An interesting survey by an Italian researcher.
Bye.
E.T.
-- Forwarded message --
Object: A survey about some sociological issues related to copyright
in the digital age
By this message I would like to introduce a survey that I recently
created in order to go more in depth with
[Apologies for cross-posting; this same e-mail is being sent to wikipedia-l,
WikiEN-l and foundation-l]
Hi everyone,
We are a research group conducting a systematic literature review on
Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in the English
language. (Although there are
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
Oh, certainly, left wing blogs are attacking the Kochs. And awareness among
hard-core political activists and junkies is probably pretty high.
There you go.
But we're talking a very small percentage of the US population.
There are only a few
Would anyone be able to help me track down examples of articles that
cover two or more things on the same page? I'm trying to work out why
we have articles that include tsunami in the titles, when there are
many events throughout history that caused tsunamis that don't include
that in the title. I
I think I've asked this before, but I'm raising it again as I've
noticed templates being used again within articles to allowed finer
control over specific parts of article content. This practice of using
templates within articles for the actual text of articles is something
I think should be
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Does anyone know which mediawiki page produces that warning, so I can
suggest changing it?
MediaWiki:Revision-info
Thanks. Looking at the talk page reaction to long-winded messages, I
can see it will be difficult to
The thing is, it takes a conspiracy within the Wikipedia's rank and
file to bias an article significantly over a long period; otherwise
normal editing and then RFCs and so forth will tend sort it out.
If it remains sufficiently inaccurate then the target will kick up a
big fuss; initially within
Which is why mild whitewashing is the standard corporate PR policy to take
with Wikipedia. It's just a dialing down of the quality, a subtle way of
violating NPOV by discouraging the inclusion of unhappy facts.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
The thing
The thing is, it takes a conspiracy within the Wikipedia's rank and
file to bias an article significantly over a long period; otherwise
normal editing and then RFCs and so forth will tend sort it out.
If it remains sufficiently inaccurate then the target will kick up a
big fuss; initially
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Ian Woollard wrote:
The thing is, it takes a conspiracy within the Wikipedia's rank and
file to bias an article significantly over a long period; otherwise
normal editing and then RFCs and so forth will tend sort it out.
Yeah, that Siegenthaler thing was corrected in a few
The article doesn't say that a conspiracy within Wikipedia tried to bias
articles. It says that a prominent industrialist and political contributor
paid professional writers to alter Wikipedia articles to change the
descriptions of his involvement in a political movement.
It's a situation where
The article doesn't say that a conspiracy within Wikipedia tried to bias
articles. It says that a prominent industrialist and political
contributor
paid professional writers to alter Wikipedia articles to change the
descriptions of his involvement in a political movement.
It's a situation
I think cases like this need to be handled publicly and transparently when
there is obviously a deliberate PR campaign or a concerted effort to bias an
article one way or another.
When this happens the articles could receive some sort of notice box similar
to the npov and disputed box, but
I'm not sure how helpful it is, but yesteryear's word for tsunami was
typhoon. You might consider searching for typhoons as well.
Bob
On 3/15/2011 9:42 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
Would anyone be able to help me track down examples of articles that
cover two or more things on the same page? I'm
On 15/03/2011, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
However, it seems a bit of a mess at the moment.
In a sense, but it's deliberate.
There are other disasters that take the form of causative event
followed by an effect that causes the most destruction. The two
examples I've seen
15 matches
Mail list logo
