> From: Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia
>
>> No they are written with the objective of avoiding an extremely bad
>> encyclopedia.
>
> Strange. Because we were doing a fine job of writing a good
> encyclopedia before we had them, so I'm not exactly sure what we
> accomplished there.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia yet. It was _certainly_ not an
encyclopedia _then._ I've always assumed that calling it "the free
encyclopedia that anyone can edit" was a deliberate attempt to keep
the _goal_ clear and always in front of everyone.
>> Various articles with fridge fanatics would be an example.
>
> I must be remembering the two years I spent editing Wikipedia before
> [[WP:N]] and [[WP:RS]] were codified wrong, because I'm pretty sure
> we were capable of dealing with such groups before we had them.
Sounds like the classic dispute between the entrepreneurs and
innovators who start things and the more pedestrian, less imaginative
types that make them work and maintain them.
Things change.
It's not like it was back then. When a dollar was a dollar. And the
girls were prettier. And we had _real_ music then, wonderful music,
not this modern stuff, noise, it's just noise, I tell you.
Ya can talk, ya can talk,
ya can bicker, ya can talk,
ya can bicker, bicker, bicker,
ya can talk, ya can talk,
ya can talk, talk, talk, talk,
bicker, bicker, bicker,
ya can talk all ya wanna
but it's differnt than it was.
The problem is *why *the Brandt bio was created in the first place. This
was *before* BLP, and strong evidence exists it was created with malicious
intent to defame Brandt, using a questionable source. This evidence has
been reviewed, presumably at the Foundation level.
To prove good faith, I remained silent for 1 year. The matter did not
resolve itself, and I was rebanned. So I began openly reciting the story.
In the next few months I will begin an unblock request on my main account,
and let's all hopefully put this entire unfortunate & embarrassing episode
for everyone involved behind us once and forever.
Nobs01
To any and all,
I am still trying to find out copyright information on a photo on the
Find-A-Grave site. It's in regard to the Kansas Governor, Joan Finney which
I would like to upload to her WP Article. I emailed them over a month ago
and still have not received a reply. Has anyone else ever dealt with them in
the past? Is this delay in response typical?
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
On 2/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The main problem with any form of archiving is that it's the busiest
> pages that need it, and the busiest pages tend to be controversial. So
> picking how to archive them is not so much a technical matter as
> politics. Date-based archiving is generally tolerable to most.
This doesnt replace date based Ordered archives. Im hoping that redundancy
and plenty of cross linking between Topical archives (TA) and OA will keep
people from disagreeing too much with the subjectivity that will go into
forming readable TA.
-Stevertigo
You're not helping, at all. Stop begging for me to be moderated for The Truth, wake up, and smell the corrodite. Unless you can't handle the truth?
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:13:53 +0800
From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)"
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Four things to say
To: "English Wikipedia"
Message-ID:
<4e1121f80702230913o7a4d71ecv187f5c14cd5d2573(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Okay, moderation now, please.
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
Resending as per Mark Ryan's email on an accidental rejection from queue.
Parker
On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge
> <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>
> (apologies for non-trimmed top posting)
>
> Ray, I subscribe to unblock-en-l.
So do I.
The really gross cases, I simply
> don't read. I'm not capable of extending good faith so some of those
> people, so I leave them alone.
If you're not capable of extending good faith long enough to examine a case,
you have no business with admin powers.
I *know* some cases are valid even
> though they are stated in obnoxious terms and often by obnoxious
> people. One who was unblocked under a month ago is now in front of
> ArbCom; the unblock was probably valid but I'd not have unblocked.
Which proves that you don't deserve the power you have, since you're willing
to throw the book at people even when it's clear they've already been abused
by someone else.
The
> thing is, though, we don't need those cases here. Here, we discuss
> things which might actually be broken.
If by "discuss" you mean mouth vague platitudes and stonewall...
Admins blocking abusive trolls
> is not broken.
With this I agree.
I trust the mods to sort out the abusive trolls from
> the simply rude and obnoxious, I then apply my own filters to the rude
> and obnoxious.
May I suggest you apply your filters through a mirror briefly.
Overall, the mods are doing just fine.
No, they're not.
Either the
> seriously batshit cases don't post here, like they do to the unblock
> list, or they are being modded, and actually I don't care which.
The "seriously batshit" cases don't post here, but the cases which do post
here are ignored or pooh-poohed by personages like yourself anyways.
Thus the problems.
Parker
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
Before it got erased from the record, I thought I asked some relevant
questions about the Fuzzy Zoeller case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzzy_Zoeller&diff=110240475…
What does this list think? Could Section 230 of the CDA extend
immunity to Answers.com in this case, or are they vulnerable? If they
get sued, they'll probably rue the day they made their deal with
Wikipedia.
(I was told to bring the discussion here.)
On another point, is anyone even considering my post from about 30
hours ago? Is *nobody* willing to bury the hatchet?
Greg
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee.
After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I
decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic's seat (Dominic is retiring),
and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche.
--Jimbo