Revision as of 16:13, 11 August 2011 editRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →Image of the advertisement: i am lazy and hate bothering with fair use← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:14, 11 August 2011 edit undoJorgePeixoto (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,199 edits →Article too bigNext edit → | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:: Misinformation is any false information. Misplaced Pages is full of it. The bigger the article, the smaller the chance that people will verify each sentence is in the source, and each source is reliable. Therefore, the bigger the article the greater the chance of misinformation. On the other hand, the greater the amount of Wikipedians that care about the article, the greater the chance that it will be verified. In short: an article few Wikipedians care about should be small. -- ] (]) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | :: Misinformation is any false information. Misplaced Pages is full of it. The bigger the article, the smaller the chance that people will verify each sentence is in the source, and each source is reliable. Therefore, the bigger the article the greater the chance of misinformation. On the other hand, the greater the amount of Wikipedians that care about the article, the greater the chance that it will be verified. In short: an article few Wikipedians care about should be small. -- ] (]) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Do you actually have any productive comments to make about the article? Are there errors you have found? Do you think it is unnavigable? Do you think it could be better organized? "It's just too big, man <small>because we should keep our coverage of Fake Catholics to a minimum even when we have dozens of excellent sources</small>" is not a complaint that anyone can legitimately act on to improve the article. ] (] ⋅ ]) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | :::Do you actually have any productive comments to make about the article? Are there errors you have found? Do you think it is unnavigable? Do you think it could be better organized? "It's just too big, man <small>because we should keep our coverage of Fake Catholics to a minimum even when we have dozens of excellent sources</small>" is not a complaint that anyone can legitimately act on to improve the article. ] (] ⋅ ]) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::: Is there any hope for you to quit being cynical, playing the victim card, and assuming bad faith? -- ] (]) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:14, 11 August 2011
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Imposed by community discussion here. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Image of the advertisement
I have ProQuest access, so I can get an image of the ad. It's obviously not public domain, but does it add to readers' understanding of the topic (justifying a fair-use rationale)? Or is it only the text, rather than the structure, layout etc., that is significant? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be very helpful to see the page as a fair-use image. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't overly love dealing with that sort of thing (everything I've uploaded is public domain) so should I e-mail it to you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Article too big
It is arguable that this article is not even notable enough to be in Misplaced Pages. But even if it remains, I humbly suggest for its size to be cut down. It is horribly big. Big articles are harder to verify. Of course, sometimes you can't help but writing a big article, such as when writing an article about George Washington. This is because there is a lot of notable information to be said about Washington, and dozens or even hundreds of Wikipedians care about George Washington, so it will be verified even if its big. But in the case of this New York Times ad, we have two conditions 1) The article is pretty big and therefore time-consuming to verify 2) Few people will care about it.
Therefore, the chance of misinformation appearing here is pretty big. Would you please trim it down? I know you had a lot of work putting all this together, but please, trim it down. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is the size that it is because of the good sources. What's this about misinformation? Explain. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Misinformation is any false information. Misplaced Pages is full of it. The bigger the article, the smaller the chance that people will verify each sentence is in the source, and each source is reliable. Therefore, the bigger the article the greater the chance of misinformation. On the other hand, the greater the amount of Wikipedians that care about the article, the greater the chance that it will be verified. In short: an article few Wikipedians care about should be small. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually have any productive comments to make about the article? Are there errors you have found? Do you think it is unnavigable? Do you think it could be better organized? "It's just too big, man because we should keep our coverage of Fake Catholics to a minimum even when we have dozens of excellent sources" is not a complaint that anyone can legitimately act on to improve the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any hope for you to quit being cynical, playing the victim card, and assuming bad faith? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually have any productive comments to make about the article? Are there errors you have found? Do you think it is unnavigable? Do you think it could be better organized? "It's just too big, man because we should keep our coverage of Fake Catholics to a minimum even when we have dozens of excellent sources" is not a complaint that anyone can legitimately act on to improve the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Misinformation is any false information. Misplaced Pages is full of it. The bigger the article, the smaller the chance that people will verify each sentence is in the source, and each source is reliable. Therefore, the bigger the article the greater the chance of misinformation. On the other hand, the greater the amount of Wikipedians that care about the article, the greater the chance that it will be verified. In short: an article few Wikipedians care about should be small. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Abortion articles
- Unknown-importance Abortion articles
- WikiProject Abortion articles
- Start-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- Start-Class Catholicism articles
- Low-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- Start-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Start-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Start-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Start-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles