Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
Carcharoth wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: snip The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up. I've just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]] with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-) ... plus shipping :-( . I have also been offered [[Enciclopedia Italiana]] and [[La Grande Encyclopédie]] on the same basis. This is about 200 volumes! Finding place for them is a significant challenge. Goodness. Yes. That is a large number of volumes. Why not scan them and store them at wikisource? Or are these modern encyclopedias rather than old ones? 1,000 pages x 200 volumes = 200,000 pages. The French one is from the 19th century. The Italian one came out 1929-1938. The Spanish one 1908-1980 Scanning drawings and pictures from old encyclopedias allows for some other possibilities as well. I've asked someone to hang on to a set of old books that have some lovely colour drawings of European landscapes. Three volumes of Picturesque Europe by Cassell. Not in good condition. If I had a full set (seems to be about 10 volumes) and they were in good condition, they would be worth a few hundred pounds. Published in around 1870. You can scan what you have. At least for scanning purposes it's often better to have covers that are not so perfectly tight. There is just one full set currently on Abebooks for £375.00. One of the unfortunate things that happens with the ones in rough shape is that some dealers will break them up, and sell individual pages for framing. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I just want to address this one quote. You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources. Let's say that you have the tertiary (shudder) source EB 1911, Cleopatra. You are aware that an enormous number of our articles were created *solely* from the 1911 EB are you not? You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension this is my argument, rather than just one argument that I have heard put forwards. I'm not going to waste time defending it, since it isn't my argument to start with. You'd be better off looking at [[WP:NOR]] and working out how to amend it to reflect what you believe is consensus. I am well aware of the provenance of many of our articles. So in conclusion, I don't think we have any policy language that would say that tertiary sources without secondary ones would make an article subject to attack, except possibly a make this better please tag. I kind of like the idea that people will tag an article for clean up rather than nominate it for deletion. It makes me kind of warm and fuzzy and nostalgic. The thrust of the argument against tertiary sources is this: Third party sources don't provide any evidence of notability unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter, othewise they are classed as tertiary sources. What's at issue is that there are good faith misunderstandings of policy and guidance out there, which it seems it is hard to correct. We seem to have created language which doesn't solve any problems at all. Look at this fragment from WP:NOR: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others That's a tremendous weapon to charge any tertiary source not to taste as not as reliable as these other ones that I like. Look at this fragment: Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. That leaves the whole issue to argument, with no onus on either side to budge from their position. We've probably entrenched the idea that it's better to stick to your guns than seek compromise. After all, why wouldn;t your opinion be the one that is common sense and good judgment. Who is going to admit having bad judgment. Add to this that arb-com won't touch content disputes, and you are left with an atmosphere where both sides try to act as nice as possible whilst trying to goad the other party into a mistake for which they can get blocked. Is it any wonder disputes can fester across Wikipedia? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Gridlock should be impossible.
Less messages? If someone is on moderation, their messages will pile up until they are moderated (also giving people the impression that someone is sending messages through all at once), so it is unfair to put that requirement on someone on moderation. If the messages are irrelevant, why are the moderators letting them through? Or are the moderators just there to stop spam? Also, some of those messages were a day old. Maybe the moderators of this list need to start a thread to discuss what the subscribers to the list want to see in terms of moderation, including how quickly messages to the list should be moderated (is a day's delay acceptable? A week's delay? What sort of things should be moderated?). Carcharoth On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. Jay, the last time I went through the moderation queue, there were 15 messages from you. Could you please send less messages, and make them more relevant? Thanks, Steve (mod) On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a point that is within the scope of this mailing list, then make it. Please stop sending emails like this. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: Carcharoth wrote: snip Goodness. Yes. That is a large number of volumes. Why not scan them and store them at wikisource? Or are these modern encyclopedias rather than old ones? 1,000 pages x 200 volumes = 200,000 pages. The French one is from the 19th century. The Italian one came out 1929-1938. The Spanish one 1908-1980 Sure. It will take time. :-) But once done, you will have space for more! 200,000 pages at 10 pages a day is 20,000 days, which is 54.79 years. You might need to crowdsource the scanning. How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or do they automate it in some way? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:21 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't
sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending.
I remember copyediting one article on a now-obscure 18th century
British parliamentarian. Basically I just rewrote for style. And,
y'know, I'm pretty sure it'd be a reasonable start on the article, and
certainly not a deletion candidate just for having 1911EB as its sole
source.
The big problem with 1911EB articles used to seed articles is that the
phrases and text used often survive through to later versions, and
when trying to critically assess an article, it is very difficult to
tell which bits were from the 1911EB article, and which bits were
added later (precise footnoting and referencing would help here).
Sometimes a comparison in page history, or with a wikisource page, can
help. Sometimes not.
There is a project that tries to clean these articles up, and lots of guidance.
The guidance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica
The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is out of copyright and can in some
cases be used as a source of material for the English Wikipedia.
However, it is now quite old, and there are many problems with this
material in a modern encyclopedia. Even in 1917 it was seen as an
unreliable source when Willard Huntington Wright published his
scathing Misinforming a Nation, a 200+ page critical examination of
the problems with the encyclopedia. The myth of the EB1911 being the
best and greatest Encyclopedia is a testament to a successful
marketing campaign which usually doesn't hold up under critical
examination.
All those 10 points on that page are good, but how often are they followed?
As a brief aside, I loved Brion's comment on the talk page:
Well, even if the edit histories on the live server get cleared
again, I for one intend to have a century's worth of backups in my
petabyte storage crystal library when the times comes. :) --Brion
03:52 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics
The only remaining task on Variation and selection is integrating
references, probably to their own authors' pages. That page is still
up for historical interest and to finish small amounts, but for all
intents and purposes, this article is merged. I'm taking it off the
1911 list, and thus declaring the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica to be,
at first draft level, merged into Wikipedia. Ladies, gentlemen, and
algorithms, it's been an honor. Alba 15:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Impressive! How long did that take, I wonder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/1911_verification
Please verify that each of the articles is free of such errors, and
has updated coverage, before removing the item from the list. Also, if
the article does derive from the encyclopedia, make sure it has the
{{1911}} tag in its References section. It may be helpful to note on
the article's talk page any significant differences in the
comprehensiveness of our article as compared to the 1911 article.
New guideline June 2008: If the article is in the Wikisource
repository of EB1911, include a {{Wikisource1911Enc}} tag as the first
line of the References section.
Unfortunately: 4.5% complete.
So it looks like it will be slow progress there.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Knol goes from a Wikipedia rival to a Craigslist imitator
G'day folks, From TechCrunch http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/poor-google-knol-has-gone-from-a-wikipedia-killer-to-a-craigslist-wannabe/ We’ve known for a while that Google’s Knol http://knol.google.com/ is no Wikipedia killerhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/25/why-google-knol-is-no-wikipedia/, but now the knowledge-sharing site is being reduced to a sad Craigslist wannabe. The original ideahttp://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/23/googles-knol-the-monetizable-wikipedia/ behind Knol was that people could collaboratively write definitive articles about any topic they like and get rewarded by earning a share of the AdSense revenues for each page they author. Well, that model doesn’t work so well if nobody bothers to read the articles on Knol no matter how much search karma Google gives them. Quantcast estimateshttp://www.quantcast.com/knol.google.com that only 174,000 people visited the site in the past month. So what do you do if your Knol page isn’t throwing up enough AdSense pennies to make it worth your while? You try to sell a pair of stereo speakers directly to the few lost souls who somehow end up at Knol. Will Johnson, a self-described “professional genealogist and biographer,” decided to share his Knol-edge of a pair of “Bose 2.2 direct reflecting bookshelf speakers for sale”http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/bose-22-direct-reflecting-bookshelf/4hmquk6fx4gu/277#—his own (only $70). In fact, he started his own Knol Marketplacehttp://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/my-knol-marketplace/4hmquk6fx4gu/267# and bookstorehttp://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wjhonsons-bookstore/4hmquk6fx4gu/268# . More in story. Regards *Keith* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] IRC Group Contacts Surgery, August 2009
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote: wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange: A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia? B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it A: Who told you to do it B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it. A: So you yourself have no reason to, as an admin, do the action you did? B: Yes I asked on IRC. This is a true story. Which is why IRC should be shut down. There is no accountability, and no transparency. And yet things which pass on it, are then imposed in-project with no back-trail. Will Johnson The problem here is not the existence of IRC. The problem here is the admin doing something without good reason to and using what someone said off-wiki as an excuse. Admins is suppose to take responsibility for their action, heck all editors are supposed to take responsibility for their edits. If an admin take admin action just because someone told them to, then the problem is that that particular person shouldn't be an admin. The problem seems to be that IRC is treated with more officialness than it should be. If everyone treated it the same as meeting up with your wiki*dian mates in the pub, there'd be no need for public logs and no concerns about accountability etc. Are you honestly telling us you think shutting down semi-official IRC channels would stop a big online community such as Wikimedia's contributors to stop using non-wikis method of communication? The most likely result is the same group of people who would be using IRC's to just carrying on where they are unofficially. The next most likely result is they would move elsewhere in terms of either location or technology. The least likely result is they would stop altogether. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Jonathan Hall sinew...@silentflame.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Sure. It will take time. :-) But once done, you will have space for more! 200,000 pages at 10 pages a day is 20,000 days, which is 54.79 years. You might need to crowdsource the scanning. There's cutting the binding off and auto-feeding the stack of pages into a scanner-photocopier. This destroys the books, but is very efficient. How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or do they automate it in some way? I believe they have machines to turn pages, and something to figure out the distorted photo of the book and render it how it would look as a flat page. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
2009/8/17 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com: The Christian Science Monitor reports/ http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/ WIKIALITY, The Tenderloin, Saturday -- The online encyclopedia, knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, search engine, news aggregator, dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and ceased all editing. Palo Alto Research Center reported that only 1% of edits by random users were kept. They were all unspeakable shit, said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451. All of them. No, I'm not exaggerating. Go to Special:Newpages and read a day's entries some time. You'll start by deleting the whole database, before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity. Christ, why go on? Recent media coverage has highlighted the inclusionist/deletionist wars of 2005, including enquiries from Endemol looking for a passionate deletionist to join Big Brother 11, preferably one with big tits. It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you, your teacher at school, your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis. Everything's already been written, said WikiFiddler451, burning the last of his Star Wars figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene. Do you have any idea how big THREE MILLION articles is? A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS! Are you going to read more than a droplet of that in your life? No you aren't. You're following your goddamn Twitter. But hey, only two million articles are The Simpsons in popular culture or Doctor Who in popular culture. No-one actually reads this stuff, they just write it. We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read. 'Oh, I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness.' Or Knol. KNOL! I'll just Bing that one. Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it's all over -- wandering the alleyways of the Internet, mumbling to themselves about ANI and we had to delete the village in order to save it, threatening the policemen moving them on with arbitration and bursting into tears when the policeman answers citation needed. Mere children, sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood, and coming home as crippled wrecks. No victory parades for these brave men and women. There is only so much Citizendium, Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes. With your help, we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans, where they can safely ban and unban, revert and edit-war, and correct the naming of Danzig^WGdansk^WDanzig^WGdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers. Please donate so that they may never bug you again. (posted by me at http://is.gd/2opuE ) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or do they automate it in some way? Regarding Project Gutenberg: http://www.pgdp.net/c/ Crowdsourcing, for those in too much of a hurry. -- Tracy Poff ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton? Only added recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planktondiff=308556264oldid=308375271 To me, this is an example of misplacing information. If some character is named *after* plankton, then that should be a footnote in the plankton article, if even that. If there really is a chance that people will search for plankton in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page (for other things named plankton, see here). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
Carcharoth wrote: How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or do they automate it in some way? Google apparently pays peanuts and they certainly didn't automate in the past - I spend an unconscionable amount of time gettimg round bad Google scans, very many of which have parts of the page obscured by a person's hand. I'm stunned that they don't ask for repeat scans of some unusable pages. (They may have been on a learning curve.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
Carcharoth wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics The only remaining task on Variation and selection is integrating references, probably to their own authors' pages. That page is still up for historical interest and to finish small amounts, but for all intents and purposes, this article is merged. I'm taking it off the 1911 list, and thus declaring the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica to be, at first draft level, merged into Wikipedia. Ladies, gentlemen, and algorithms, it's been an honor. Alba 15:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Impressive! How long did that take, I wonder? It was of course a grossly overconfident statement. My latest EB1911 find was [[William Mure (writer)]], all of nine days ago. We have learned (I hope) that the dab factor - i.e. false-positive bluelinks in your list of articles - is something that has to be made more central to the merging effort. Compare the DNB missing articles project and how it is set up . (OK, OK, I know I have mentioned this before.) As for verifying EB1911 text, it can and should be done piecemeal. I found a case today where A. F. Pollard, a very respectable historian, seemingly made a slip in the DNB that transmitted to the EB1911; and I only noticed it by comparison with another DNB article. My over-checking theory says: - Yes, you should try to provide inline references where possible, for chunky copy-paste jobs; - but you should approach this as building up the article with further, verifiable facts; - and what usually happens is that you find errors and inconsistencies either because unverifiable facts eventually look like islands in a see of footnoted facts, or because the sources for the new facts indicate that something strange is going on. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton? This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]]. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton? This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]]. Thanks. I feel informed now I know about: *Plankton Man *Electroplankton *United Plankton Pictures Purist dabbers will dispute some of those entries, but I think dab pages should be informative, as well as referring purely to things that might conceivably be searched for or linked to as plankton. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton? This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]]. Thanks. I feel informed now I know about: *Plankton Man *Electroplankton *United Plankton Pictures Purist dabbers will dispute some of those entries, but I think dab pages should be informative, as well as referring purely to things that might conceivably be searched for or linked to as plankton. Hey, you missed out: *Plankton! - episode 3b(7) of SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1) I am impressed, though, that we have this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_plankton And *three* articles on plankton surveys. Not stubs either. Really rather nice articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_Plankton_Recorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Continuous_Plankton_Recorder_Survey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCAR_Southern_Ocean_Continuous_Plankton_Recorder_Survey Ooh, look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_layers_(oceanography) I hope the SpongeBob SquarePants fans that went looking for information on their favorite characters are reading these articles! :-) Carcharoth PS. And people wonder why there is debate over articles on fiction? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Carcharoth wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob
SquarePants#Plankton?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul
Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all
places.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
2009/8/19 Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk:
For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob
SquarePants#Plankton?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul
Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all
places.
I still hold the best example I've seen of this was on [[Beirut]]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirutoldid=21810147
''For the drinking game, see [[Beer Pong]]''
...yeah.
[[Squirrel]] also used to have a hatnote directing people to something
like Squirrels in Scientology, of all things. We actually got people
writing with complaints about that one, if memory serves.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia approaches its limits - Technology Guardian
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my experience, they're often right. But it leaves you in a real quandary, if you can't verify it either way. I normally revert those, unless you can verify it it's just an unreferenced change. You can leave a message on their talk page though asking for a ref. Same goes for logged-ins. I see a lot of these patrolling recent changes in Huggle. I look at the user's other contribs and provided I can find just one in the same day where he's blanked the page and written SUCK MY ASS!!! I'll revert the numeric change and put rv numerical change by bad faith editor but editors may wish to double-check as an edit summary. Another warning sign is a number of numeric changes, without any other sort of edit, in completely unrelated types of articles. I wouldn't necessarily rv on that basis but I probably would if they've had any sort of warning that day. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
Oh, now THAT'S funny. Smiling, Emily On Aug 19, 2009, at 8:19 AM, David Gerard wrote: 2009/8/17 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com: The Christian Science Monitor reports/ http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/ WIKIALITY, The Tenderloin, Saturday -- The online encyclopedia, knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, search engine, news aggregator, dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and ceased all editing. Palo Alto Research Center reported that only 1% of edits by random users were kept. They were all unspeakable shit, said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451. All of them. No, I'm not exaggerating. Go to Special:Newpages and read a day's entries some time. You'll start by deleting the whole database, before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity. Christ, why go on? Recent media coverage has highlighted the inclusionist/deletionist wars of 2005, including enquiries from Endemol looking for a passionate deletionist to join Big Brother 11, preferably one with big tits. It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you, your teacher at school, your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis. Everything's already been written, said WikiFiddler451, burning the last of his Star Wars figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene. Do you have any idea how big THREE MILLION articles is? A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS! Are you going to read more than a droplet of that in your life? No you aren't. You're following your goddamn Twitter. But hey, only two million articles are The Simpsons in popular culture or Doctor Who in popular culture. No-one actually reads this stuff, they just write it. We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read. 'Oh, I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness.' Or Knol. KNOL! I'll just Bing that one. Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it's all over -- wandering the alleyways of the Internet, mumbling to themselves about ANI and we had to delete the village in order to save it, threatening the policemen moving them on with arbitration and bursting into tears when the policeman answers citation needed. Mere children, sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood, and coming home as crippled wrecks. No victory parades for these brave men and women. There is only so much Citizendium, Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes. With your help, we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans, where they can safely ban and unban, revert and edit-war, and correct the naming of Danzig^WGdansk^WDanzig^WGdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers. Please donate so that they may never bug you again. (posted by me at http://is.gd/2opuE ) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia approaches its limits - Technology Guardian
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my experience, they're often right. But it leaves you in a real quandary, if you can't verify it either way. I normally revert those, unless you can verify it it's just an unreferenced change. You can leave a message on their talk page though asking for a ref. Same goes for logged-ins. I see a lot of these patrolling recent changes in Huggle. I look at the user's other contribs and provided I can find just one in the same day where he's blanked the page and written SUCK MY ASS!!! I'll revert the numeric change and put rv numerical change by bad faith editor but editors may wish to double-check as an edit summary. What you need to check here is that the editor in question isn't reverting vandalism by someone else. In other words, you need to check back further through the edit history to make sure you are reverting to the last clean version. I've seen cases of HUGGLE and TWINKLE users reverting a vandalised page to a still-vandalised state, and no-one else checking, and such vandalised pages (now with the legitimacy of a revert from an approved user) staying in that state for months. Another warning sign is a number of numeric changes, without any other sort of edit, in completely unrelated types of articles. I wouldn't necessarily rv on that basis but I probably would if they've had any sort of warning that day. Same comment as above. Reverting should never be done without checking what you are reverting TO. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Phil Nash wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob
SquarePants#Plankton?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul
Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all
places.
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a
nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]]. I remember bringing this up once yarns ago, and eventually getting lots and lots of resistance to the idea of two-item disambiguations. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028499.html . People often said things like: 'If its only two items, it's inconvenient to make someone click on the (disambiguation) link just to see the actual article title,' and 'what if they are really looking for [favourite pokemon/porn star/hair band]? You would be robbing of them of their right to find it quickly and easily.' Anyway they were wrong. And four years isn't too long I suppose for those people to finally get the notion that trivial disambiguations are unencyclopedic. Fugly too. Now, if some serious 'medians could help me get [[McLaren]] turned into a proper Scottish surname disambiguation - overriding all the fanboys there - that would be just swell. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot. Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia approaches its limits - Technology Guardian
Carcharoth wrote: ...I've seen cases of HUGGLE and TWINKLE users reverting a vandalised page to a still-vandalised state, and no-one else checking, and such vandalised pages (now with the legitimacy of a revert from an approved user) staying in that state for months. Indeed. And I've seen canny vandals instigate a deliberate chain of contradictory vandalism (perhaps involving sockpuppets) with the apparent intent of goading well-meaning but careless vandalism patrollers into doing precisely this. (It's an annoyingly effective technique.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
(Composed yesterday, delayed by system crash) wjhon...@aol.com: It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction details. Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that is one side of the argument. It doesn't explain why the argument exists and is so prevalent. The concept about whether or not to delete whole categories of articles doesn't fall under the stabilized concept of deletionism anyway - its an editorial concept regarding what's encyclopedic and what isn't (WP:ENC and WP:WEIGHT). The stable concept of deletionism isn't anything more than the waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, inclusionism sort of became a misnomer - few disagree that all subjects need to be 'included' - the disagreements deal with how they are treated. Eventualism and integrationism sort of came along a bit later, and these are the acually operant philosophies today. On a side note, I don't recall who coined the terms deletionism and inclusionism in our context. I remember using deletionism sometime in early 2003 for its nicely pejorative characteristics: At the time it made little sense to just let people - typically people quite unskilled at actually improving articles - go around and just delete things they didn't like. The core issue here involves the differing concepts of an article or topic's actual or potential worth. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] ReadWriteWeb review of official iPhone app for en.wp
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.html http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.htmlNot a terribly positive review; essentially argues that the official app is less useful than the unofficial alternatives. Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] ReadWriteWeb review of official iPhone app for en.wp
2009/8/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.html http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.htmlNot a terribly positive review; essentially argues that the official app is less useful than the unofficial alternatives. The joy of open source is that it can be improved. Presumably by people who didn't sign the Apple developer agreement ;-p - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
2009/8/19 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot. Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too. Q. Why did the chicken cross the road? A. HITLER!! - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC...
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those! Will Johnson In a message dated 8/19/2009 2:16:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes: The thrust of the argument against tertiary sources is this: Third party sources don't provide any evidence of notability unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter, othewise they are classed as tertiary sources. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: Q. Why did the chicken cross the road? A. HITLER!! Not accurate. It was actually the eugenics policies of the factory on the east side of the strasse that motivated the crossing. Goebbels Gobbles had better benefits too. -Steven ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
Of course I wouldn't put them up for AfD. There is no reason to make the previous text inaccessible--and conceivably some of it could be used. I could do much more rewriting if people put fewer acceptable (or at least fixable or mergeable) articles up for unwarranted AfDs, or did not try to change WP:N policy to justify deleting still more. Now, I came here to write, but I've ended up doing mainly rescuing. It's hard to say which should have priority--making existing articles better, or getting acceptable new articles. My choice was rescue because fewer people were doing that. A difficulty with the updated EB articles is that people did not normally indicate just what part was from the EB, so it is hard to tell from the face what part is unreliable. (It can of course be told by looking at the first versions in the history, or by checking the Wiksource link if present--or one of the other available online texts, or guessed at by looking for opinionated prose. ) As for the British parliamentarian, I can't identify him. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/8/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com: Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending. I remember copyediting one article on a now-obscure 18th century British parliamentarian. Basically I just rewrote for style. And, y'know, I'm pretty sure it'd be a reasonable start on the article, and certainly not a deletion candidate just for having 1911EB as its sole source. I've found that a lot of our material tagged as from EB1911 has now pretty much vanished entirely under three or four years of editing - it might be instructive to dig through them and see what needs rewriting anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:1911 -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it makes sense to have a disamg page. I.E. there's a trade-off in having too many clicks, where it is? two items? or three? W.J In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:37:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: If there really is a chance that people will search for plankton in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page (for other things named plankton, see here). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. Repeat: And four years isn't too long I suppose for those people to finally get the notion that **trivial disambiguations are unencyclopedic.** Fugly too. Generally speaking we try to be an encyclopedia. That means its not an issue of a trade-off in having too many clicks. -Stevertigo PS: Thanks for getting back on topic here. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
So you repeat what I say and then say you're not repeating what I said, and then repeat it There's an issue here that you're arguing against your very own position. I'm not sure you are understanding what I said. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So you repeat what I say and then say you're not repeating what I said, and then repeat it There's an issue here that you're arguing against your very own position. I'm not sure you are understanding what I said. Um. Nice try. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Will, simple question: do you accept that trivial disambiguations can be unencyclopedic and give the wrong impression, and if so, is having a neutral dab hatlink better than a jarring note being sounded at the top of a page, the first thing the reader will read after the title? OK, that was a long simple question... Carcharoth On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it makes sense to have a disamg page. I.E. there's a trade-off in having too many clicks, where it is? two items? or three? W.J In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:37:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: If there really is a chance that people will search for plankton in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page (for other things named plankton, see here). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Actually this looks like the perfect subject for a blog post. The Beirut/beer pong diff is a classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirutoldid=21810147 Got more like that? I'd be glad to blog it, or possibly grant editor ops at the WikiVoices blog (a group blog). Thanks very much for the laughter. -Durova On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: Will, simple question: do you accept that trivial disambiguations can be unencyclopedic and give the wrong impression, and if so, is having a neutral dab hatlink better than a jarring note being sounded at the top of a page, the first thing the reader will read after the title? OK, that was a long simple question... Carcharoth On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it makes sense to have a disamg page. I.E. there's a trade-off in having too many clicks, where it is? two items? or three? W.J In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:37:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: If there really is a chance that people will search for plankton in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page (for other things named plankton, see here). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Gary North: Wikipedia and Google Will Bring Down Establishments All Over the World
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service. But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information available does a lot to fight evil. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
2009/8/19 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com: As for the British parliamentarian, I can't identify him. This was 2004, I really do not remember :-) If anyone who cares more than me wants to grovel through my edits from five years ago ... - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those! Keep an eye on notability guidance and content forking policy then, because they may get changed at some point to become amenable to this tack. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Gary North: Wikipedia and Google Will Bring Down Establishments All Over the World
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service. But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information available does a lot to fight evil. - d. Just wait until he runs into an evil liberal statist fiat-currency-loving article, tries to correct its shameful liberty-denying biases, and is reverted by its editors! -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Gary North: Wikipedia and Google Will Bring Down Establishments All Over the World
David Gerard wrote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service. But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information available does a lot to fight evil. It's certainly interesting. I never knew you couldn't do historical research without a rental car, for example. Or that decade meant period of a dozen years or so (Google did exist 10 years ago, to be dully pedantic). It is certainly on the money in suggesting Google's book-scanning project might change a great deal. But not, I think, on how. (Large accessible collections of information tend to give an edge to those who already know what to do with them.) The cost of writing history will fall. As Hexter wrote, bad history is not hard to write, anyway. The gatekeepers can no longer control the flow of information. Hah, but WP admins can. Hahahar. We be the maysters now. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Gary North: Wikipedia and Google Will Bring Down Establishments All Over the World
Then I suppose it does no good to show our esteemed anti-State/antiwar/anti-socialist what our mascot has to say about his blasphemies: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Don%27t_abbreviate_as_Wiki_%28English_version%29.png -MuZemike --- On Wed, 8/19/09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Gary North: Wikipedia and Google Will Bring Down Establishments All Over the World To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 3:25 PM http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service. But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information available does a lot to fight evil. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those! Will Johnson Out of curiosity... would you class Slashdot and Digg as tertiary sources ? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:59 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: The stable concept of deletionism isn't anything more than the waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, inclusionism sort of became a misnomer - few disagree that all subjects need to be 'included' - the disagreements deal with how they are treated. Eventualism and integrationism sort of came along a bit later, and these are the acually operant philosophies today. I've found I've changed over the last 4 or 5 years that I've been on WP. When I first joined a fought against the deletion of an unremarkable street because my thought was isn't it amazing that someone can find their *own* street* on Wikipedia! It will inspire editors because if people can find their own street they'll go WOW! and want to join in and add to this remarkable project. Now, more experienced and more cynical, I view Wikipedia as an increasingly large carpet that multitudes want to urinate on... with no growth in the number of cleaners. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Lunalunasan...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: OK the other side of the argument is Wikipedia is not paper. That is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in which to describe whatever we want. Indeed. Our size limitations are not physical, but logical. We're no longer limited by the number of paper pages one can bind together, nor by the number of bound volumes one can distribute, but rather by more abstract concepts of readability, usability, maintainability, and so on. I've been meaning for a while, now, to write a project-space essay encouraging a shift from notability to maintainability as a primary inclusion guideline. Lack of suitable sourcing makes maintenance difficult, because it's that much harder for us to be sure of accuracy and NPOV. If nothing else, the two ideas might complement each other well. I wrote a post... er, wow, 4 years ago... on why I am a mergist saying just about the same thing: Wiki is not paper doesn't mean there should be a page for everything; it means there doesn't *have* to be a page for everything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage/mergism I suppose my position is still similar; I don't think everything needs its own page as long as it's still easy to find what you're looking for. -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
I have no idea what you just ask. That's a lot of jargon for one question. -Original Message- From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes Will, simple question: do you accept that trivial disambiguations can be unencyclopedic and give the wrong impression, and if so, is having a neutral dab hatlink better than a jarring note being sounded at the top of a page, the first thing the reader will read after the title? OK, that was a long simple question... Carcharoth On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it makes sense to have a disamg page. I.E. there's a trade-off in having too many clicks, where it is? two items? or three? W.J In a message dated 8/19/2009 7:37:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, carcharot...@googlemail.com writes: If there really is a chance that people will search for plankton in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page (for other things named plankton, see here). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC...
The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes several secondary sources into one cohesive article. Let us first set-aside those works calling themselves encyclopedias when they are really specialist works that pretend to cover a subject area thoroughly which is a different animal altogether. Examining true encyclopedia articles, we can find an article on say Mary, Queen of Scots which itself may cite seven or ten other secondary works, as it's basis. Each of those works may be a few hundred pages long, but the enclyclopedia article is only perhaps a thousand words. So a true tertiary work, selects and summarizes (presumably the best) multiple-secondary-works per article. This was the in-project jargon. This is not in-general how a tertiary work is necessarily defined outside the project. I'm not familiar with slashdot and digg, but it seems they would, at least, not synthesize. Synthesis is a necessary part, in my mind, to the creation of a true encyclopedia article. All tertiary works are encyclopedias. Not all encyclopedias are tertiary works, since the word is bastardized by some. W.J. -Original Message- From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC... wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those! Will Johnson Out of curiosity... would you class Slashdot and Digg as tertiary sources ? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC...
In any subject, a tertiary work is almost by definition outdated. There will necessarily be 4 delays before new work can be recognized: A, The time to publish the new work, B The time for the reviewer to assimilate the new information by C. The time to write the review D. The time to publish the review. In fields where it matters, there are of course some media that try to shorten these steps, and some journals (such as Nature) sometimes publish commentary simultaneously with important papers. But in fields like the humanities, the cycle will normally take several years. Therefore there is a danger in relying exclusively upon such works. We sometimes use them for determining consensus in a field, but outside as well as inside Wikipedia, consensus can change long before the generally available texts recognize this. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes several secondary sources into one cohesive article. Let us first set-aside those works calling themselves encyclopedias when they are really specialist works that pretend to cover a subject area thoroughly which is a different animal altogether. Examining true encyclopedia articles, we can find an article on say Mary, Queen of Scots which itself may cite seven or ten other secondary works, as it's basis. Each of those works may be a few hundred pages long, but the enclyclopedia article is only perhaps a thousand words. So a true tertiary work, selects and summarizes (presumably the best) multiple-secondary-works per article. This was the in-project jargon. This is not in-general how a tertiary work is necessarily defined outside the project. I'm not familiar with slashdot and digg, but it seems they would, at least, not synthesize. Synthesis is a necessary part, in my mind, to the creation of a true encyclopedia article. All tertiary works are encyclopedias. Not all encyclopedias are tertiary works, since the word is bastardized by some. W.J. -Original Message- From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC... wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those! Will Johnson Out of curiosity... would you class Slashdot and Digg as tertiary sources ? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC...
Well to me, a review is not a tertiary work at all. Personally I think a tertiary work should only be considered those who synthesis multiple secondary works in an article on the same subject. This would be as opposed to commentary on a single secondary work as you seem to be stating below. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC... In any subject, a tertiary work is almost by definition outdated. There will necessarily be 4 delays before new work can be recognized: A, The time to publish the new work, B The time for the reviewer to assimilate the new information by C. The time to write the review D. The time to publish the review. In fields where it matters, there are of course some media that try to shorten these steps, and some journals (such as Nature) sometimes publish commentary simultaneously with important papers. But in fields like the humanities, the cycle will normally take several years. Therefore there is a danger in relying exclusively upon such works. We sometimes use them for determining consensus in a field, but outside as well as inside Wikipedia, consensus can change long before the generally available texts recognize this. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG 0A On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes several secondary sources into one cohesive article. Let us first set-aside those works calling themselves encyclopedias when they are really specialist works that pretend to cover a subject area thoroughly which is a different animal altogether. Examining true encyclopedia articles, we can find an article on say Mary, Queen of Scots which itself may cite seven or ten other secondary works, as it's basis. Each of those works may be a few hundred pages long, but the enclyclopedia article is only perhaps a thousand words. So a true tertiary work, selects and summarizes (presumably the best) multiple-secondary-works per article. This was the in-project jargon. This is not in-general how a tertiary work is necessarily defined outside the project. I'm not familiar with slashdot and digg, but it seems they would, at least, not synthesize. Synthesis is a necessary part, in my mind, to the creation of a true encyclopedia article. All tertiary works are encyclopedias. Not all encyclopedias are tertiary works, since the word is bastardized by some. W.J. -Original Message- From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC... wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability, in fact perhaps the ultimate form of it, trouncing secondaries quite roundly, since they in-fact pick the most notable topics to report out of those! Will Johnson Out of curiosity... would you class Slashdot and Digg as tertiary sources ? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
