Wikipedia's destiny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
226 messages Options
123456 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:

>I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.

I'm not.  

The debate over Brian Peppers is complex and involves deep feelings.
On the one hand we have people who see him as a victim of crass
exploitation, a disabled sufferer of a congenital deformity who has
become an object of derision; on the other we have people who believe
that the fact of his widespread exploitation being verifiable means we
must cover the subject.  That group in turn divides between those who
want to ensure that the coverage makes plain that he is a victim, and
those who resent the implication that they have been (possibly
unwillingly) implicit in exploiting someone, so excise verifiable
facts like his being resident in a nursing home.

What is the overarching principle here?  "Do no harm".  

Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?

My bias is obvious from my statements above, of course.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Sue Reed
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:54:07 -0800, you wrote:

>However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question.
>If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems
>to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a
>way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized
>Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the
>people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this
>instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request
>to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they
>disagree with in the article about Reid.

I don't see a problem with an open and honest request for factual
correction.  We have always encouraged living people to engage with
the community in keeping their biographies factually accurate - just
not by actually editing them.  Engage on the talk page, go to the
Office, whatever.  And if they point out an error which can be
verified as an error, that's good.  And if they dislike the fact that
verifiable but unflattering information is in there, maybe they should
have thought about that before they did whatever they did :-)

Rambling aside: my friend David Silsoe was lead counsel for the
proposers in a number of highly acrimonious planning inquiries,
including Sizewell B, Hinkley Point C, Heathrow Terminal 4 and
Terminal 5.  And despite that, I could not find anybody who had a bad
word to say about him.  Even his opponents liked him.  A lot of public
figures fail to pull off that particular feat, and the problem is
theirs not ours.  As long as we stick to WP:V and WP:RS and of course
"do no harm" we won't go far wrong, I think.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
> Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
> been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
> mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?

If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I
would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Death Phoenix
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
> > Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
> > been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
> > mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?
>
> If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I
> would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.
>

I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only Brian
the meme). That said, this is Jimbo's project. If he says the article is
banned for a year, it's banned for a year. We my grumble about it (heck, we
already *are*), but ultimately, what Jimbo says, goes.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:46:01 +0100, you wrote:

>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0500, you wrote:
>> Which does more harm, having and fighting over an article which has
>> been accused by some in good faith of actively contributing to the
>> mimetic process, or stepping back and having nothing to do with it?

>If "stepping back" means banishing the topic from Wikipedia, then I
>would consider such a precedent potentially very harmful.

I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away
and come back if anyone still cares in a year.  What's the rush?  My
view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it
happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is
no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Death Phoenix
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:

>I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
>provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only Brian
>the meme).

Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did
/did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details
of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a
congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that
he is disabled and lives in a nursing home.  We had every extreme from
those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who
didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of
agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it
even then.

Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a
year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an
*encyclopaedia* to take here.  But of course I was for not having the
article in the first place.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Death Phoenix
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
> >provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only
> Brian
> >the meme).
>
> Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did
> /did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details
> of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a
> congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that
> he is disabled and lives in a nursing home.  We had every extreme from
> those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who
> didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of
> agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it
> even then.
>
> Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a
> year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an
> *encyclopaedia* to take here.  But of course I was for not having the
> article in the first place.
>

Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I
simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
Death Phoenix wrote:

>On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:28:51 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I agree, especially because the article didn't show the image, nor did it
>>>provide much in the way of information about Brian *the person* (only
>>>      
>>>
>>Brian
>>    
>>
>>>the meme).
>>>      
>>>
>>Part of the problem is that it *did* / did not / did / did not / did
>>/did not contain the image, details of the man not the meme, details
>>of the meme spreading after Snopes identified him as a sufferer from a
>>congenital deformity and YTMND put up a page detailing the fact that
>>he is disabled and lives in a nursing home.  We had every extreme from
>>those who apparently wanted to perpetuate the YTMND fad to those who
>>didn't want the article at all, and there was no possibility of
>>agreeing on a neutral version, and not much chance of enforcing it
>>even then.
>>
>>Sit back, calm down and wait to see if he's still remembered in a
>>year's time seems a perfectly reasonable approach for an
>>*encyclopaedia* to take here.  But of course I was for not having the
>>article in the first place.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I
>simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
>  
>
That's the spirit. I've become rather apathetic about these meta-debates
and the hype surrounding them, and have gotten on with writing the
encyclopedia instead (trite as that sounds). Look out for your daily
dose of Malaysian articles on DYK until all this emo drama blows over. :)

John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Fred Bauder
In reply to this post by Mark
Brian Peppers is a pitiful person we should not be making fun of  
(using our "power"). There is no legal problem, but not the point.  
Harry Reid will likely be Majority leader of the Senate. I have not  
followed any controversy regarding his article, but some attention  
needs to be paid to the quality of the article.

Fred

On Feb 21, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Delirium wrote:

> Joshua Griisser wrote:
>
>
>> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of  
>> the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his  
>> locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]]  
>> for *five days*.
>>
>>
>>
> I'm very confused by this one.  I wrote a one-sentence, factual,
> verifiable, referenced stub reading something like the following (from
> memory):
>
> ---
> '''Brian Peppers''' is the subject of an [[internet fad]] due to his
> unusual appearance in a police [[mug shot]] photograph.
>
> ==References==
> * [[Urban Legends Reference Pages]] (snopes.com).
> [http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp "Who's a Pepper?"].
> Accessed February 17, 2006.
> ---
>
> I fail to see how this could possibly be legally problematic.  What's
> more, deleting it from the encyclopedia reduces our coverage of  
> internet
> culture, which is currently an active area of academic research.
>
> There are some books on internet fads currently in press, scheduled to
> appear within the next year.  If one of them mentions Brian Peppers,
> will we still prohibit an article in Wikipedia about it?
>
> I can see arguments against using Wikipedia to *create* fads, but that
> is clearly not the case here.  Are we going to delete [[Star Wars  
> kid]]
> if his family complains, too?  After all, he too is famous against his
> own will, and in that case the famous video was even leaked onto the
> internet illegally (while in Brian Peppers case the famous photograph
> was officially posted by the State of Ohio on its website in  
> accordance
> with state law).
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Death Phoenix
In reply to this post by John Lee-5
On 2/22/06, John Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Death Phoenix wrote:
>
> >Don't worry, I'm already calm. Whatever my beliefs about Mr. Peppers, I
> >simply don't feel strongly enough to really care about it all that much.
> >
> That's the spirit. I've become rather apathetic about these meta-debates
> and the hype surrounding them, and have gotten on with writing the
> encyclopedia instead (trite as that sounds). Look out for your daily
> dose of Malaysian articles on DYK until all this emo drama blows over. :)
>

Whatever.

;-)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Keith Old
Keith Old wrote:
> If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate reason for an article on
> Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of
> his appearance.
I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think I voted
in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar
to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers
other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not
be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's
happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As
someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another
example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
>  In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of we're
> just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
> purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to
> be.
>  
Wikipedia isn't making fun of his appearance any more than Wikipedia is
accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer. Wikipedia is hosting an
article about how _other people_ are making fun of his
appearance/accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer.

If Wikipedia were to make fun of his appearance that would probably fall
under "No Original Research" anyway, all issues of morality and
politeness aside.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Ben Emmel
Ben Emmel wrote:
> No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
> if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets
purged at some point before then? And what if there are notable
developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next
year? We shouldn't have to be keeping notes offline for a whole year,
we'll lose out on all sorts of opportunity for the organic article
growth that Wikipedia excels at.

Granted, this isn't a "big topic" like a war or political scandal. But
this seems like a very dubious approach in general and I'm not sure it
should be condoned.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
JzG wrote:

>What is the overarching principle here?  "Do no harm".


Um, I thought it was "NPOV and encyclopedic." But anyway.

(I wrote most of the current [[WP:LIVING]], fwiw. Basically: "NPOV,
referenced to the hilt, neither hagiography nor hatchet job.")


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away
>and come back if anyone still cares in a year.  What's the rush?  My
>view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it
>happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is
>no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->
>  
>
No articles on any topic for a year until it happens?  Don't you think
that's going a bit far?

Here's some articles that'd have to be deleted, just scanning through
Current Events
* [[European Institute of Technology]] -- was just proposed this week;
hasn't even opened
* [[Grbavica (film)]] -- just released this month
* [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] -- the cartoons were
first published 5 months ago, and just got famous a month or so ago
* [[2006 Southern Leyte mudslide]] -- happened five days ago

I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an
encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark Wagner-2
In reply to this post by Bryan Derksen
On 2/22/06, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ben Emmel wrote:
> > No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut decision. But like Jimbo said,
> > if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then.
> Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
> deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
> grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets
> purged at some point before then?

If there's not enough information left on the Internet in a year to
re-create an article about him, then clearly he wasn't notable enough
for an article in the first place.

> And what if there are notable
> developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next
> year?

If Brian Peppers goes out and assassinates the president tomorrow,
then we can re-visit the subject.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Drini drini
In reply to this post by Bryan Derksen
On 2/23/06, Bryan Derksen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Woah, a whole _year_? I'd thought the article was just temporarily
> deleted while some details got sorted out. _Now_ I've got a serious
> grounds for objection. What happens if the deleted article database gets
> purged at some point before then? And what if there are notable
> developments in the details of this topic over the course of the next
> year? We shouldn't have to be keeping notes offline for a whole year,
> we'll lose out on all sorts of opportunity for the organic article
> growth that Wikipedia excels at.
>

Hmm... I wonder why do we have articles like [[Alfonso X of Castile]]
that happened 800 years ago??
who kept notes offline so much time?

I wonder if someone did is because he actually is, *ahem* *ahem* notable?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Mark
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:49:52 -0500, you wrote:

>>I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo saying let's all walk away
>>and come back if anyone still cares in a year.  What's the rush?  My
>>view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it
>>happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is
>>no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->

>No articles on any topic for a year until it happens?  Don't you think
>that's going a bit far?

Not a firm policy, just a rule of thumb.  How many times have you seen
the interpretation of current events change as fuller information
becomes available?

>Here's some articles that'd have to be deleted, just scanning through
>Current Events
>* [[European Institute of Technology]] -- was just proposed this week;
>hasn't even opened

So no article required.  It's a footnote in the article on the
European Commission until it at least exists.

>* [[Grbavica (film)]] -- just released this month

But has been over a year in the conception and making; not really a
current event (we are documenting the film, not the release event).

>* [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] -- the cartoons were
>first published 5 months ago, and just got famous a month or so ago

Yep.  Remember how it came out that the most offensive ones had never
been published by the paper?

>* [[2006 Southern Leyte mudslide]] -- happened five days ago

Indeed.  No details of root cause yet, death toll unknown, news still
arriving of what has been going on on the ground.  Wikinews is
thataway ---->

>I shouldn't think there's anything so inherently wrong with an
>encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.

It's not about a problem with being up-to-date, it's about lacking the
perspective which time provides.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:35:41 +0000, you wrote:

>>What is the overarching principle here?  "Do no harm".

>Um, I thought it was "NPOV and encyclopedic." But anyway.

So did I, but Jimbo said otherwise, and I think he's right.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Sean Barrett-2
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joshua Griisser stated for the record:

> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five days*.
>
> As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
>
> Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.

  +------------------------------------------------+
  | This user believes that there exist people who |
  | want to damage Wikipedia, and opposes allowing |
  | it to become something "that anyone can edit." |
  +------------------------------------------------+

- --
 Sean Barrett     | If you believe in telepathy, think about honking.
 [hidden email] |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD/Ol+MAt1wyd9d+URApMxAJ4z7U4X0h+ZgdyqTms4w8y+4/TyuQCfVNJO
2dwpMcW0CmegrVo9xLCyTbw=
=eI89
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
In reply to this post by Mark
Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it
seems that the community overruled against his
decission and for so far, decided to keep the article.
:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfeld

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123456 ... 12