"Steve Bennett" wrote
> To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should
> we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If
> the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for
> jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?
The mission is not the plain vanilla 'be informative'.
Interesting comment from one of my non-Wikipedian friends. His colleagues at work tend to access official health statistics through WP external links; because it's quicker generally to do that, than to access the official site, in terms of getting to the relevant page out of many. That's quite a plaudit.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote
> I see no reason why we should be flexible about sources.
I do. Inviting inflexibility on sources is to ignore 'good taste'.
>If it hasn't got
> sources it can be deleted, regardless whether this is a policy or a
> guideline.
But it need not be deleted. Especially if it is a good article, otherwise. If people hold back a needed article because they are afraid of deletion, we lose, not gain.
>It may be kept if someone bothers to find the sources the author
> should have included, but that might not happen.
Certainly won't, if it's already gone.
> The only way to make people use sources is hammering it in, because no
> matter how many times it is said, people will ignore it. Perhaps deletion
> will get some backsides into gear.
Stick, carrot, what's the difference? Mainly stick is an easier, more clear-cut policy. Which will drive away people who feel they have to master 'reliable sources policy' (bad joke) before posting anything.
Look at it this way: good Wikipedians are those that post material that survives into later versions of pages. Aggressive deletion of unsourced material cuts down the pool of 'good Wikipedians'. It has always been a bad idea to imply, for example, that you need an academic library handy, to work on scholarly topics.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Steve Bennett" wrote
> So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
[[Gilbert Murray]].
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> From: "David Ashby" <humble.fool(a)gmail.com>
>
> On 11/27/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, anyone greatly improved an article lately?
>>
>> Steve
>
> I've deleted about 50 or so articles, does that count?
>
> -humblefool
Arlo Guthrie tells a story about how his wife told him she had
cleaned up a stack of magazines in the garage. The next day, he says
"I was in the garage, and those magazines weren't 'cleaned,' they're
_gone._" His wife replies, "Well, you can't get much cleaner than
'gone.'"
Like the apocryphal story of Michelangelo saying "I just cut away
everything that didn't look like David," the negative space of
deleted articles shapes the positive space that looks like an
encyclopedia.
Ray Saintonge wrote
> Perception is everything. Repeatedly denying that we are run by a cabal
> does nothing to convince those who believe it.
But then nothing else would, either. That is the nature of conspiracy cranks.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and
subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of
women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related
systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. As far as "gender is
irrelevant" goes, this is simply not true. Gender of editors really
does matter as far as coverage and quality thereof goes. Most of the
women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a
straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do
not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and
there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and
curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have
known men to use most. Or even to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Microwave_oven and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator . Or to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor . The bias is there.
My question is not "Does systemic bias exist?" but rather "Where is
systemic bias hurting us most?" From a coverage standpoint, we have
vast comprehensive articles on sports of all kinds, but our ballet
articles make me weep inside (I've just started a Ballet WikiProject
to address this, but had been too intimidated to do so since first
reading/editing until I met another female ballet dancer on wiki).
However, how does this compare to the way policy is formed and
implemented? Is an unequal ratio of men to women affecting the way we
run things? Is it negatively impacting the structure of the
encyclopedia? Is it proceeding in this way such that men find it
easier to join and women do not? What is suffering the most from this
bias, and are there ways to better receive the input of those who
would otherwise not be heard?
As far as women reading the mailing list, I know that there are
plenty who do (like myself), but do not discuss much. I know that I
also read more than I edit, perhaps this is the case with more
females than just myself?
Food for thought. :]
--Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
