Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-04/In the news

Discuss this story

I don't get the "in my refrigerator" joke. Is it meant to be a macabre serial killer joke?--greenrd (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news is already reporting on Wales' murder confession. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just that the refrigerator is a place missing things sometimes turn up - usually food items or at least kitchen related, but sometimes my reading glasses. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, I have found my car keys in the fridge once. Though... I would be impressed with anyone who could fit 57,000 people in a refrigerator. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility could be a reference to the notion of Women in Refrigerators (a bit further done here). Tabercil (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the PLoS article needed to mention Wikipedia's Manual of Style; not only do many established Wikipedians either ignore it or are unaware of its existence, it doesn't provide anything that a combination of the guidance of more familiar academic style guides (such as the MLA Handbook) & studying relevant Featured Articles would. A more important omission would be the no original research policy, since the natural inclination of any expert would be to add new & original material to an article, & getting tripped up by this policy could inadvertently discourage people we'd obviously desire for their expertise. In any case, the article could only cover so much ground & obviously some things had to be left out. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you written any featured articles or lists? While Wikipedia's growth is far too large to keep every page concurrent with our highest standards (as stated in the MoS and as states so virulently by the project's opposers), nominations there have to be dead on. The MoS is indeed a very important document. But, as with the MLA handbook, almost no one has read the whole thing =) ResMar 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are you saying nor is more important? Imo, it's one of the most vauge back-bracers of wikipedia. What kind of desperate, desperate person would want to try to publish their research via Wikipedia? Even with articles that are completely unreferenced, 99% of the time everything or almost everything there is true, regardless of sourcing. ResMar 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're offended for calling your baby ugly; I call them as I see them. I'm sure many Wikipedians would consider MoS as another of "the most vague back-bracers of wikipedia.[sic]" I mentioned WP:NOR simply as an example, but in my experience many experts coming to Wikipedia for the first time have run afoul of NOR simply because they don't know better: the intent of publication in scholarship or academia is to contribute original work -- which is antithetical to Wikipedia's mandate. As for Manual of Styles, every periodical & publishing house has one, & professionals who want to publish expect to find one. -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not by "baby" and I don't maintain it. In fact, I've never even read the whole thing in one sitting. If you have a problem with it, contact Tony1. I have yet to meet anyone who has this problem. In fact, it is mostly the "common" user adding unsourced statements that lead to things tagged with {{references needed}} tags. ResMar 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]