Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: Could you point out which words of that fairly short sentence you thought were unsupported by the multiple sources offered? The content is certainly worth inclusion. ] (]) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
: Could you point out which words of that fairly short sentence you thought were unsupported by the multiple sources offered? The content is certainly worth inclusion. ] (]) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::What I removed was unsourced. You could not provide verification. ] (]) 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
==Child porn report section==
==Child porn report section==
Revision as of 04:29, 18 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.
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 sourcedmust 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
The following Misplaced Pages 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.
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)
Yes, now i totally support mentioning it here. i probably wont add the editions myself, and i will watch them to see if they are NPOV and of due weight, but please, anyone, go ahead.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit changed the reference format. This is an odd way to format refrences. Most articles on Misplaced Pages 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.) – iridescent19:15, 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. – iridescent19:38, 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)
For several months, Seigenthaler’s biographical entry on Misplaced Pages had made the outrageous claim that he was complicit in the assassination of both John F. and Robert F. Kennedy, a particularly spiteful defamation because he had in fact been one of Robert Kennedy’s pallbearers. Because Misplaced Pages contributors are anonymous, Seigenthaler had no way of tracing the author—but he was able to track down the original architects of the system, which is why he was calling Sanger.
The criticism stung, but Sanger hoped that the incident would push Misplaced Pages to confront its problems—problems he had been warning about for years. Instead, the Misplaced Pages community responded with a collective shrug. “What no one would admit was that the episode suggested something wrong with the basic model that Misplaced Pages operates under,” he says.
Sanger had always been proud of his creation. Now, however, he was beginning to fear that it suffered from a fundamental flaw.
This was correct, Sanger should probably be blocked if he hasn't already been so if its true re his legal threats but that is no reason to delete the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you point out which words of that fairly short sentence you thought were unsupported by the multiple sources offered? The content is certainly worth inclusion. Rvcx (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru (talk removed this referenced item which had four references and has received massive publicity. This was just a two sentence item buried in the article and hardly undue weight (and I actually thought it was written in a sympathetic tone telling his side and none of the fall out). I'm not sure why it would draw the ire of Quack or even Sanger. Americasroof (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Restored that sentence. The sentence is a neutral report of a well-sourced and notable incident; I certainly think think content meets WP:BLP standards. And the notion that a single sentence on an incident that's drawn so much attention is WP:UNDUE borders on the absurd. Rvcx (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
