I use the somewhat shorter message,
Do not create articles without references. If you have the
information to write the article, you got it from somewhere. Say where
. Articles without references are likely to get deleted. I advise you
to do this the moment you create the article, to avoid
2009/4/4 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
This is pretty great, and could be an easy, painless way to up
sourcing across the board. Certainly, footnote syntax is so confusing
that many people just don't bother; and this would probably help with
identifying copyvios as well.
I generally
phoebe ayers wrote:
I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in
subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix
blp's.
-- phoebe
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
I am all in favor of seeing if we can change people's behavior in
subtle ways; it will take many solutions all working together to fix
blp's.
-- phoebe
___
doc wrote:
That someone has xn edits only means that they have not (yet) behaved in
a manner to get blocked. It in no sense is equal to clue,
perceptiveness, or diligence.
Such a view would institutionalize an assumption of bad faith.
The problem with widespread flagging is that in
It is premature to discuss the details when we have no actual
experience. Enthusiasm can compensate for structural inadequacies,
and carry us till we get the details correct. We will need to make the
effort of faith a little, for it is not likely we will get things
right at first, and a strong
doc wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So a flagged rev backlog will only be addressed if we allow all
established users to so address it, and deny the power to admins to
unseat a member of the group. It should probably be automatic at a
certain edit count or length of stay or something
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm in agreement with David here.
I do not want to be a policeman on behaviour, but I would certainly be
interested in, and already do, patrol content changes and pass or
remove spurious details. I think we all do that a bit. Being a
policeman is quite a different
2009/4/2 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Erik, or someone who knows, can you outline all the things de.wp does
differently from en.wp - and whether it has less of a problem with
legitimate subject complaints?
I'm mostly a tourist on de.wp, but my impression is that it's a combination of
-
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:07 AM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Our current vandalism RCP system regularly screws up with BLP. It
reverts people who blank libels - and seldom even casts a glance at the
current state of any article. You think giving these same people more
work will
I did read what you said, and it is bad enough.
The notion that anyone [with xn edits] can review, and no admin can
revoke, makes the right less scrutinised that rollback - that has the
effect of making the quality control utterly useless.
That someone has xn edits only means that they have
that
right.
That is quite different from anyone.
-Original Message-
From: doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 1:07 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm in agreement
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hopefully it can be tweaked to distinguish between removal and
replacement with a death category. And then people can check edits
made claiming
In a message dated 4/2/2009 5:18:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread.
Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and
leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you
There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at
least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no
encyclopedia.
What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that
can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate
than anyone
This is a fallacy.
That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to
destroy every cell within it - is not an argument against ever using
chemotherapy or carrying out a hysterectomy.
What we are here to do is to produce the most accurate encyclopedia
that can be produced -
David Goodman wrote:
There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at
least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no
encyclopedia.
This is a logical fallacy.
That the only way to make sure no cancer ever enters my body is to
destroy every living cell
In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:20:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem
of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is
granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our
I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with handing out reviewer status at x+1
edits, but making it difficult to remove.
It must not be harder to remove than to grant.
But as I say, I am strongly opposed to deploying flagging on all
articles anyway.
Those people who are to grant or remove the
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a
pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person?
This proposal aims (without causing any deletion spree of backlogs) to
instigate the idea that basic sourcing is necessary for any BLP to
remain on wikipedia.
on 4/1/09 11:16 AM, doc at doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a
pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person?
Absolutely! The basis for any encyclopedia article should be: This is what I
learned about the
2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Concrete_proposal
+1
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I've seen no evidence that the unsourced BLPs are more prone to subtle
vandalism at the time of creation than the sourced ones.
If it's unsubtle vandalism, speedy already takes care of it just fine.
If it happens later, this proposal doesn't do any good towards solving
the problem.
Maybe there
I agree with the sentiment that flagged revisions would take care of this
additional issue as well.
Flagged revisions also allows people, like me, who are used to working
entirely online, to create drafts, then wander away for a while, then come back
and add more details, until you have a
Flagged revisions is not going to solve much more than obvious
vandalism. If we flag a good proportion of article, then we will need
lots of reviewers, and the level will be set at sysop of lower - the job
will be tedious and done by the lazy with an eye on edit count. The
problem is that
doc,
I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want
to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin
does, I can understand not wanting the distinction, but having a real
role in making sure we have an acceptable content is another thing
entirely. But
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 5:56 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saying no to new unreferenced BLPs
doc,
I think you underestimate the number of good editors who do not want
to be admins but would gladly take this on. Considering what an admin
does, I can understand not wanting
2009/4/1 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Is it perhaps time, that we started to demand that basic sourcing was a
pre-requisite of creating an article on any living person?
Without commenting on this specific proposal, I thought it interesting
that the de.wikipedia.org community implemented a
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- As an interesting side note, the mandatory summary script doesn't
seem to trigger on section edits, and those are still very frequently
unexplained.
Perhaps it should check whether there is content outside of /* section
29 matches
Mail list logo
