Talk:Larry Sanger: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Reference format: cmt |
→Sanger's Message to the FBI: BBC reports Sanger's letter to the FBI |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
::There's an extensive [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/sanger_reports_wikimedia_to_the_fbi/ article in <em>The Register</em>] -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
::There's an extensive [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/sanger_reports_wikimedia_to_the_fbi/ article in <em>The Register</em>] -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Does anyone have a sense of how reliable and widely read the register is? (i read it occasionally, but being a goober who spends too much time reading wikipedia, etc im too close to it). i think this letter deserves at least a brief mention, but to what degree? i would prefer to wait until the letter is picked up for reporting by agencies outside this somewhat narrow world of tech/web talk, before expanding any mention significantly. NPOV and undue weight are big concerns here. i know its discussed at slashdot, and was in googles news aggregate, but i dont think thats enough at all right now.[[User:Mercurywoodrose|Mercurywoodrose]] ([[User talk:Mercurywoodrose|talk]]) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
:::Does anyone have a sense of how reliable and widely read the register is? (i read it occasionally, but being a goober who spends too much time reading wikipedia, etc im too close to it). i think this letter deserves at least a brief mention, but to what degree? i would prefer to wait until the letter is picked up for reporting by agencies outside this somewhat narrow world of tech/web talk, before expanding any mention significantly. NPOV and undue weight are big concerns here. i know its discussed at slashdot, and was in googles news aggregate, but i dont think thats enough at all right now.[[User:Mercurywoodrose|Mercurywoodrose]] ([[User talk:Mercurywoodrose|talk]]) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Well, it has just hit the front page of the BBC News site. (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm) As that is very much mainstream news, I suggest we need to add a section regarding the issue.--[[Special:Contributions/58.178.105.174|58.178.105.174]] ([[User talk:58.178.105.174|talk]]) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Reference format == |
== Reference format == |
Revision as of 22:57, 10 May 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Sanger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
![]() | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Larry Sanger has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
||||||
Sanger's Message to the FBI
Sanger's Message to the FBI should be covered here. -- samj inout 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is that a reliable source? QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's an extensive article in The Register -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Does anyone have a sense of how reliable and widely read the register is? (i read it occasionally, but being a goober who spends too much time reading wikipedia, etc im too close to it). i think this letter deserves at least a brief mention, but to what degree? i would prefer to wait until the letter is picked up for reporting by agencies outside this somewhat narrow world of tech/web talk, before expanding any mention significantly. NPOV and undue weight are big concerns here. i know its discussed at slashdot, and was in googles news aggregate, but i dont think thats enough at all right now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it has just hit the front page of the BBC News site. (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm) As that is very much mainstream news, I suggest we need to add a section regarding the issue.--58.178.105.174 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's an extensive article in The Register -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Reference format
This edit changed the reference format. This is an odd way to format refrences. Most articles on Wikipedia are not formatted this way. I prefer reference formatting in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:LDR. Most articles aren't formatted the new way because it was only introduced six months ago, but it's the Next Big Thing and will probably be made the only way at some point. (Personally, I loathe LDR and think it's a pointless overcomplication, but that's just me.) – iridescent 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see where it says references must be formatted this more difficult way. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no "must", and I'll fight tooth-and-nail against anyone who tries to make them so (see my thoughts on the matter here—I think it's arguably the stupidest idea ever implemented on this site). But they are, sadly, a legitimate format, and if there's a consensus in favour of them on the article (note the "if") they probably ought to be changed. – iridescent 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am having problems with the new formatting. Trying to find the reference is difficult. Trying to find a specific reference by clicking on the reference section is very difficult. If a reference needs to be updated it will be very difficult to make minor changes to the reference becuase you will have to locate it first. I don't see consensus for this article for the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- GA-Class epistemology articles
- Mid-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles
- GA-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
- Contemporary philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class Wikipedia articles
- High-importance Wikipedia articles
- WikiProject Wikipedia articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors