→List of US vital sites: question about policy on classified material |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) →List of US vital sites: bad call |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:::How is that an encyclopedia article? It is not. There is no need for is to host it. Other sites will do a fine job of that.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::How is that an encyclopedia article? It is not. There is no need for is to host it. Other sites will do a fine job of that.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Is there a WP policy on sourcing articles to material marked "Secret" or similarly classified by the US or other governments? I'm not sure there are secondary sources yet for the list (ie., for the full set of specific sites in the list). [[User:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#700;">'''Wiki'''</span><span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#007;">'''Dao'''</span>]] ☯ [[User talk:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;color:#070;">(talk)</span>]] 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::Is there a WP policy on sourcing articles to material marked "Secret" or similarly classified by the US or other governments? I'm not sure there are secondary sources yet for the list (ie., for the full set of specific sites in the list). [[User:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#700;">'''Wiki'''</span><span style="font-family: Segoe print;color:#007;">'''Dao'''</span>]] ☯ [[User talk:WikiDao|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;color:#070;">(talk)</span>]] 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::"because list articles are very often lame"? WTF? Sorry, we have a [[WP:FL|featured list]] process here by the way. List articles can be very useful, encyclopedic, well sourced, well written, elegantly illustrated, and you're saying you'd deny a list article should be written because "list articles are very often lame"? Bad call. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== A tiny suggestion == |
== A tiny suggestion == |
Revision as of 18:51, 7 December 2010
(Manual archive list) |
You inspire me...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocha2007 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, goodsir.
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." a quote. by you.
this quote gives me the imagination that anyone can create and edit an article on wikipedia from their knowledge, and others will share in this aswell. however, i have seen that his is a farce, the moderators and other people who control wikipedia knowingly restrict the sharing of knowledge simply because one thing may lack 'notability' but who can really define or say something is notable or not? an article, about a gaming website, game engine, a programming language, and a community, has been deleted numerous times for not having notability. yet, there are articles out there, with no sources at all, nothing besides one external link (A+) yet, this article, about a big part of many people's lives is not allowed to flourish and grow on this place you claim to be the sum of all human knowledge due to people thinking it's simply not important...but that's the exact opposite of what you claim wikipedia to be. 96.227.32.219 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific about what topic you think there should be an article about, but which got deleted? I find that, like anyone, I don't agree with all the decisions that get made in the deletion process, but I also think that we get it right more often than not by a wide margin. The key, for me, is generally verifiability as opposed to notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP: it's really disingenuous to describe the Wikipedia project as trying to be a "sum of all human knowledge". That's not what we do here. We collect knowledge that we consider to be "encyclopedic", a very much restricted set from the "sum of all human knowledge". Even if you include information in the other Wikimedia projects, there is just some stuff that's not appropriate for any project. I admire what you are trying to do in your little stump speech, but I think that by describing Wikipedia (and related projects) as you do, you set up unrealistic expectations of what their true goals are. Buddy431 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
List of US vital sites
Would you/WMF oppose the creation of a list article of US vital sites based on wikileaks "vital" sites for the US be created? There is sufficient mainstream media coverage. (Early discussion here.) Smallman12q (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt if WMF have an opinion. I would vote against, because list articles are very often lame, and this one would be lame. Wikisource?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I favor the list. This one would not be lame. If the relevant article about this incident doesn't carry the full list, then a separate list would be very appropriate. It would be weird for us not to host the list. Anthony (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How is that an encyclopedia article? It is not. There is no need for is to host it. Other sites will do a fine job of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a WP policy on sourcing articles to material marked "Secret" or similarly classified by the US or other governments? I'm not sure there are secondary sources yet for the list (ie., for the full set of specific sites in the list). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- "because list articles are very often lame"? WTF? Sorry, we have a featured list process here by the way. List articles can be very useful, encyclopedic, well sourced, well written, elegantly illustrated, and you're saying you'd deny a list article should be written because "list articles are very often lame"? Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a WP policy on sourcing articles to material marked "Secret" or similarly classified by the US or other governments? I'm not sure there are secondary sources yet for the list (ie., for the full set of specific sites in the list). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How is that an encyclopedia article? It is not. There is no need for is to host it. Other sites will do a fine job of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I favor the list. This one would not be lame. If the relevant article about this incident doesn't carry the full list, then a separate list would be very appropriate. It would be weird for us not to host the list. Anthony (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
A tiny suggestion
Can Wikipedia have a general community/discussion page where users can discuss general aspects of Wikipedia, its structure, talk among users and so on.....you know some sort of a forum to discuss general topics. 117.199.156.60 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Go to WP:Village pump. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Quick question, seemed a bit odd...
Why does Wikia hold the registration for wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net? (whois links) Is there a relationship between the two organizations, or is it just domain-squatting? Throwaway85 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this question pertinent to Wikipedia? NickCT (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is neither a relationship nor domain squatting. :). Wikipedia:Wikileaks is not part of Wikipedia has a quote from me about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)