On 25 Jun 2007 at 02:26:22 +0000 (UTC), Benjamin Esham
<bdesham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In any context other than a strictly legal one, however, both the town and
> village are simply "Geneseo", and I believe that Wikipedia should reflect
> that fact with a single unified page.
I grew up in (the town of) Poughkeepsie, New York, and there, the
town and city of Poughkeepsie are recognized by everybody as distinct
things, culturally as well as legally. However, there's still some
blurring; I see the article on [[Poughkeepsie (city), New York]]
mentions the IBM plant in the "Industry" section, when that is
actually in the Town of Poughkeepsie. When locals reflect on what's
significant about Poughkeepsie to the rest of the world, they tend to
blur together things in the city and things in the town (and maybe
sometimes even drag in things in adjacent towns like Wappinger and
Hyde Park), but when thinking locally they recognize the
distinctions.
--
== 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/
It appears that this list is being moderated in irresponsible manner. A
reply sent 21 hours ago elicited a notification that it was awaiting
moderation. No word since then. There was nothing uncivil about it. My
first post to the mailing list months back (about a threatening email
message from an admin) was never let through nor was I ever notified of its
rejection.
This much for the OPEN mailing list!
"David Goodman" wrote
> As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good ends; most good
> editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted
> justification for edits against the consensus.
Yes, yes. WP:TIMID must be the way. If a page has been one way for a whole year, all the more reason for having it the same for a decade. And to hell with the times when editing need to be radical. Let's have scared editors.
Actually, BOLD is required for numerous different reasons, none of which individually may be common these days.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I'm purely arts, but do understand difficulties. Presumed comfortabilities
over hex and # etc. Simple notions like anglo v american english in
articles such things are pretty standard. My post wasn't about projects, and
the only project I was involved with was a cover all (Espenaza) which was
deleted for the simple reason you described. GFDL is quite specific you
accept that anything you add will be scraped to the bone or deleted. The
problem with 3RR is that old editors have preference over newer users and it
doesn't just suck nothing moves on. If Scientific articles we are using as
source use notion contrary to the page norm they can be bracketed. It does
not effect the overall quality or an article. We all lose sense in
wikipedia but few of us have a voice mike33
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the
> > pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't
> >
> > already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be
> > summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to
> > talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members,
> > being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are
> > "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual
> > does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD
> >
> > I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another
> > five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head
> > in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that
> > article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the
> > whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
> >
> > This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all
> > reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it
> > certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens
> > all too often.
> >
> > In another case, where the use of binary vs. decimal prefixes for data
> > capacities was being debated, it was frequently asserted that
> > "contributors" to an article should have the final say, "contributor"
> > defined as someone who's made a substantial number of edits to it. Talk
> > about having it exactly backward-anyone who makes a good-faith,
> > non-vandal edit to an article is a contributor to said article. This is
> > another example of the nasty, pernicious, "my turf" attitude.
> >
> > There are countless others-the relentless hostility toward those who cut
> >
> > or delete (does anyone know what "editor" actually means?), reverting
> > new contributors who make poor but good-faith edits instead of educating
> > them, and the list goes on and on and on.
> >
> > I hope we can come up with a solution to this at some point. We're sure
> > in need of one. Maybe we could start by placing this notice at the -top-
> > of the edit page, in bold, red, 40-point type:
> >
> > "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or
> > redistributed by others, *do not submit it*."
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
In a message dated 6/24/2007 8:55:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
It feels strange addressing you as SonOfYoungwood, but, since that's all
that's there, OK. My question to you is which topic are you referring to: WP
as a Cult or as a Culture?
Ah sorry, I forgot to add my sig. I'm Deckiller.
I was referring to WP as a cult. It's nothing against the topic creator,
it's just a matter of personal experience.
- Deckiller
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 6/24/2007 7:28:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
michawest(a)gmail.com writes:
The heading was to gain attention - i did not say Wikipedia was a cult (One
can leave at any time etc), although it does have aspects of that like you
say Wikilawyers. My end point is that wikipedia is not a great place for
inexperienced wikipedians. Mentorship is a little wikilove or behave you've
been a bad boy. If anyone can contribute to an article and an article has
some notability, the cite warriors (sometimes listing three sentences in the
same paragraph, when its quite obvious they all came from the same source),
and Notability counters in Afd - no nobility with less than 10,000 google
relevent hits, should leave well alone.
Sorry about the kneejerk. It's a touchy subject :)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
At 03:47 AM 6/19/2007, David Goodman wrote:
>About 25% of the WP articles cannot be properly sourced without access
>to one of the about 250 existing research libraries (in the
>english-speaking world), and perhaps a third of those can be done in
>only one of the top half of those, the ones with high quality pint
>collections. Most WPedians clearly do not have such access, and most
>of those who do are clearly unaccustomed to using it for such
>purposes. Those who can do this, are not likely to assume the burden
>of sourcing a few hundred thosand articles in 5 days.
>And it is not just finding sources. It is necessary to find multiple
>sources in a thorough way, and see what part of the article can be
>supported, and then do the secondary research necessary to rewrite the
>article. How many WP editors know how to do this properly? How many of
>the enthusiasts working on popular culture actually know how to do an
>adequate job filling the gaps there?
Right, but I would argue access and skill are not the issue... we
have plenty of editors near libraries, and most of them are pretty
smart folks, too. The issue is simply that it's a huge amount of
work. Writing a good, medium-length article takes a couple of days
maybe if you are familiar with the topic. Looking up all the
references in a library is going to take weeks.
Chris