Interesting. I only recently discovered the "Wikipedia as database" debate. As importing and exporting encyclopedic data to and from WP gets more common, I expect we will have more of these disputes about merging content. --Surturz (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the editor's note, a better link to the previous discussion might be this one. The previous comments can be read more easily on that page in my opinion.--Rockfang (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not particularly appealing to have the signpost judge (even a part of) an ArbCom case before it has even been heard. It is also questionable whether it should report some of the more hyperbolic statements cited by parties, third hand. Two layers of selection bias is quite enough. RichFarmbrough, 23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I have to agree with this comment - I don't know anything about the case myself here, but reporting it like this (with quotes from the people bringing the case and none from Doncram himself) seems like a bad idea. The Signpost should probably restrict itself to saying 'a new ArbCom case has been opened', and allow those who want to know more to click the link and read it, rather than producing a summary vulnerable to partisan bias. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These three have agreed to disagree in a more or less acrimonious way for months. I am not surprised to see this here. Just a clarification: I think Doncram mostly works with databases from NRHP, which are foreign to Wikipedia, but not foreign in the sense of being in a foreign language. Jane (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Arbitration report