Wikipedia's destiny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
226 messages Options
1234567 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Bryan Derksen
Drini drini wrote:
> 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?
>  
The point is to avoid the extra work involved in recreating the article
from scratch and of having to research events up to a year old rather
than inserting them as they occur. Sure, you can do it the hard way, but
why should we _have_ to? I'll bet a whole barrel of fine Albertan crude
oil that if February 22 rolls around again and the article's still
stored away in the deletion database it's going to be undeleted straight
away, and if that's acceptable then I don't see why it's not acceptable
to store the article somewhere more appropriate during the intervening
year instead.

Deletion is not an appropriate way of _storing_ articles. It is an
appropriate way of _deleting_ things. The fact that they can usually be
viewed and undeleted later by admins doesn't make it so, it just means
it can be misused for it.

What would have been far better, IMO, would be to move the article to a
subpage off its talk page; [[Talk:Brian Peppers/Temp]] for example.
That's done on other controversial articles to allow for reworking of
material without messing with the main article space, and it would keep
it from showing up in Wikipedia's mirrors if that's a concern. If it's
Google searches that's the problem, store it in a subpage of some
Wikipedia: namespace instead. We had a discussion about AfD pages along
these same lines and I was just as vigorous in my opposition then when
it was proposed that they all be deleted as a way to store them "out of
sight."
_______________________________________________
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 Travis Mason-Bushman
Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:

> On 2/22/06 2:26 AM, "Phil Boswell" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> But don't you see that what you have written there is the essence of what
>> the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've
>> summarised it nicely.
>>    
>
> A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have lived with
> - a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or
> [[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got
> convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet
> meme.
>
> No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have
> his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The
> proposal was rejected.
>
> So, now we have nothing for a year.
>  
I opposed redirecting to "YTMND fads" since the article listed Fark and
Something Awful as other places the photo was being used extensively as
well, which meant it wasn't just a YTMND fad and so redirection there
when linking to [[Brian Peppers]] would be misleading. Provided it's
true that Peppers has been used elsewhere, I still stand by that -
nothing has changed, it'd still be misleading to redirect there.

But there's no reason why we can't _also_ have paragraphs at those two
other places you mention, especially given that an independent article
is apparently out at the moment. It just means we can't have a
{{main|Brian Peppers}} at the start of them.
_______________________________________________
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

Fastfission
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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 :-)

The way to get around NOR problems in this case might be to suggest
that we recommend that they create a webpage on their own webspace
that says "I have been characterized in X source [wherever Wikipedia
is getting the info] as having done Y. This is untrue, in reality I
only did Z."

Then, once that page is up (and stable), we change the article to say
"Source X says that Mr. SoandSo did Y. On his own webpage, Mr. SoandSo
later claimed that this was untrue, and that he had only done Z."

I think in that sort of article, that would be an acceptable form of
balancingout the NPOV without running into NOR problems. It also
serves our goal to encourage the people to take up the question of
truth with the original sources -- not Wikipedia's distillation of
them -- and that if they do so, we'll be happy to record that they
did.

Just a thought... obviously it would be a lot more work than most of
these people would be willing to do, but NOR is a Very Good Thing and
I don't see how any other approach would really get around that,
assuming the offending information is well-cited itself.

FF
_______________________________________________
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 Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> 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)
>  
As one who would probably be categorized as an eventualist, and as one
who doesn't pay any particular attention to internet fads, I'm pretty
calm already. I don't really care about the subject of this article. The
thing that is getting my particular dander up is simply the technical
abuse of deletion as a way to "store" content we might eventually want
back for a long period of time.

The notion that it's better to delete controversial articles than it is
to work out the problems with them is also problematic to me, but mainly
as a direct consequence of that first bit. Content that we may
eventually want back should never be deleted if we can at all help it.
Put it in a subpage of the article's talk: page for a year if need be,
or some wikipedia: namespace vault somewhere, or even a user: subpage.
Heck, even just blanking and protecting the article would be preferable.
_______________________________________________
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

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Fastfission
Fastfission wrote:

> On 2/22/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>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 :-)
>
>
> The way to get around NOR problems in this case might be to suggest
> that we recommend that they create a webpage on their own webspace
> that says "I have been characterized in X source [wherever Wikipedia
> is getting the info] as having done Y. This is untrue, in reality I
> only did Z."
>
You assume that these people have their own webspace.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (570 bytes) Download Attachment
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 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.
>  
>
That's the rationale behind the {{current event}} header---to let
readers know that information is not settled, and may change rapidly.  I
consider that quite a bit better than not having the information at *all*.

Plus, one year is a pretty arbitrary timeframe.  For some things, like
the Cold War, you could argue that we really need another 50 years to
have the proper back-looking perspective.  But we go ahead and write the
best article we can now, and then revise it again later as new
information and scholarship comes out.

-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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
Joshua Griisser wrote:
> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
> encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]]

It wasn't unilateral.  It was an in-process deletion of recreated AfD'd
content.  Read FCYTravis' history of the article on the talk page.

> - not to mention his locking
> (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five
> days*.

5 whole days?  Wow.

> 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.

Where do we go to vote on that?  I vote very strongly against Wikipedia
being my personal fiefdom.  I also vote very strongly against alarmism. :)

--Jimbo


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Mark
Delirium wrote
> 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.

I don't think it's legally problematic.  It's morally deeply
problematic, but that's a different question altogether.

The issue is that it was a recreation of already AfD'd content.

> 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).

I don't know anything about this case, but in general, I would say that
a thoughtful approach to our astounding global power to hurt people
deeply by having inappropriate articles on people who are not famous
through any fault or merit of their own will may lead us to respectfully
decline to have abusive articles about such people.

This is why I merged the culprit in the Siegenthaler case into the
Siegenthaler page.  It is just deeply inappropriate when the #2 hit in
google is to this poor fellow who made one simple stupid mistake in his
life (which is made, we know, by dozens of people daily who are trolling
wikipedia) and accidentally got famous because of it.

--Jimbo



--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Keith Old
Although I should say that my deletion was a commentary on process, not
a commentary on the worth of the article per se, I have to say that I
agree completely with the thrust of Keith Old's remarks here.

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. 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.
>
> In general, we need to pay much more attention to people's privacy than we
> have. As one of the world's most popular Internet sites, articles on people
> generally tend to be high up on the first page of a Google search. If people
> do a Google search for a potential employee or date, our articles come up
> fairly quickly. If we have an article alleging criminal or other antisocial
> behavior, we need to ensure that the case is well-known and highly
> verifiable through reliable sources.
>
>  We therefore need to ensure that if we have articles on people for a
> negative reason, our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are
> applied vigorously. As well, our editorial red pencils should be vigilant
> about negative claims about individuals and if they don't have a reliable
> source/s or don't comply with NPOV, they should be taken out.
>
> Our longterm credibility as a biographical source and much else depends on
> it. We now have a reasonable degree of prominence and we should endeavour to
> use it responsibly.
>
> Regards
>
>
> *Keith Old*
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
Andrew Lih wrote:

> On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
>>since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
>>stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
>
>
> Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered
> sex offender in Ohio.
>
> I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly
> not a "slam dunk" case.
Agreed.  But it was AfD'd more than once and people kept recreating it.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Sue Reed
Sue Anne Reed wrote:
> 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 want to strongly point out that WP:OFFICE is not designed or intended
to change *anything* about NPOV or the community process of editing
articles.  Often, Danny will not be using it to protect articles, but
just to remove a section while asking people not to add it back without
cites.

This is a great way to handle disputed bios, and it has been quite
successful when I have done it myself.  In many cases, I have nuked
entire articles with a kind request that they be very carefully sourced,
and the net result has been very good.

But, I'm on the road again, and it's hard for me to do this in a timely
fashion, especially when a telephone complaint comes to the office.


_______________________________________________
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

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> 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

This is absurd.  What an idiotic article.

Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it the first time, but
with more detailed.  Even though I'm wonderful and charming and
obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet (ha), it is still not
the case that every person with whom I have had contact needs a
biography in Wikipedia.

I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of privacy for Jeremy, and
an embarassment for Wikipedia.

"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a controversy about who
presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore, this guy is
controversial enough to became notable."

That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just don't even know where to
begin.  Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial?  I think not.  He's a nice
guy who wandered into my office one day to show me a cool website.  The
one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't remember him well?

I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it
is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it
than I thought.


--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
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 Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>>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).
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know anything about this case, but in general, I would say that
>a thoughtful approach to our astounding global power to hurt people
>deeply by having inappropriate articles on people who are not famous
>through any fault or merit of their own will may lead us to respectfully
>decline to have abusive articles about such people.
>
Have you tried googling for "Brian Peppers" recently?  Wikipedia was,
until the article was deleted, the most neutral, calm, matter-of-fact
source of information on the subject, reporting that the poor guy was
the victim of a meme based on his unusual experience likely caused by a
disability, without getting all sensational and/or insulting.

Now, the Snopes article is the best of the remaining lot, and some are a
*lot* worse.  I don't see how we're doing this guy any favors by
directing people searching for his name to much more offensive sites
instead of providing factual, encyclopedic information ourselves.

-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 - Harry Reid

Fastfission
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
On 2/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You assume that these people have their own webspace.

Frankly, I think most of them probably do in the cases where this has
come up. If they are big enough to have a Wikipedia biography full of
things about themselves they object to, they probably have their own
webspace.

For those rare few who don't, there are plenty of free hosting sites
out there. For those who can't do that -- well, I'm just not sure of
any other way for them to contribute facts to articles about
themselves which doesn't violate NOR.

FF
_______________________________________________
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

Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Ugh. I am tempted to merge that Jeremy Rosenfeld article into something
else. I highly doubt it can be expanded beyond that single paragraph.

Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
[hidden email]




>From: Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
>To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:30 -0800
>
>STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> > 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
>
>This is absurd.  What an idiotic article.
>
>Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it the first time, but
>with more detailed.  Even though I'm wonderful and charming and
>obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet (ha), it is still not
>the case that every person with whom I have had contact needs a
>biography in Wikipedia.
>
>I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of privacy for Jeremy, and
>an embarassment for Wikipedia.
>
>"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a controversy about who
>presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore, this guy is
>controversial enough to became notable."
>
>That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just don't even know where to
>begin.  Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial?  I think not.  He's a nice
>guy who wandered into my office one day to show me a cool website.  The
>one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't remember him well?
>
>I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at AfD, because if it
>is this far broken, there's something seriously seriously worse about it
>than I thought.
>
>
>--
>#######################################################################
>#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
>#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
>#######################################################################


>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
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 Jimmy Wales
Jimbo, you hurt my feelings. I've contributed with
quite a few articles, and no-one ever called them
idiotic. Either way, I don't see why you're saying
that it's an invasion on Jeremy's privacy. Firstly,
because there are probably many people with his name
and he wouldn't be recognized by anyone; and secondly,
because it isn't really something he ought to be
ashamed of. It doesn't involve his private life.

Chill out, Jimbo. You're a lucky guy -- you've got
everything: a wife, a Ferrari, and a cool site. Your
eyes should only spark with love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Regarding_the_picture_dispute

--- Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> > 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

>
> This is absurd.  What an idiotic article.
>
> Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it
> the first time, but
> with more detailed.  Even though I'm wonderful and
> charming and
> obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet
> (ha), it is still not
> the case that every person with whom I have had
> contact needs a
> biography in Wikipedia.
>
> I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of
> privacy for Jeremy, and
> an embarassment for Wikipedia.
>
> "A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a
> controversy about who
> presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore,
> this guy is
> controversial enough to became notable."
>
> That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just
> don't even know where to
> begin.  Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial?  I think
> not.  He's a nice
> guy who wandered into my office one day to show me a
> cool website.  The
> one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't
> remember him well?
>
> I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at
> AfD, because if it
> is this far broken, there's something seriously
> seriously worse about it
> than I thought.
>
>
> --
>
#######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture
> and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a
> free world         #
>
#######################################################################
> > _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


__________________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
In reply to this post by Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia
Sure it can be expanded, now when Jimbo gave us
another reply on the subject. ;)

--- Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ugh. I am tempted to merge that Jeremy Rosenfeld
> article into something
> else. I highly doubt it can be expanded beyond that
> single paragraph.
>
> Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> >From: Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia
> <[hidden email]>
> >To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
> >Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:30 -0800
> >
> >STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> >This is absurd.  What an idiotic article.
> >
> >Let me say again now what I said when I deleted it
> the first time, but
> >with more detailed.  Even though I'm wonderful and
> charming and
> >obviously the most noteworthy person on the planet
> (ha), it is still not
> >the case that every person with whom I have had
> contact needs a
> >biography in Wikipedia.
> >
> >I consider this bio to be a terrible invasion of
> privacy for Jeremy, and
> >an embarassment for Wikipedia.
> >
> >"A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a
> controversy about who
> >presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore,
> this guy is
> >controversial enough to became notable."
> >
> >That's such an overwhelming non sequitur I just
> don't even know where to
> >begin.  Jeremy Rosenfeld is controversial?  I think
> not.  He's a nice
> >guy who wandered into my office one day to show me
> a cool website.  The
> >one quote we can come up with is that Larry doesn't
> remember him well?
> >
> >I think I'm going to have to take a serious look at
> AfD, because if it
> >is this far broken, there's something seriously
> seriously worse about it
> >than I thought.
> >
> >
> >--
>
>#######################################################################
> >#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture
> and  Free Knowledge #
> >#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a
> free world         #
>
>#######################################################################
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >[hidden email]
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger!
> Download today - it's FREE!
>
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


__________________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Sue Reed
Sue Anne Reed wrote:

>I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to
>become a more widely read source of information. People, especially
>politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that
>information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid
>situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the
>right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say
>that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a
>hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a
>giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability.
>Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?
>
This kind of issue will continue to face us regularly with different
people.  The issues must be faced directly; you don't achieve NPOV by
avoidance,

Ec

_______________________________________________
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

Sigvat Stensholt
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
I was the admin who deleted the Brian Peppers article after the first AFD
(then VFD). I have looked at the two versions, both the one I deleted and the
one Jimbo Wales deleted. They are not "substantially identical".

The version which was AFDed back in June was a silly fake newspaper type
report, which was just disgusting. The last version was more neutral, and
looked a bit like an encyclopedia article.

Sorry Jimbo, but I don't agree that deleting it was an in process application
of G4. Nonetheless, it is your prerogative to make such decisions, and I also
agree that we probably should not have an article on the subject. If I had
voted in any of the AFDs it would probably have been to "delete".

Sjakkalle
_______________________________________________
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 Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Andrew Lih wrote:
>  
>
>>On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I hold the opinion that any article on this man is not going to be NPOV,
>>>since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
>>>stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
>>>      
>>>
>>Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com entry, and is a registered
>>sex offender in Ohio.
>>
>>I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly
>>not a "slam dunk" case.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed.  But it was AfD'd more than once and people kept recreating it.
>  
>
No.

A crappy version a long time ago that didn't read anything close to an
encyclopedia article was AfD'd.  A new version, more neutral, was
created, and it was AfD'd *unsuccessfully* something like 5 times,
interspersed with some sysops occasionally speedying it and it being
unspeedied.

Every vote on the article in question (i.e. not the very early one) has
come out somewhere near a deadlock.  The most I've seen in favor of
deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus
to delete typically required on AfD.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234567 ... 12