Thank for the interview, very interesting. However, Eco is not uncritical about
Wikipedia.
The computer in general, and the Internet in particular, is good for the rich
and bad for the poor. That is, Wikipedia is good for me, because I am able to
find the information I need; I do not trust it,
Oh dear, I see my last message did have a line wrap. Some time since I
subscribed to a list like this, I know there is a way round the problem, can
anyone help?
Best
Peter
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Gerard writes: The trouble is that attempts to make something that lures
experts but
keeps idiots out of their faces have so far failed and/or attracted no
attention, even from the experts (Citizendium, Scholarpedia). That is,
they sound like a good idea; but in practice, Wikipedia has so far
It is helpful that on Wikipedia the editorial process is largely
transparent, so the question how did it get like this? can actually
be answered. Wikipedia is not reliable, but it turns out that how
paper encyclopedias and newspapers were written was similarly
susceptible
In the case of
- Original Message -
From: David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
issues.
I don't really see this as a
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
The answer is probably that we're not finished yet and need more
participation from people interested in writing encyclopedically in
the area.
Basically, the answer is interested contributors bothering to put in
the effort,
Unfortunately, credentialism doesn't work.
And I wasn't suggesting it would.
Embarrassing Wikipedia in blog posts seems to work, one factoid at a time
Well I hope so. However when I wrote this
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html
The only correction was to remove the
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com
It seems that Humanities are overall a problematic area for Wikipedia,
because less involved in consensus building, and much focused in the
stratification of different interpretations.
No quite untrue. My background is analytic philosophy and I
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with
content issues.
We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes and
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com
I do think it is easier
to understand and comprehend the procedures, ideas and mechanisms of
Wikipedia (for many reasons).
From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain
these
things to humanities scholars
that stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_hominemoldid=369721624
- Original Message -
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
It's a simple error that most proof-readers would find.
Well only if they can read Latin, which is not that usual these days.
It looks right at first
- Original Message -
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent
issues.
Irony. David Gerard
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Actually David wrote the page. I thought it was interesting ...
No, that section was substantially written by Trent Toulouse.
I did get the calculator out (sorry). There are 608 edits to the article.
252 were by you. I don't know what section you are
Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic. I looked at the article on
Young Earth Creationism in CZ
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism . It comes in from
some heavy criticism in the RationalWiki article
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Citizendium for being heavily (and
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia,
and our processes have not always been victorious over it. Simply
put, the rubbish on Wikipedia outweights the rubbish on CZ, and I
suspect that an academically sound study would indicate
- Original Message -
From: Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net
The post I was responding to was nothing but an assessment of a
Citizendium article. It made no comparison, favorable or unfavorable, to
an equivalent article on Wikipedia. At most it engaged in some
speculation about what
I have recently been reading the Ambassadors, by Henry James. Here is the
version from 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ambassadorsoldid=32161591
Here is the current version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors
They are both very bad. So, two points. (1)
I also posted this to the Wikipedia Review here
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=showtopic=30718view=findpostp=252408
We ought to become closer, no?
Peace, love, metadata etc
Peter
___
foundation-l mailing list
Putting this in context. If I were to donate, say £1,500 of gross income to
WMF, it would be reasonable to ask what this money was for: how it was
helping. The WMF goal is to collect and developing educational content and
to disseminate it effectively and globally. Wikipedia is the main
How would locking Wikipedia down fulfill the mission to collect all the
educational information known.
Information changes constantly, new information becomes available
constantly, and new material gets added to old articles constantly.
I myself just added some new detail to an article within
Risker In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of
articles it has now.
Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
Only a tiny number of articles were considered of high enough quality to
be
featured in 2005; that number has grown exponentially
Are you stating that Peter is stating that a general encyclopedia should
not be oriented to topics of interest to the masses?
Who exactly is the audience if not the masses?
I don't know what Nathan means here. I believe that an encyclopedia should
be of popular interest, and be presented in
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
It's always been my impression that you fundamentally
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Can you give an example of what appeal to the popular means in the
context of our project
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv
shows... is not
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv
shows... is not
- Original Message -
From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Quote: Then you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word
'educational' I think.
I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users
unless it is relevant to the subject of this thread, which is about the
nature of education, whether educational content is appropriate for
Wikipedia, and whether encyclopedia is improving its coverage of educational
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
As for progress since 2005 - unless I'm mistaken, all of
To Notbod's long note.
To say Wikipedia's coverage is 'frighteningly large' is not the same as
saying its coverage is 'even'.
On the list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_topics_-_1,000
I have looked at Philosophy and nearly all the 11 articles there are
horrifyingly bad.
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
What would you suggest the Wikimedia Foundation do to
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You say
You haven't demonstrated there is enough of
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Your position is flawed. What is enduring is not the same as what will
be interesting to future
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
(1) demanding subject matter, requiring some
Some excellent comments in the last few posts. To address a few.
1. On the idea that scholars in the humanities don't know how to work
together: definitely not!! I myself am working on a collaborative project
(a translation of Duns Scotus) with someone in the US. I have never met
this
Following on from my previous posts about trying to classify the scope and
coverage of humanities subjects in Wikipedia, I have a practical question:
is it possible to query the Wikipedia database in such a way as to get a
list of all articles (current version)? Even better, with a second,
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an expert because
you have a credential, you
- Original Message -
From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Peter, resorting to ad hominem does nothing to
- Original Message -
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example
[...] Wikipedia
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
As such, and in the interest of better philosophy
The question of which ones of the list philosophers will 'balk at' is
quite
different from the question of 'what would work' i.e. what would improve
the
content. Answer: none of them. They are all eminently sensible and
desirable. On citation I can remember getting this drummed into me
Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
But are [sic] mission is to explain things to that level.
You have totally missed Sarah's point. She
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to
understand even the most
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper
tantrum, but that still won't
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:54 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard
- Original Message -
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Much of what you say here is true, David.
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but
rather an encyclopedia built
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
1. One of the foundational works that was used to create Wikipedia was
the
1911 EB. Wherever that
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on
- Original Message -
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I can think of a very labour-intensive change -- a
- Original Message -
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
In my experience by verifiability, Wikipedians mean published
somewhere, not verifiably
.
- Original Message -
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam
- Original Message -
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I am not qualified to judge articles on
- Original Message -
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian
- Original Message -
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Oh yes and how could I forget this monstrosity
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Your own history, Peter, proves that you are incorrect;
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Peter wrote:
2. An initiative to highlight 5 top importance
- Original Message -
From: Noein prono...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your
- Original Message -
From: Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is)
I am wondering if Philippe could share with
I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under
Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese
judicial
departments for violating Chinese law
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has delivered a
verdict upon him: he is a
My apologies for the Godwinism. I am a writer, the idea of preventing
someone expressing a viewpoint is reprehensible. Disruption to the project
of building a comprehensive and reliable reference source is one thing.
That is a matter of a 'preventative block'. Punitive blocks intended to
- Original Message -
From: Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Free speech
if an irrational argument is preventing you from sharing logical
arguments,
Crowd-sourced reputations! We list all the people who want to be
experts, and let Wikimedians vote them up or down! Kind of like
academic Hot or Not.
Something like Ebay would actually make sense. Yes, seriously.
Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
On 12 October 2010 20:54, Peter Damian peter.dam
This is unacceptable. Please apologise to Greg.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Kohs
To: Ral315 ; Austin Hair
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:42 PM
Subject: This is tolerated on the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list?
- Original Message -
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor
for his efforts.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 October 2010 19:21, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com
wrote:
This is unacceptable. Please apologise to Greg.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Kohs
To: Ral315 ; Austin Hair
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:42 PM
Subject
- Original Message -
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Peter Damian
A short piece here
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/andronicus-of-rhodes.html You can read it,
but the take-home is pretty brief.
(1) Here is another of the many examples where proper encyclopedic content
is plagiarised entirely from 100-year old sources.
(2) Suggesting the thought: if
- Original Message -
From: Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
I don't see how can you call it plagiarism when at
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
IF you don't like what it says, change it.
What really is the point, of pointing out that Oh gosh we
- Original Message -
From: wjhon...@aol.com
To: peter.dam...@btinternet.com
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
In a message dated 10/16/2010 12:15:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
There is
- Original Message -
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
(I leave aside the question of whether the synthesis or
- Original Message -
From: Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
I haven't checked the related article on William
- Original Message -
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 9:38 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Conservative collaboration and the Wikipedia model
A serious analysis of Conservapedia:
Just a test. It seems I have been put on moderation simply for making the
earlier posts about plagiarism on Wikipedia. Free culture!
- Original Message -
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: peter.dam...@btinternet.com
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 10:17 PM
Subject:
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Greetings,
I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement,
focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be prepared to be
interviewed for this? Obviously long-standing Wikipedians would be a focus but
I am interested in anyone who is involved in the
You know it would in most cases have been considered an act of good
faith to mention your long standing antipathy to wikipedia. But
perhaps I'm just old fashioned.
I'm sorry about that - I assumed everyone knew who 'Peter Damian' was.
I don't understand what you mean about 'antipathy
What license(s) will the book be released under?
MZMcBride
Very funny :)
I have just completed my book on Scotus, which will be submitted to
the Catholic University Assocation Press next week. Assuming it gets
through their lengthy approval process,it will be published under
whatever
89 matches
Mail list logo
