User talk:Betsythedevine/Archive 2005

Archiving my usertalk from 2005

Hi--I'm using my talk page as a sandbox today, getting ready to post stuff I promised to Wikimania pages. betsythedevine 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC) There--I've made a solid start and posted the result over at meta:Wikimania_2006:publicity. This required changing the syntax for links to Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I'll wait for some feedback before going further with this. Good night! betsythedevine 04:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a sweet start, thank you! Please use articles of the form m:Wikimania 2006/Publicity, with a capitalized last term and a slash, rather than a colon... Rock on, +sj + 19:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia created by international volunteers who contribute, update, and revise articles in a collaborative process. It is the world's fastest-growing, most current, and largest encyclopedia, with more than 1.5 million articles under active development in over 150 languages. The English-language edition alone has more than 800,000 articles, and incorporates 25,000 edits each day.

• Wikimania is an international Wikimedia conference, where Wikipedians can meet and talk with people at the forefront of the Wikimedia communities and wiki software development. The program includes a range of presentations, workshops, and tutorials, to give newcomers and oldtimers alike an overview of the current state of research on wikis and free knowledge projects. "Hacking Days" gather developers to work on code and discuss the technical aspects of Wikimedia.

• The first Wikimania was held in Frankfurt am Main, Germany from 4 August 2005 to 8 August 2005. A primary goal was to help the various Wikimedia projects improve their understanding of one another. The objective was achieved; 380 participants from over 50 countries attended the conference. The majority of sessions and conversations were in English, although material from the conference is being translated into multiple languages. Keynote speakers included Jimmy Wales, Ross Mayfield, Ward Cunningham and Richard Stallman; event sponsors included Answers.com, SocialText, Sun Microsystems, DocCheck, and Logos Group.

• Wikimania 2006 will be held in at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts in July or August, 2006.

Good entry points for learning more about Wikipedia

• Entry point for several "bus tours" of Wikipedia
• Five-minute presentation on Wikipedia as of June, 2004 by Ppareit
• Collection of links to presentations on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Press_releases
• Wikipedia:Press_Coverage
• History of Wikipedia
• meta:History of Wikipedia
• meta:OTRS Wikimedia's own PR group

Good entry points for learning more about Wikimania

• WikiBook for Wikimania 2005, the first international Wikimedia conference [1]
• Wikipedia encyclopedia page
• Wikipedia meta page on Wikimania
• Wikimania website [2]

"In 2005, the nonprofit venture is the largest encyclopedia on the planet. Wikipedia offers 500,000 articles in English - compared with Britannica 's 80,000 and Encarta 's 4,500 - fashioned by more than 16,000 contributors. Tack on the editions in 75 other languages, including Esperanto and Kurdish, and the total Wikipedia article count tops 1.3 million." Reference: Pink, Daniel. "The Book Stops Here". Wired. March 2, 2005. Pages: Cover - "Wikipedia: the self-organizing library of the future", 007, 124-129, 136, 139. [3] Betsy's note, Make that 800,000 articles in English as of November 1, with the number predicted to pass 1,000,000 sometime in early May. The number of articles in all languages would probably be a more relevant mileston, though--see meta:Wikipedia_statistics and meta:Milestones as date of Wikimania approaches.

• Traveling to Cambridge, Massachusetts typically begins by traveling to Boston. Logan International Airport is about a $35 cab ride or a $1.25 subway ride from Harvard Square. Amtrak trains and multiple bus lines arrive in Boston at Boston South Station, which is also a subway stop on Boston's Red Line (as is Harvard Square).

Sources of information for this section:

• meta:Wikimania_2006/Boston has (archived) material presented in Boston's bid.
• Fodor's online mini-guide to Boston area "

• Logan Airport (Info about flights, etc.) [4]
• Getting to Boston/Cambridge from Logan Airport [5]
• Amtrak (US national passenger railway) [6]
• MBTA (Boston/Cambridge buses, subway, etc.) [7] Note: Boston refers to its subway as "the T."

• Directions for getting to Harvard Law School from airport, via public transportation, by car, etc. [8]
• Harvard Law School map [9]
• Harvard University walking tour [10]
• Harvard Natural History Museum [11]
• Harvard Square [12]
• Harvard Book Store [13]

• List of Boston-area museums [a href="http://www.boston.world-guides.com/museums.html]
• List of Boston-area "Literary Trail" sites [14]

Balance with conservative POV

Rick, one of the quotes from an external link contained just about the only conservative POV expressed here. Therefore I worked on the Controversy section a bit to try to get some more balance back in.

Betsy Devine

It looks fine to me. RickK 05:26, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

FromTalk:Jeff Gannon February 13 2005

• Betsy, after I posted a comment on the Race_and_intelligence "talk" page, linking to a study on the Ashkenazic Jews, I then took a look at the recent edits (specifically, on the "article" page), and saw where you removed an edit about this group of Jews. (Not that it matters, but I'm White and part Native American and British, Irish, and Scottish by decent; I have no "vested interest" in the race debate.) Anyhow, I figured you might think I was the one to have put in that edit, the one that you removed: [15] I haven't followed that page.

• Do you know who put in the edit?
• Was my article helpful?
• Also, was this particular editor's edit appropriate -now given an article that may support his/her position?

Thank you in advance for your feedback. (I admit that I saw that -- EdPoor aka "Uncle Ed" had discussed this page, and took a look out of mere curiosity.)

(I mainly edit the Terri Schiavo article, having been a "major" litigant in many of the court cases in that saga. "Major" is in quotes, because there is dispute on whether I was a major or minor participant; I did better in court than Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, but did not "physically" argue my case or get press.)

In any case, I saw your entry in Wiki. You've made it "big time." Congratulations. --GordonWattsDotCom 13:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Gordon--I didn't speculate about who put in the remark I removed, something along the lines of "Jews are known to be smarter than other white people." It was unencyclopedic and unreferenced, so I removed it. I haven't even read the entire article very closely--it's not my area of expertise at all. I think I read it because someone had complained people were defacing it, and I was curious. The article as a whole looked pretty scholarly and NPOV--impressive for such a controversial subject. betsythedevine 15:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that no one pointed fingers or connected the dots, but I figured it would be good say something about the coincidence. Yes, I think the article was well-written too. As a major in Biology and Chemical Science, from The Florida State University, I can see both the nature and the nurture sides of the argument. no doubt small differences exist between the races, but that is "average," and on the whole, they balance out. For example, the average height of most races is very similar, even though we have much variation within each race. Probably the same with intelligence, but who knows? Also, a person can increase his or her intelligence by practice, an environmental factor. It's a complex issue to be sure. Thank you for taking a look at my question. I'm sure the other visitors to the talk page can figure out if my article is relevant. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 20:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including Dkosopedia among the external links. Labeling it "The most complete site on the web on Jeff Gannon" is unencyclopedia-like and misleading. It is unencyclopedia-like because "The most complete" is puffery rather than description. It is misleading because it implies that Dkosopedia is a neutral source of information. I am changing the label to "A wiki-like compilation of the case against James Gannon". I also think we should arrange the External Links list to put news on top and opinion pieces or partisan material on the bottom.

Betsy Devine ///////

"Relationship to the Public" material removed from Dave Winer article on August 17, which I archived in Talk:Dave Winer:

Winer's detractors allege that he is overly blunt and thin-skinned. Indeed, many of his later career successes are colored by a trail of former friends and collaborators who claim to have found him unpredictable and difficult to work with. The degree of anger and abuse some direct toward Winer continues to amaze those who respect his accomplishments. He is frequently parodied through websites such as Eye on Winer.

Winer's admirers see him as a leader of clarity and purpose. One of the attendees at BloggerCon II, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "Winer is a constructive and innovative force in many overlapping worlds: blogging, journalism, software development, politics, business, and academia, among others. Without his intellectual and personal leadership, the Internet would look very different and have much less impact today."

(Posted on Talk:Dave Winer) Somebody else removed the "relationship to the public" bit, again, categorizing it at "editorializing." On reflection, I agree that the section is non-encyclopedic. Nevertheless, it represents a substantial effort by wiki contributors to find common ground. So I'm going to post the deleted paragraphs here in discussion instead. I hope this will be an acceptable compromise solution. betsythedevine

(Posted on User_talk:Bhouston) I've edited this article before without removing this section, but when somebody else took it out, it seemed to me like a very substantial improvement. This section represents "original research" and personal opinion. The article Bill Gates handles controversy like this in a much more "encyclopedic" way. Would you agree that archiving this section in the article's Talk page, as I've done, would be a good compromise solution? betsythedevine 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My issue is that I feel it is true. I have been following his scripting.com for quite some time and he does often use aggression or disengenious methods (although they start to become pretty transparent after a while) to get his way or for personal egocentric agrandisement at the expense of others or proper evolution of standards. I think it is important to note this since I notice it even though I am in no way related or have personal interest in the relevant technologies (i.e. RSS, XML-RPC, OMPL, etc.) Maybe in September (when I get a bit more time) I'll try to craft a properly referenced version. I noticed the New York Times has refered to him as both "irascible" and "cranky", I can include those references as well as a few others.

• How would you suggest I handle this? IS the only option to leave it on the talk page as was done with the Bill Gates article? If omission is the only option it feels like some type of censoring. --Ben Houston 17:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, you hit the nail on the head of what would make this section "encyclopedic" when you talk about a properly referenced version. From NPOV: ".. an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can....The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source."

• • That's what I was praising about the Bill Gates article -- its use of direct quotes from published or online sources. I suppose it is "some kind of censorship" to want to remove stuff that's unencyclopedic from a wikipedia article, but if we put the section into Talk:Dave_Winer then it's not lost.

• • Another possibility--we could ask some admins for an opinion via this page: [16]. betsythedevine 00:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Besy Devine is a close friend of Winer's as a Google search will attest. (posted by User: Bhouston September 29, 2005)

I am friends with Dave Winer, and with a lot of other people in the once-tiny blog-uniiverse. If you check out my User talk:Betsythedevine, you'll see something more relevant, however. I got involved in the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert article, trying to keep that entry NPOV--not because I know Jeff Gannon or agree with his politics (I don't!), but because I value Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I got pinged about my edit in Religion [Oops, actually in "Race and intelligence"]--I removed a sentence that said something like "Many sources have shown that Jews are more intelligent than other white people." I felt that such a controversial statement should have some actual source cited--without one, the statement is very un-encyclopedic. To the extent that I've been in any Wikipedia controversies--very rarely!--it's because I try to make articles NPOV and "encyclopedic", that is, based on printed or online sources rather than assertion or "original research." betsythedevine 14:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow--The history of this page indicates that an entire new section of 287 words called "Credible Quotes on Winer" was created on September 28 in a series of 10 edits, all labeled "minor", all unsigned, and all made by User: Bhouston. I've retitled this section "BHouston's contributions to Dave Winer discussion." betsythedevine 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section was created because of BetsyTheDevine's comments earlier to me that the section Dave Winer's relationship to the public needed to be more properly sourced. I have been finding authoritative quotes and adding them to this talk page incrementally -- I was not trying to sneak them in, also I did the work while properly logged in thus I wasn't trying to do it anonymously, and they were each and of themselves minor. I think that BetsyTheDevine needs to relax a little and accept that maybe I am following her advice and am slowing working towards creating a new rewrite of the section that was criticized for not being NPOV. If I was intent on being evil I like to think that I would be more competent about it -- I'm not an idiot. --Ben Houston 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben--sorry, I didn't mean you were trying to be sneaky and failing. I meant that these additions should be read in the context of a major addition to this page, all made by one person in quite a short space of time. Your first four quote-sources are good--but your two Google searches and Calacanis's hearsay from two anonymous sources are very far from appropriate under a heading "Credible Quotes on Winer." IMO. betsythedevine 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Betsy. Please remember that this is a talk page and not the article. I am going to continue to collect quotes some of which can eventually support a reworked criticism section that is more NPOV.

Okay, I don't think it is fair to leave all this criticism on this page indefinitely, it is unbalanced by itself. Although, now that the supporting material is collected, its time to write something more succint that captures the situation / issues. I am still not exactly sure the best way to present the issues that are apparent, suggestions are welcome. --Ben Houston 20:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I agree that leaving all this negative stuff as an undigested and unbalanced lump is unfair. I assume you have your own offline copy, but if you don't you can use Wikipedia's history feature to access your original collection. I am happy to leave here the quotes that might be considered authoritative sources for an encyclopedia article--published materials, for example, or first-person remarks by (for example) Tim O'Reilly.betsythedevine 16:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article. You're quoting of the Cadenhead blog but removing the non-A-list blog sources show a double standard in terms of what is quotable. I've added back a bunch of the quotes. Once I get the time to expand the article or someone else does I don't think it is unnecessary to censor this page. I would prefer to error on including more information in the Dave Winer article that less. --Ben Houston 22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ben, being or not being an A-list blog source isn't the question here. Your justification for this quote collection was to gather source material about Dave Winer. But then you include stuff that isn't good source material. Good source material comes from 1) published, professional sources like the Wired article, or 2) personal statements including blog posts by people documenting their own interactions with Winer. Third-party hearsay, anonymous comments, value judgments by people whose knowledge and/or motivation we don't know--the material I removed all fell into those categories. betsythedevine 23:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevant Wikipedia policy: Verifiability#Dubious_sources "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable....anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources...Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website." betsythedevine 00:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Wikipedia policy: Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later." betsythedevine 00:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BetsyTheDevine: Let's give this quote fight thing a rest -- it's fairly tangential and its all on the unconsequential talk page anyhow. My main issue was that you kept removing the original criticism paragraph saying that it was not supported. I have now done a fair bit of research to establish that some of that criticism is supported and have found numerous high quality quotes that could be incorporated. To be honest, I do not relish writing a new criticism section since I fear getting your approval in addition to my lack of confidence of treating such a touchy subject appropriately. In many ways, it would be appropriate for you to rewrite the criticism section that you originally objected too to incorporate the research I did (and it is research that I did in response to your suggestion). I would really like to change the dynamic here from adverserial to cooperative. (NOTE: rewritten comment) --Ben Houston 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I too would like to change the dynamic. But your claim that I "kept removing the original criticism paragraph" isn't just adversarial, it's untrue. Look at the history of Dave Winer--two different users (not me) removed it on August 11 and 14. You reinserted it on August 14 and 18. After seeing on the discussion page that the same fight occurred in 2004, I tried for a compromise, by archiving the disputed material as "discussion." And, 2 months later, everyone but you seems content with that compromise. betsythedevine 22:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"[Dave] Winer, famous among the bloggers as a somewhat cranky innovator, is busy reaching for the stars." Knight Ridder Newspapers & Seattle Times, July 24 2004 Source

"I guess you've really arrived when the NY Times calls you 'cranky.' Last time they called me an 'irascible gadfly.' I guess this is progress. Permanent link to this item in the archive." Dave Winer, July 15, 2005 Scripting.Com Source

"Scripting.Com - Dave Winer tracks the world of blogging and technology and has some interesting (and some cranky) thoughts." New York Times 7/26/05 Source

Dave quoting Dummies.com comparison of himself and Howard Dean: "Both Dave Winer and Howard Dean are known for being, well, intense characters." Dave Winer, September 27, 2005 Scripting.Com Source

Google Search for "Dave Winer" jerk produces a lot of interesting hits. So does the Google Search for "Dave Winer" a***ole. (Both Google searches are suggested by this blog posting detailing an acrimonious event. These two are mentioned elsewhere in the blogosphere as well.)

"Dave Winer’s name came up a couple of times because of the whole RSS thing and although I’ve never met the man I got an earful. Apparently Dave is considered a jerk by many of the folks at ETech — although a very talented jerk. Two attendees went off on a Winer bitch fest of epic proportions over dinner one night, ending with a detailed psychoanalysis of the man that went something like this: every time he gets something successful going and gets to a position of power (i.e., with RSS) he self destructs. Anyway, I’m looking forward to meeting the real Dave Winer at some point soon." Jason Calacanis of Weblogs IncSource

Another weblog that critiques Dave Winer is this one by Brian Carnell

A major blog posting on advice to those that dislike Dave Winer: [17]

You voted previously to keep the article Rogers Cadenhead. You may have changed your mind now that the author has admitted to writing the article himself “as an experiment.” He himself says, “I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion.”

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_29#Rogers_Cadenhead

--Quasipalm 17:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit of the relevant discussion, including my response. betsythedevine 11:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I object to redoing this VfD. rcade seems to be confused as to the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about doing a clever blog post and then letting everyone else tidy up after it has suited your purpose. I am really very tired of this. We all knew it was a probably vanity when we voted the first time around. My evaluation of the article as a weak keep stands; the basic principle that article subjects do not dictate the terms of their inclusion should as well. Sdedeo 19:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again. Reading rcade's blog post, it seems that he was acting in good faith both in creating and later voting delete on his article. However, my vote still stands and I still object to redoing the VfD; the community has looked at the article, found the subject notable, and that's all that needs to be said. Sdedeo 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to echo the sentiments of Sdedeo. My vote is based upon the merits of the article, not who created it. Hall Monitor 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What Sdedeo and HallMonitor said. Being eager to have a wikipedia article about you has zero bearing on the question of whether or not there should be a wikipedia article about you. The point of Wikipedia is to let people find information about stuff that has some reasonable notability.betsythedevine 11:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the correct info, including stuff about the appeal! (we'll have to start formatting the external inline links possibly and make it a references section, though). I really appreciated that you blogged the trial ... outside of Josh's site, information about this just doesn't circulate nationally. Daniel Case 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel. I have been trying to focus wider attention on this case, because I don't think that James Tobin acted in isolation. It's a huge embarassment for the RNC to get caught paying James Tobin's legal bills--it makes me wonder what Tobin knows that could embarass them more. I do try to maintain the WP:NPOV required in the text of the article itself. Anyway, thanks for your work in putting this article together. betsythedevine 04:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the matching genericizing change to the RSS file format article. I think it is a real improvement to both articles. --Ben Houston 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, let's continue to try to distinguish between things that are true of webfeeds in general, and those that are true of RSS or Atom in particular. I'd caution you, however, against changes like the one you made to the Feedster article, which originally said something like "Feedster started by indexing RSS feeds", but you changed to read "Feedster started by indexing RSS and Atom feeds." (Atom wasn't released until well after Feedster started indexing RSS.)

Atom is a technology that many good people, some of them friends of mine, worked hard to create as a format of real value. I think they'd be embarrassed rather than pleased by having absurd and untrue claims made for their creation. Wikipedia articles should reflect the history of webfeed technology. betsythedevine 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of my change was this sentence, not the misquotation above: "Feedster began as a weblog search tool, indexing and archiving individual blog posts based on a site's RSS or Atom feed." Even so I understand and I apologize for what was too hasty of an insertion of Atom. You change was a good one. Best. --Ben Houston 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ben, for your pleasant response. I'm glad it was just an honest mistake--I have certainly made lots of those myself. Best, betsythedevine 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit to the page. I saw your AfD nomination, which seems slightly off, since it seems to be much closer to a POV concern than an actual AfD. But that's fine, it's not going to get consensus for delete, and the nomination has nudged it towards improvement.

I think Yeago is still a little overly hung up on this idea of stigmatizing so-called "interested" editors. He's a little naive about that concept being something other than completely fuzzy; and also about thinking WP is about assigning blame rather than just writing encyclopedic articles. His deleted category about this was an earlier wrinkle in that. Despite that, I think he clearly recognizes now that the mentioned article should grow into something more than wagging a finger at a couple editors. I think if you look at my comments on the talk page, and at some of the language I've added, you'll see a direction it could go to become a genuinely good and useful article. Pretty much the article was created by Yeago, and only enhanced by me so far... Yeago's intent is good, but he can slip back into a bit too informal, and moderately POV tone. So I'm certain that anything you improved would make it much better.

All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I made the AfD nomination (my first) because IMO, Wikipedia articles are the wrong forum for personal crusades. (After making it, I discovered that you're supposed to notify ppl first on the article's talk page--sorry I didn't.) As you can see, I've now edited another of the one-sided personal attacks making up this article. I had no previous knowledge of Mr. Thompson's incident, and no particular sympathy with a Republican anti-porn crusader for censorship, but please compare the actual facts of the incident to the original allegations. [18] I know you're an experienced and hard-working Wikipedian, but I think that cataloguing and berating people for "interested" edits (the total list would be much longer than 4 events) is a bad idea. Are you coming to Wikimania? betsythedevine 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that this notion of "interestedness" is just plain silly. I comment somewhat at this at the successful CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 16#Category:Articles edited by interested parties. Part of the problem in Yeago's edits is that he keeps putting in such silly characterizations. But it's getting there. Nonetheless, the notion of public opinion being affected by the operation of WP seems interesting. For example, the Biden link that was recently added looks like good material... I'd like more stuff along that line.

FWIW, I haven't really followed the Thompson issue, but I did see it mentioned outside of Wikipedia before I ever saw anyone discuss it on WP. So for whatever reason, it got a little attention. Still, I'm more interested in how the incident shapes public opinion of Thompson (or of his critics, or of games, or whatever), that just what the public thinks of Wikipedia. That's the point of what the article could do, and would be notable. The language as it stands hints at this, but still focuses too much on finger wagging (but I think my edits are much more neutral: not pro- or anti-Thompson, just reporting what occurred, and how it was reported outside WP).

What's Wikimania, btw? A saw you're in Cambridge, MA... I'm also in MA, so if it's a local-ish physical thing... well, maybe I'd go. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania is the big annual conference, coming to Cambridge this August: [19] A bunch of us locally are working to get ready for it, and people who would like to give talks are applying right now. How about a talk on the impact of Wikipedia's increasing popularity on the behavior of some contributors? I do agree that your edits are improving the article. betsythedevine 12:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]