There should not be a need for policy for such courteousness -- it
sets a very bad precedence when, inter-editorially, a piece is taken
from a user space despite protest.
That's just not right, and the GFDL be damned. If one of the Wikipedia
clones somehow finds such an item and decides to copy it, that's one
thing, but for this to happen from within the community is, in my
opinion, rather shameful.
And it should be opposed, but not through policy, we should'nt need to
resort to that; maybe for vandals and lamers, but serious editors? No,
I refuse to accept that.
Respect for the privacy of the user space is paramount as an outlet
for stressful editorial volunteering, and it's basic human decency.
Decent individual treatment = a productive, caring community of
editors = a free encyclopedia. No shortcuts, not even for a laugh.
El_C
>In this particular case, Bishonen's nihilartikel may be GFDL, but she did
>ask nicely for it not to be used in certain ways. So it then becomes a
>consideration of reasonableness and politeness rather than copyright and
>policy.
>- d.
I intially (& dyslexically) read that as Jumbo Wales! Heh, I'm out of
it, sorry.
Yours always,
[[Exploading Whale]]
>Next year, perhaps crushing by Jumbo Whales (exploding or not).
>Charles
> Admittedly I was a bit baffled when 'block' a user became 'crush by
> elephant'. I do hope that's not permanent.
>
> Charles
Yeah, I was had pressed to resist crushing Brad and Daniel - or saying
Brad had a crush on Daniel - either form may be used, eh?
Uncle Ed
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> Just for fun, why don't we have a game on Friday to create an
> alternative main page, linked from the main page? "Click here to see
> our April Fool's Page."
I think that is a great idea. :)
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm still subscribed to the list, but don't read much besides the
headers these days.
Lately most of them have been about "April Fools' Day".
To hell with "April Fools' Day." Seriously.
If you don't want to be serious, then I don't know what to tell you.
Do you want an encyclopedia, or a bunch of sophomoric bullshit?
Because, from what I can tell, every time I look at the Recent Changes
page, it's filling up with sophomoric bullshit.
-Hephaestos
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I was had pressed to resist crushing Brad and Daniel - or saying
> Brad had a crush on Daniel - either form may be used, eh?
Who is Brad? Is he cute? :)
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Is it over yet?
Yikes... my two favorite sites, Wikipedia and Slashdot, were totally
worthless today due to an overexuberant excess of April Fool merriment.
I think Wikipedia must define April 1st by GMT, because I see that the
"block" links no longer read "crush by elephant," but Slashdot has
posted _another_ half-dozen or so hoax articles.
Even Google News picked up a couple of April Fool hoaxes (and I do NOT
mean "Google Gulp," either).
I was more productive at work today than I've been in weeks...
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Nah, my suspicion is that 99% of classified information would not directly
>place people in harm's way if released to the public. What it might do is cause
>the country concerned varying degrees of disadvantage and embarassment
>(economically, politically, diplomatically etc).
Note close refutation under "purpose":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information
It's not about expressions of suspicion by random, unvetted members of
the general public. It's about what professionals have determined will
be a likely outcome of the enemy's acquisition of the data.
In some cases, as I said, there are politicized examples of overclassified
data, but the security bureaucracy is tasked with ensuring that this is
minimized. I'm all for making sure that information that should be free
is free. I'm totally against making sure that information that should be
secret is published.
Whether the standards are different in different countries isn't relevant.
Someone might die if Wikipedia has such info online. And at least two
people have continued arguing as though Wikipedia policy should be to
err on the side of plodding deliberation instead of quick prophylaxis.
I repeat my assertion that this is sad and scary.
--Blair
/I see that the "block" links no longer read "crush by elephant," /
I'm the one who fixed that, thanks. As for who changed it in the first
place, you can blame Packaran.
--Mark
For three or four days now, I am frequently getting database errors when I try to call up my watchlist. I'd say I'm getting them about 80% of the time and it's getting worse.
I had about 1500 articles on it. Thinking that might be the cause, I've been trying to prune them, rather difficult since the "checkbox" method of deleting them seems to get database errors too, so I've been calling up the articles one at a time and unwatching them. I'm down to about 1300 now, with no apparent improvement.
Is this happening to anyone else and has anyone got any ideas about what to do about it? (Yes, I know... not having a watchlist is a good way to reduce Wikistress...)