In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Morris Osipovich]], some
users are arguing that BIographies of Living Persons issues do not
apply since they have looked her up in the US' Social Security Death
Index and found that she died in 1992.
I have a few concerns about this:
1) Finding that she died in 1992 involved discovering a 'Nadia M.
Osipovich' of the correct approximate age died in Oregon in 1992.
Oregon is the recorded state of residence of this person in the 1940s.
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of
residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
2) Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is
a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the
same person that feels like more of one than we should be making
without support from a source.
-Matt
Here's why it's a bad idea to ban links to the "attack sites"... then
I wouldn't be able to call y'all's attention to stuff like this:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8582
The person (with a questionable grasp on reality) from American
Biograph and Mutoscope Company is here accusing Wikipedians of
hacking his bank account, in addition to calling it "defamatory" that
they don't accept on his say-so that his company is the legitimate
successor to a company that went defunct back in the 1920s.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Quite a few editors have been taking our requirement to cite sources to an
extreme...whether this is good or bad, I don't know, but at any rate, it's
starting to seep into the public consciousness:
http://bash.org/?757724
<CtrlAltDestroy> Here is my impression of Wikipedia.
<CtrlAltDestroy> "There are five fingers on the human hand [citation
needed]"
Johnleemk
Folks,
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate
destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful
research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Marc Riddell
On 30 Apr 2007 at 10:40:59 +0800, "Andrew Lih"
<andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I do encourage you to listen to WikipediaWeekly.com when the episode
> comes out later this week.
I'd be more favorably inclined to it if it were at
WikipediaWeekly.org instead, so it didn't look like a for-profit
enterprise. (Last I checked, the .org domain was still unregistered;
one of these days, some cybersquatter will likely grab it and put
something obnoxious there.)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Dear English Wikipedia community,
I am conducting a study of the Wikipedia communities in six different
languages for my diploma thesis. Please read my initial announcement for
more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kurt_Jansson
I owe a big "thank you" to everybody who has helped answer my questions.
So far over 50 people across six Wikipedia communities have contributed
to their community's answers and I am grateful for their help. However,
for the study to be comprehensive I need more people to get involved.
Some communities also seem to need more time to discuss and work out the
answers.
Therefore I have extended the deadline for participation until May 13th.
I have used mailing lists and village pumps to spread the announcement
about my research questions, but every community has their own channels
for the distribution of information. So, I ask you to help get more
people involved to make sure the results accurately represent your
community.
When phrasing the answers, please approach it as if you were writing a
Wikipedia article: try to work on joint answers that your community can
agree on. The answers don't need to be neutral in an NPOV kind of way,
but please try to give a comprehensive picture of the processes and
ideals of your community.
The questions can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kurt_Jansson/questions ;
please edit the questions page to contribute.
Best wishes,
Kurt
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 01:13 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to "attack sites"
>
>On 4/26/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/25/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay)
>> > confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings
>> > applied to any attack site, not just to ED ...
>
>> In my personal view, things in the 'Principles' or 'Findings of fact'
>> sections in an arbitration case are not remedies. I am uncomfortable
>> with people taking things said in that section as commands from the
>> arbitration committee to do anything. If we wanted to explicitly rule
>> that something should be done, it would be in 'Remedies' or
>> 'Enforcement'.
>>
>> In a sense, what we are saying there is that we believe that existing
>> policy, precedent and/or common sense already contain those things.
>> In this case, six Arbitrators considered not linking to attack sites
>> as already covered by de facto policy.
>>
>> The arbcom is a bad way to make new policy, since there are only a
>> small number of us. We attempt to interpret existing policy for
>> circumstances not explicitly considered by those policies, however.
>>
>I agree, but in this case, as you say, the removal of links to attack
>sites was seen by the ArbCom, and by many if not most administrators,
>as de facto policy, so I see no harm in creating a policy page to
>reflect that. Policy is supposed to reflect best practise.
>
>Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and
>it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to
>those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of pointless
>fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about
>attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
>
>Sarah
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
Fred