----- "Michael Peel" <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
> I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first
> heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life
> approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within
> Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why
> it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have
> been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved
> reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still
> played out in the same fashion.
I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing.
I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic.
As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
Andrew
In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes:
> Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
> "english-like" language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
> happen.>>
----------------------
I propose that A) you are not the authority invested in deciding this
issue; and B) your approach is overly antagonistic and confrontational.
Will
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
> Although the point could have been put more tactfully, I think the
> salient point here is that "English-like" programming languages have
> been tried before many times, and have (with the possible exception of
> COBOL) consistently been rejected in favour of compact equation-like
> languages.>>
-------------------------
Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living
third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well.
Both use a most English-like foundation.
Is Python more represented in want-ads ? Most businesses still use older
generation languages, regardless of what is being taught in university.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
> PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
> COLON CHARACTER IN THE FIRST POSITIONAL PARAMETER FORMATTED AS A
> TWO-DIGIT ZERO-PADDED HEXADECIMAL NUMBER USING LOWERCASE LETTERS FOR THE
> HEX DIGITS A TO F>>
-------------------------------------
You're being silly.
You know quite well that no language exists like this.
Will
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
In a message dated 7/3/2009 1:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
> Do you really think any of these would be a higher barrier for entry
> than the current template and parser-functions system? Possibly the
> current system is more egalitarian only in that it is painful for
> those who do know how to program as well as those who don't.>>
My point is and was that whatever is used to replace the current system,
should be a language that is as English-like as possible.
What point are you responding to? Perhaps it's one I never made.
Will Johnson
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:32:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tstarling(a)wikimedia.org writes:
> Then whenever
> someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in
> plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For
> cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised
> and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though.>>
---------
I think that's an excellent suggestion.
Do we have this type of magic link for an ISBN ?
WIll
**************
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes:
> Hm. But is it a local sort of "website?">>
------------------------
What are you implying by that?
I have no idea what you mean.
Will
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:10:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk writes:
> For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a
> marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way
> to do it and keep the user functionality.>>
------------
Right. I'm not comfortable with a script which lives off-site, the details
of which are hidden and unknowable, and I'm not comfortable with a script
which is evidently choosing, without wiki-input what next site to link the
user forward.
All of that functionality should be brought in-project.
Will
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com writes:
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific
guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just
become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline
doesn't exist? >>
---------------
A little while ago I was reading through our article on the list of Outer
Limits episodes and I noticed a tag at the top that I'd not seen before.
It said something like that the source itself is not generally considered
sufficient for an article. Thinking about that more, it's a bit odd.
For a person, you can't interview them and then write up their biography,
but let's say you watched an Outer Limits episode. It states who the
actors were, what the title was, you can write a generally simply and bland
overview of the plot. It's a primary source, but surely you are merely
*describing* the source, you are not interpreting it.
_http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu
jx7mco9jp/4_
(http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu…) #
Will Johnson
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)