An update to the exciting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 6. In which I noted a pile of folk such as Nir Shaviv moving from category "Climate change skeptics (scientists)" to "Climate change deniers (scientists)".
After that happened, some people pointed out that wasn't quite right; and it was debated, and the result was to "delete" the category. So the net result is that a whole pile of people, e.g., Jan Veizer loses the "[[Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists)]]". Which is probably a fair result.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A more than unusually obscure headline perhaps. Here's the link. I noticed, because my watchlist contained a pile of changes like:
(diff | hist) . . mb Nir Shaviv; 23:31:54 . . (-1) . . Cydebot (talk | contribs) (Robot - Moving category Climate change skeptics (scientists) to Category:Climate…
There is an interesting (if you like that sort of thing) insight into some wiki-politics available from a recent RFA (which stands for [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]. Not to be confused, obviously, with RFA which stands for [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests]]). Admins are the folks who do…
A somewhat unfair title; the person in question is Marcel Leroux and the "death" is the deletion of his wiki page. The "sales" is his wacko views on GW. I don't think ML is particularly interesting - wiki certainly thought not - but perhaps the way wiki deals with minor characters is.
Background:…
The Associated Press has changed the AP Stylebook, tossing out a commonly used set of terms in favor of an entirely inappropriate word, for describing those who incorrectly and without foundation claim that climate change science is a hoax, or wrong, or misguided, or otherwise bogus.
The term "…
"Which is probably a fair result." Yes, this use of categories is pretty dumb. (Actually I am pretty skeptical that any significant fraction of WP readers uses the category system.)
[Likely you are correct, for wikipedia. For our at-work wiki, it is genuinely useful -W]
I would certainly believe that. Presumably in that context "editors" and "readers" are essentially the same people, right?