On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> [[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the flag for Wikipedia, for some
> inexplicable reason".
Does this refer to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodhullandemu&diff=431917947…
I'm not going to comment further, but I think others who respond to
your posts should be aware of this.
What the scope of this mailing list should be (given your recent posts
on BLP matters, all copied to Jimmy Wales), is something I'd like to
see discussed by the list moderators and those posting here. If there
is a reason or rationale behind the posts, attempting to demonstrate
something, then fine, but it would be courteous to state that rather
then just post randomly like this.
Carcharoth
Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of
changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related
matters regardless of how minor they are?
Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a
talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative
nature?
Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and
readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the
editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well).
Alan Liefting
It appears that a study by a team at the Medical School at Thomas Jefferson
University has found Wikipedia's cancer information to be very accurate and
updated more frequently than other sources. Compared to professional sources
such as PDQ, however, it's a bit of a trudge to read.
http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/23109
Nothing to make this firm notable within [[WP:CORP]], except that they've
been criticised for their compensation-seeking techniques; well, hot dog,
that isn't unusual in the post "ambulance-chasing" culture of some law firms
since solicitors were deregulated from advertising in the early 1980s.
I know Paul Rooney of old, and he was never the best criminal advocate
amongst the solicitors who practised in Liverpool when I also practised law
there; but this article is little more than a [[WP:COATRACK]] for his
methods, even if it passes the [[WP:N|notability]] threshold- which, I have
already opined, it does not.
This article should go, as an attack page.
Cheers,
[[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the flag for Wikipedia, for some
inexplicable reason".
This article needs to be put out of its misery; it's been tagged for
additional citations for 21 months, and still does not meet the
[[WP:PORNBIO]] criteria. It also appears to contain unsourced BLP vandalism
(Liam McBride?) . All citations refer to one incident in which he was
referred to in passing, which does not confer notability. As for "His head
is also pictured in an episode of the show Futurama entitled "A Head in the
Polls.", as far as I am aware about this performer, his head is the least
notable part of his anatomy.
I'd do it myself, but.....
Thanks.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ariel T. Glenn <ariel(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 15 September 2011 11:38
Subject: [Wikitech-l] page view stats redux
To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I think we finally have a complete copy from December 2007 through
August 2011 of the pageview stats scrounged from various sources, now
available on our dumps server.
See http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/
Ariel
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more
>>>>> useful? What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>>>>
>>>> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
>>>> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
>>>> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
>>>> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
>>>> field pretty much to itself when it started.
>>>
>>> Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
>>> because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
>>> look like.
>>
>> Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this
>> is unduly optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can
>> be, or wish to be, educated into "what an encyclopedia article is
>> supposed to look like", and are discarding those experienced editors
>> who do. Even those who remain but are becoming increasingly
>> disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on will eventually
>> leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if I had the
>> money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present
>> form into the bottomless pit.
>>
>> I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming
>> increasingly difficult to do so.
>>
>>
>
> If money is the problem, I can solve that. I recently came into an
> inheritance.
Thanks for your interest; it isn't the only expression of support to have
reached me. A *fresh* version of Wikipedia is obviously a major step to
take, and I have to consider and reconcile the various inputs I've received,
and am still receiving, and formulate a proposal document that is going to
address the issues, and of course, it will be open for discussion to those
who are interested.
My current preference is for a partnership-based model, yet one able to
generate revenue and still largely remain within the original objectives of
Wikipedia. Squaring the circle may not be possible in this case, and good
editors will be lost. Meanwhile, only time will tell whether it works, and
that depends on achieving the proper mechanism for moving forward, and
sticking to it.
I'm hopefully moving premises shortly, so will be unlikely to be able to
fully commit my efforts for about a month; but at least that gives time for
interested parties to comment, since this is not something that should be
rushed into. However, my spare time, such as it is, will be devoted to this
project.
Regards.