I just scanned an article: "Wikipedia is basically just another giant
bureaucracy",
http://www.sciencealert.com/wikipedia-is-basically-just-another-old-fashioned-bureaucracy-study-finds
and it is astonishing how bad it is.
I don't really quibble with the headline - it is a bureaucracy, but some o
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Stephen Philbrick
wrote:
> and it is astonishing how bad it is.
If you're astonished, then I'm afraid you haven't read enough news
articles about Wikipedia yet. :-(
P.S. MAYBE IT'S TIME WE REEVALUATED OUR STANCE ON ALLCAPS.
__
I'm honestly not sure what this thread is meant to achieve.
Might I suggest that if you object to the reporting you contact the author,
rather than drag their work in a largely-unknown internal mailing list?
It's likely to be more productive.
On Friday, 29 April 2016, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On
The article cited is a tertiary source (like Wikipedia), and so is "as
astonishingly bad"
The underlying research studies [ref#1], [ref#2] claim
"Researchers found that a relatively small number of editors have a
major influence on the site."
"As editors interact with one another and their opini
We have mailing lists wikipedia-l and WikiEN-l for discussions about
specifically Wikipedia or English Wikipedia respectively.
On 30 Apr 2016 10:44, "Toby Dollmann" wrote:
> The article cited is a tertiary source (like Wikipedia), and so is "as
> astonishingly bad"
>
> The underlying research stu
Why is it that when we want to be critical of our internal movement
collaborators this list is the primary vehicle for personal insult from
micro-aggressions to outright hostility, but this discussion is off-topic?
--
~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email a
On Apr 29, 2016 11:20 PM, "Keegan Peterzell" wrote:
>
> Why is it that when we want to be critical of our internal movement
> collaborators this list is the primary vehicle for personal insult from
> micro-aggressions to outright hostility,
{{cn}}
> but this discussion is off-topic?
Agreed, the
I thought Stephen's original post to this list was fine, and his voice
is not one that we hear very often.
Extended specific discussions about project policies or articles might
be better on wikipedia-l or commons-l, but if we had a "rule" that you
can never mention a specific topic on this list t
Hoi,
When you restrict or (mis)direct this conversation to a specialist mailing
list, you fail to understand what this is all about. It is exactly much of
the discussion that happens on this mailing list by the people who are most
heard where it becomes plain that the publication has a point.
The
Is it just me that notices an irony when someone posts a message about
Wikipedia being a bureaucracy, and there follows a discussion about whether
the message was sent to the correct mailing list or not? ;)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
ht
Chris,
Yeah, all I meant with my email was 'discussing whether Wikipedia is a
bureaucracy on *any* mailing list is likely to be further supporting
evidence to the average journalist' and have, since waking up and scanning
the new posts to the thread, reached pretty much the same state of...piqued
That piece is abysmally bad "science journalism" (I can't even write it
without scare quotes, it is so bad). To hell with it. Ignore it.
The paper they are writing about (http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/2/14/html)
is published in an MDPI open access journal; MDPI is borderline "predatory
publish
So many typos, sorry. ack.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM, jytdog wrote:
> That piece is abysmally bad "science journalism" (I can't even write it
> without scare quotes, it is so bad). To hell with it. Ignore it.
>
> The paper they are writing about (
> http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/2/14/h
13 matches
Mail list logo
