debate peaked a few years ago
It did? Maybe I haven't been paying attention. I was under the
impression that notability guidelines were still a topic of heated
debate as regards articles on fiction topics.
ary about how the web is changing our lives
join the conversation on the web at www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution or
follow us on twitter @BBCDigRev
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard [mailto:dger...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 August 2009 22:05
To: English Wikipedia
Cc: Cathy Edwards
Subject: Re:
2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards :
>> Dear Wikipedians,
>>
>> We're making a 4-part documentary series marking 20 years of the World
>> Wide Web, Digital Revolution. ). This comprises an interactive website
>> (http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution/), and four documentaries for
>> broadcast on BBC Two at t
2009/8/13 Andrew Gray :
> The way the deletionism-inclusionism debate *now* seems focused is
> things like minor BLPs. There's a thriving debate there, still, if you
> want to look for it.
Indeed, the debate have moved from general arguments about overall
philosophy to specific arguments about whe
2009/8/13 FT2 :
> On a spectrum of "what belongs in Wikipedia", the majority of experienced
> editors these days probably fall in a similar area that agrees not
> everything belongs in Wikipedia. Not every building, person, business,
> fictional character, news item, minor band, aspiring politician
Something like deletionism/inclusionism would only really be useful in terms
of "phases Wikipedia has gone through" or "issues that its editors had to
resolve on the way". There's a lot of those.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Surreptitiousness <
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards :
>
>
>>> To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interview a UK
>>> Wikipedian. We're looking for a passionate Deletionist - someone who
>>> identifies with the goals of Deletionism to create a high quality
>>> encyclopaedia, and does
On a spectrum of "what belongs in Wikipedia", the majority of experienced
editors these days probably fall in a similar area that agrees not
everything belongs in Wikipedia. Not every building, person, business,
fictional character, news item, minor band, aspiring politician, has a
place. There are
2009/8/12 Cathy Edwards :
>> To add to and enrich the programme we'd really love to interview a UK
>> Wikipedian. We're looking for a passionate Deletionist - someone who
>> identifies with the goals of Deletionism to create a high quality
>> encyclopaedia, and does a lot of this kind of quality c
> Dear Wikipedians,
>
> We're making a 4-part documentary series marking 20 years of the World
> Wide Web, Digital Revolution. ). This comprises an interactive website
> (http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution/), and four documentaries for
> broadcast on BBC Two at the beginning of 2010, in the UK
49 matches
Mail list logo
