Talk:Pi (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject London (Rated Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Whilst I've no desire to get into a slanging match on the subject, nor is there any need to name those responsible for a childish abuse of Wikipedia, I will say that this is indeed not a neutral portrayal of Pi Magazine. I would edit it accordingly, but there seems little point because, as one would expect, Pi's determined detractors apparently have much more free time on their hands than I do.

- Whoever the above person is, they're wrong. This article is refreshing in that it fleshes out Pi's glaring flaws. It is pretty much neutral, but if the author of the above comment is a contributor to Pi, or indeed the editor, they should be forgiven for failing to understand this.

No! You're wrong! Jesus, what's the point?

- The point is, Pi is a disgrace, and for a long time, no-one, but NO-ONE, has bothered to point this out.

- It should also be noted that the 'Criticism' paragraph is made up almost entirely of what Wikipedia considers to be 'weasel words'. Make of that what you will.

- I can recognise 'weasel words' by myself and I can't find any.


Just a couple of examples to help you on the way...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words


'Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):

"Some people say..."

"Critics/experts say that.."

"It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..."'


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_magazine


"Some also think that Pi..."

"Critics claim that an increasing number..."

"The incident was cited by some students..."'

This article is quite negative[edit]

Even as a former features writer for Pi, I do have to admit its flaws. While writing, I was disappointed by the quality of the other writers' ideas for articles and methods of writing them. Perhaps I was out of touch with the student body but I always thought more insight into current events, especially those that affected the university, the union and students but there seemed to be more of an interest amongst my fellow writers in articles on the best places to go out or a "comical" insight into what UCL students thought of love at first sight. Despite this I have to agree, as a Wikipedia contributor, that this article, while IMO accurate, is not neutral.--Zoso Jade 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I've restored the critism of Pi with adjustments in the interests of neutrality. This is by far the biggest change I've ever made to this article.

I believe some people, notably ex-Pi man Daniel Smith and even Dedman himself, think I wrote the original version of this article, or someone did it on my behalf. Neither is true. I suspect Ed Jefferson (formerly of Rare FM) is responsible for the original. The article used to be short and quite unkind. In its current version it strikes a balance of sorts. I see no reason not to reflect the fact that there are people writing for Pi right now who rubbish it, or the fact that whole BOXES of Pi were being chucked away in 2005-06. René Lavanchy 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Ed J didn't write the very early, short and rather rude, version, or so he tells me. He lengthened it and attenuated the partiality somehwat, though not enough I now admit. René Lavanchy 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


I put the disputed neutrality sign up at the criticism section to point people to this discussion. Denis Roberts (pimatrix web editor) 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coversmall.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Coversmall.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)