The one thing experts in a field are not good at, is predicting the
success of innovative material. If it were of predictable value, it
wouldn't be revisionist. Experts can tell is something fits into the
accepted paradigms; they can tell if something is so wrong with
respect to soundly known facts
Hi Samuel and Gerard, thanks for your answer
About UNESCO, we as WM-CL haven't been able to contact lately with the
representative of UNESCO in the country. UNESCO was one of the promoters of
the last Congress of the Chilean Indigenous Languages past November, but I
didn't have the chance to meet
Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-20/Special_report
News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-20/News_and_notes
Discu
Hi all! Just a quick reminder that you're invited to join the WMF
localization team at 1800 UTC tomorrow.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steven Walling
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Subject: IRC office hours with the localization team, on International
Mother Language Day
To:
On 2/20/12 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
As Mark has said, some subjects are highly vulnerable to recentism,
but one shouldn't expect that with a historical article about events
from 1886.
I agree it's more of a problem in some areas than others, but I think it
also often applies as a heuris
I have initiated a discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia
It is there that any refinement of the policy and how it is properly
applied can possibly be resolved. I note that the article in question
still does not
Fred Bauder writes:
> We're talking past one another. It is obvious to me that the author of
> the Chronicle article should have been able to add his research without
> difficulty, at least after it was published.
You're right, Fred. We actually were talking past each other, and
primary blame for
On 02/19/12 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
one example, but there are
On 02/19/12 12:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement,
