Jimbo on "reliable sources"

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES"...

David Gerard

30 May 2007 30 May '07

1:13 p.m.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html - d.

Show replies by date

Slim Virgin

30 May 30 May

1:20 p.m.

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html

It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real needs." Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia work.

David Gerard

1:26 p.m.

On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html

...

I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs verboten. - d.

Slim Virgin

1:30 p.m.

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html

I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs verboten.

All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.

MacGyverMagic/Mgm

5:50 p.m.

On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html

> It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules would > be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to real > needs." > Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making Wikipedia

work.

I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs verboten.

All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.

Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.

David Gerard

5:52 p.m.

On 30/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.

e.g. SlimVirgin, in emails at the time WP:RS was congealing. - d.

John Lee

5:54 p.m.

On 5/31/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html > > > It says: "Rather than specifying at the beginning what the rules

would

> > be, Wales let the community evolve its own rules, in response to

real

> > needs." > > Not quite true, though. NPOV and NOR were pivotal in making

Wikipedia

work. > > > I'm particularly talking about idiocy like declaring all blogs

verboten.

All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.

Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.

Indeed. I was astonished to see a discussion on [[Talk:Paul Krugman]] referring to BLP and RS to support the contention that blogs can never be cited as sources. I've written more than one FA based on, among other sources, a blog which has been cited by no less than the BBC. Should these FAs be defeatured? Johnleemk

Slim Virgin

7:29 p.m.

On 5/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

All blogs haven't been declared verboten, except in BLPs, unless it's a blog run by the subject.

Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.

Direct them to the policies, particularly V and BLP.

jf_wikipedia

31 May 31 May

2:44 a.m.

On May 30, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:

...

Try telling that to the people who claim otherwise.

Direct them to the policies, particularly V and BLP.

And specifically [[WP:V#SELF]] -- Jossi

Gabe Johnson

30 May 30 May

1:30 p.m.

On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/wikipedia_is_ju.html

As I understand it, NPOV *was* there from the beginning, but NOR was developed to deal with pseudoscientific physicist kooks. Also see [[User:Kim Bruning/Lost functionalities]]. ~~~~ -- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y

Zoney

2:01 p.m.

On 30/05/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Also see [[User:Kim Bruning/Lost functionalities]]. ~~~~

Interesting page. Without a doubt, the Wikipedia of today is not the Wikipedia I joined 3 years ago. I'm no longer particularly convinced that either modus operandi is/was sustainable. There's a case for using the wiki model only to collaborate on article content, not management (I'm not suggesting immutable management structures; just not as "flexible" as wiki model). Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Marc Riddell

2:21 p.m.

on 5/30/07 10:01 AM, Zoney at zoney.ie(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

There's a case for using the wiki model only to collaborate on article content, not management (I'm not suggesting immutable management structures;

How about a creative one to suit the particular creation. Marc Riddell -- If you're restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.

6199

days inactive

6200

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

11 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

David Gerard
Gabe Johnson
jf_wikipedia
John Lee
MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Marc Riddell
Slim Virgin
Zoney