"Wikipedia is celebrating its tenth anniversary! To mark the occasion,
Wikipedia is showcasing content not normally featured on the main
page."
I nearly fell off my chair in surprise!
"Today's featured list"
"Today's featured topic"
"Today's featured sound"
Will be interesting to see what the pa
On 15 January 2011 04:41, Carcharoth wrote:
> To take a specific example, I very occasionally come across names of
> people or topics where it is next-to-impossible to find out anything
> meaningful about them because the name is identical to that of someone
> else. Sometimes this is companies th
(Following on from another thread)
I have a theory that Wikipedia makes only *part* of the Internet not
suck. Wikipedians aggregate online knowledge (and offline as well, but
let's stick to online here), thus making it easier to find information
about something, especially when there are lots of a
The Signpost (on en-wikipedia) is also collecting news articles as
well, and may have better English-language coverage (the other site is
good as a starting point for the worldwide coverage, but attempting to
be comprehensive with something like that is laudable if difficult -
at some point the cov
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> I remember that in 1992 I was stung by a wasp near the end of a day in
> York. I would happily take you to the precise location outside York
> station, I said "fuck". There is absolutely no documentation for this.
> It happened. My own first e
The Economist is in there. The FT piece probably isn't because they've
paywalled their site.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 23:59, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > All of those things are true, to my knowledge :)
> >
> > There's
On 12/01/2011 23:59, phoebe ayers wrote:
> All of those things are true, to my knowledge :)
>
> There's a page to collect Wikipedia10 media coverage at:
> http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage
>
Three pieces of BBC coverage today: a World Service documentary
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservi
All,
Civility echoes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14brooks.html?nl=todaysheadlines&e
mc=tha212
Marc
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:10 PM, wiki wrote:
> Wikipedia becomes more like religion every day.
With a God-King in a cloud realm and the occasional crucifixion. Not
to mention passing the plate on a regular basis.
I think it is important that we don't develop the same sort of
hierarchy and menta
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 14 January 2011 12:01, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> 'So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was "Hello world!" isn't to be
>> taken literally?'
>>
>> I don't see why not. It's far from unusual for a tech-savvy user to
>> type that phrase into a d
On 14/01/11 07:49, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>
> I've seen both Wales and Gardner (e.g., [1]) note that Wikipedia
> began with Wales typing in "Hello World".
>
> [1]:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/12/wikipedia-internet
>
> That's a neat historical fact, but is there a
On Friday, January 14, 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Sure, Jimmy is certainly capable of making mistakes, but unless there
> is evidence to suggest that he did it seems sensible to me to assume
> that he is correct. As you say, it's not a critical piece of
> information so we don't need to try and v
On 14 January 2011 12:25, Carcharoth wrote:
> One possibility, though, is that he typed it at some point, but there
> was an earlier edit he forgot. Memory can be a selective thing. What
> you would look for, if going further into this, is the first time he
> recalled this and where and to whom. U
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 14 January 2011 12:01, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> 'So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was "Hello world!" isn't to be
>> taken literally?'
>>
>> I don't see why not. It's far from unusual for a tech-savvy user to
>> type that phrase into a
On 14 January 2011 12:01, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> 'So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was "Hello world!" isn't to be
> taken literally?'
>
> I don't see why not. It's far from unusual for a tech-savvy user to
> type that phrase into a document as a first test. I would be surprised
> if anyone expr
'So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was "Hello world!" isn't to be
taken literally?'
I don't see why not. It's far from unusual for a tech-savvy user to
type that phrase into a document as a first test. I would be surprised
if anyone expressed a good reason to doubt it.
On 14 January 2011 09:21, Magnus Manske wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12171977
>> "Wikipedia is too complicated for many people to modify despite billing
>> itself as "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", its foun
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12171977
>
> "Wikipedia is too complicated for many people to modify despite billing
> itself as "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", its founder has
> said."
*cough* http://meta.wikimedia.org/
So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was "Hello world!" isn't to be taken
literally?
It is simply a totem. If you want to be cruel you call it a sound-bite which
takes liberty with reality, if you want to be kind you call it a
"foundation-myth which serves to encapsulate the ethos and meaning of
W
19 matches
Mail list logo
