src: upload.wikimedia.org
- I'll be honest. I kind of expect another great controversy to happen on Wikipedia. Guess I got what I asked for. Although I must say this is certainly one of the most exciting things going on here. I'm not a fan of paid editing at all but I'm sure I can not wait to see how this will grow. GamerPro64 23:40, September 3, 2015 (UTC)
- I found some of the notation criteria we set to be rather poor. They are for business and businesspeople just a prime example. I think unless the topic or subject meets WP: GNG then it should eliminate the risk (not necessarily delete, but should be worthy of discussion). All other notation criteria should only serve as guidance on what we expect to fulfill the GNG, rather than saying "GNG does not matter because it meets our specific XYZ-specific topic criteria." If two independent sources can not be found that really address the subject in detail, how can we expect to write an encyclopedia article about them without doing original research? And if no one wants to write something substantial about a subject, why do we assume that it's important enough for users of our site to want to read about it? - Shudde talk 23:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Discussed here (# 2). - Green C 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- When did this conspiracy - and how long did it go undetected? - kosboot (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem may be in progress. I do not have the illusion that we blocked nearly 400 accounts they have stopped. Not sure whether accounts promoting radiofrequency ablation are related but possible. [1] Doc James (talk Ã, Â · contribs Ã, Â · email) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's... bad. I think more hands are needed on the deck. - Luk talk 10:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem may be in progress. I do not have the illusion that we blocked nearly 400 accounts they have stopped. Not sure whether accounts promoting radiofrequency ablation are related but possible. [1] Doc James (talk Ã, Â · contribs Ã, Â · email) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. It is an eye-opener, to say the least. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cookies suggested in T5233 and T106930 proposals will become malware and install it on someone's computer (and thus harming him) may become criminal. Find another method! JRSpriggs (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Malware is defined as "software used to interrupt computer operations, collect sensitive information, or gain access to personal computer systems". Articles about malware do not even mention mention cookies, which is not surprising, as they do not meet the definition of malware. And if installing a cookie is a criminal, almost every Internet company will be under an indictment.-- John Broughton (??) 02: 37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Although our business scope has increased, but suffers from recentism. Significant entities in the past have been incorporated into companies that take over them, destroy content and create systemically biased coverage. It is certainly not true that it is easy to provide GNG for most small businesses. Many sources do not meet the GNG requirements for independence.
- I have a problem with an image my browser has claimed to have errors and Gimp will not load.
- The Independent article on this subject describes three sources of "Wikipedia", "A Wikipedia spokesperson" and "Insiders on Wikipedia." Who are they?
To help find your way around the scope of this event:
All the best: Rich Farmbrough , 17:30, September 14, 2015 (UTC).
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments