User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2015/December
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 02 December 2015
- Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?
- Traffic report: Jonesing for episodes
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Women in Red invitation
You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
- Sending you this in view of your interest in "Religionssoziologie".--Ipigott (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 December 2015
- News and notes: ArbCom election results announced
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners
- Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?
- Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Wikibilim
I chimed in here. What was the eventual verdict on Wikibilim? Did Jimmy retract anything? Peter Damian (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
PS Just reading through this very long thread. Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- For years, Wikibilim had the image of prime minister Karim Massimov at the top of every page of its website ... [1]. That's how independent it was.
Wales later sort of backpedalled as reported here and admitted to "mixed feelings" (while still defending his decision). See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-07/Op-ed. Best, --Andreas JN466 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 December 2015
- In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015
- Arbitration report: GMO case decided
- Featured content: An unusually slow week
- WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations
- Traffic report: A feast of Spam
Citogenesis
I see you are working on Citogenesis. Good stuff. Guilt by Wikipedia: How Joe Streater Became Falsely Attached To The Boston College Point Shaving Scandal is a clear case of blatant misinformation getting cited everywhere, but it's not technically citogenesis since the external references never found their way back into Wikipedia. Indeed, the pre-revert version has no citations at all. I wonder if there could be a section for cases like this? Peter Damian (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- At the moment I am operating on the assumption that all cases that led to the "creation of reliable sources" qualify for inclusion, independently of how or whether they were used in Wikipedia. I simply haven't gotten round to Streater yet.
Season's greetings, Andreas JN466 19:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- And to you. I will add something on Streater. Peter Damian (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
See also
This page should now be visible. Not all are sourced to reliable sources though (unless my blog counts as a reliable source Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. There were a couple on there that were new to me. Andreas JN466 01:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 December 2015
- News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee
- Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended
- Featured content: The post-Christmas edition
- Traffic report: The Force we expected
- Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015
- In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"
- Gallery: It's that time of year again