[WikiEN-l] Cubans start online encyclopedia
G'day folks, Reuters reports that Cuba has started its own online encyclopedia. http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE6BD02E20101214?sp=true Cuba has begun its own online encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia, with the goal of presenting its version of the world and history. It describes its longtime ideological enemy, the United States, as the empire of our time and the most powerful nation of all time. EcuRed (www.ecured.cu) will be launched officially on Tuesday, but it was already up and running on Monday, with 19,345 entries. It was developed to create and disseminate the knowledge of all and for all, from Cuba and with the world, the site said. Users supposedly will be able to update entries with prior approval from EcuRed administrators. Its philosophy is the accumulation and development of knowledge, with a democratizing, not profitable, objective, from a decolonizer point of view, the site said. (More in story) Regards *Keith Old * -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] Webypedia - an alternative to Wikipedia
G'day folks, Killer Startups reports: http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikipedia Do we need yet another online encyclopediahttp://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikipedia#that is powered by the people a la Wikipedia? It seems we do, as that is exactly what WEBYpedia is all about. It is an encyclopedia entirely fuelled by users. Anybody can contribute to it, in the way that he wishes: by creating a new post, by modifying an existing one, by leaving a comment with his own ruminations on anything that has been published… But if we were to compare it with Wikipedia http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikipedia#, it would be necessary to mention that there is one difference at play. Granted, it is merely a technical one but it is a difference all the same: WEBYpedia is a blog encyclopedia. This means that contributing an article is considerably easier than submitting anything to Wikipedia. Any person who has ever blogged will know how to do it. Still, that is unlikely to make people desert Wikipedia and turn to this site massively. Wikipedia has got a prestige that is hard to take down. I guess that those who always think that it’s convenient to have alternatives to go around will check WEBYpedia out. I am not sure about the rest. This is their website. There seems to be a lot of how to material there. http://webypedia.com/ -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)
Folks, The LA Times health blog Booster Shots reports: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/06/three-cheers-for-wikipedias-cancer-info-well-two-and-a-half-cheers.html As it turns out, information on Wikipedia can largely be trusted, at least as it pertains to cancer. That should be a relief both to patients and to the doctors who care for them. The entries in the user-edited online encyclopedia often show up high atop search-engine results, and many users likely have taken their content at face value. But that content's reliability has been in doubt. After all, it's created by users, not traditional experts. (Don't use Wikipedia, earnest eighth-graders in search of homework help are told.) Now researchers at Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia have done their own analysis of that content, comparing Wikipedia information on 10 types of cancer to information found in the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query. The entries were solid, the researchers found, at least in terms of key points. Way to go, online writers and editors! But they were also quite dense. Tsk -- points subtracted due to lack of clarity, online writers and editors. The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical Oncologyhttp://chicago2010.asco.org/: Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth to the professionally edited database, it was significantly less readable. Further research is required to assess how this influences patients' understanding and retention. Here's the abstract of the Wikipedia analysishttp://abstract.asco.org/AbstView_74_41625.html; one of the researcher's commentshttp://www.jeffersonhospital.org/News/2010-june-cancer-information.aspx, as presented in the university's news release; and the aforementioned Physician Data Query http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq, a peer-reviewed cancer database. Surely, no one needs help finding Wikipedia. But here's how it's createdhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About, worth reading now more than ever. http://abstract.asco.org/AbstView_74_41625.html The abstract of the analysis is here: Regards *Keith* -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] Wikipedia trumps Britannica
Folks, According to John Graham-Cumming, Wikipedia is a better resource for researchers than Britannica. http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britannia http://newstilt.com/notthatkindofdoctor/news/wikipedia-trumps-britanniaWhile writing The Geek Atlas I used both Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia for research. It quickly became obvious that Wikipedia trumps Britannica. ... While researching the history of places appearing in my book, The Geek Atlashttp://geekatlas.com/, I used a lot of different resources. ... But the most useful resource was Wikipedia http://wikipedia.org/. At the start of writing the book I bought myself a subscription toEncyclopedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/ because I was worried that Wikipedia might be inaccurate. What I discovered was that Wikipedia trumps Britanncia all the time because its articles are in more depth and provide better references. And the site design means that Wikipedia is easily navigable and focuses on the content, whereas Britannica’s site assaults the eyes with distractions. Initially, I’d find myself double-checking facts on Wikipedia by looking in Britannica. I’d read that Boltzmannhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann died on September 5, 1906 on Wikipedia and jump to Britannica to check the datehttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72401/Ludwig-Eduard-Boltzmann/72401main/Article#toc=toc9080519 . After weeks of doing this I realized that Britannica wasn’t helping. Any errors I found on Wikipedia were because I was reading original source material (see for example this correctionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experimentdiff=248412125oldid=248347239 ). And more often than not I was finding original source material via Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia has a policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability of linking to reliable sources it turned out to be a wonderful starting point for research. Britannica, on the other hand, appears to view its role as being the reliable source. Because it is edited and managed, part of its brand is reliability. This leads to a sort of self-sufficiency which contrasts with Wikipedia’s need to prove its reliability constantly. The beauty of being forced to prove reliability is the wealth of third-party links provided by Wikipedia. For example, when reading about the Miller-Urey Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment you’ll find a link to Miller’s 1953 paperhttp://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf describing the experiment. If you search for “Miller Urey Experiment” on Britannica the best you’ll find is a short (248 words) article about Stanley Miller that mentions the experiment. There are no links to external web sites concerning the experiment, and no references to material such as academic papers. So Wikipedia’s supposed ‘unreliability’ actually plays to enhance its reliability and usefulness because it’s forced to continuously declare where a particular fact was found. At the same time Britannica is a walled garden of truth. After a few weeks I canceled my Britannica subscription and worked solely with Wikipedia as a starting point for research. I never relied on Wikipedia as the sole source of information, but it was always a marvelous spring board to get me started. The richness of Wikipedia trumped the hallowed reliability of Britannica. -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] At University of Denver, Journalism Students Required to Write Wikipedia Entries
Folks, From Resource Shelf http://www.resourceshelf.com/2010/03/25/at-university-of-denver-journalism-students-required-to-write-wikipedia-entries/ College students know the online resource of which they dare not speak: Wikipedia, the voluminous internet encyclopedia demonized by many in higher education—and a resource that two University of Denver instructors use as a centerpiece of their curriculum. Denver journalism students are writing Wikipedia entries as part of a curriculum that stresses online writing and content creation as readers move to the web en masse. Journalism instructors Lynn Schofield Clark and Christof Demont-Heinrich said students are told to check their sourcing carefully, just as they would for an assignment at a local newspaper. [Snip] Students in the university’s Media, Film, and Journalism Studies Department have composed 24 Wikipedia articles this year, covering everything from the gold standard to San Juan Mountains to bimettalism, an antiquated monetary standard. Demont-Heinrich said the Wikipedia entries didn’t require old-school shoe leather reporting—because the online encyclopedia bars the use of original quotes—but they taught students how to thoroughly research a topic* before publishing to a site viewed by more than 68 million people a month… * We wonder if the University of Denver library, librarians, and library resources were part of the training? Sorry if someone has already posted this. -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] Contextual text in Wikipedia
G'day folks, Google has announced that it has developed a custom search skin for Wikipedia. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/contextual-search-within-wikipedia.html We are excited to announce that we've built a Custom Search Wikipedia skinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Csewiki that makes it easier for you to complete your research on Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows users to register and personalize their Wikipedia environment via the configuration of options and the use of styles or skins. Just log in to Wikipedia, enable the Custom Search skinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Csewiki and you'll have quick access to relevant Google Custom Search results from Wikipedia. With the Custom Search skin, your search results are conveniently placed inline on the page. After you've reviewed the results, you can dismiss them and return to the current article of interest without having to switch to a different tab on your browser; you can access the relevant Wikipedia articles right within the Wikipedia interface. The Custom Search skin also features contextual search — searching across different sets of pages as you navigate Wikipedia. For Wikipedia pages with a lot of information and links, contextual search lets you limit your search to only those Wikipedia pages that are linked from the current article, focusing the results on the topic of the article. So, in addition to getting all matching Wikipedia articles, you can quickly drill down to contextually relevant results using the Linked Wikipedia Pages tab. For example, searching for [sequence] from a Wikipedia page on DNAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA provides a list of relevant results about DNA sequences and DNA sequence alignment, instead of the many pages about sequenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_%28disambiguation%29 (in mathematics, poetry, music, games, etc.) that aren't relevant. Similarly, searching within the DNA page for [bonds] gives you results in chemistry and biochemistry, instead of other information about financial instruments and social sciences. This will help you perform more directed research, often with shorter queries, and get to relevant Wikipedia articles faster. More in story -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ 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] Imagine if Wikipedia was printed
g'day folks, Imagine if Wikipedia was printed. http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed We'd need a lot of trees. 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
[WikiEN-l] What happens when you're unhappy with the Wikipedia article on your town
Folks, From the Sonora Union Democrat. http://www.uniondemocrat.com/2009090897749/News/Local-News/Wikipedia-vandal-trashes-Sonora-in-online-posts *Sonora has entered the debate over the accuracy of Wikipedia. * *For two days last month, the city’s entry on the user-edited online encyclopedia described the town as a racist, elitist backwater. * *Wikipedia has come under scrutiny over the years for inaccuracies due to its policy of allowing the public to generate new entries and edit existing ones. Defenders of the Wikipedia, though, say it utilizes the wisdom of the masses and is generally no less accurate than print encyclopedias. * *Whatever the case, Wikipedia is nonetheless currently considering making its entries harder to edit, possibly by enlisting a number of expert gatekeepers. * *Sonora’s entry makes a case for the proposed policy change. * *From Aug. 23 to 25, according to Wikipedia’s records, less-than-flattering edits by someone with the user name “Vayne,” who claimed to be a 21-year-old Sacramento college student named Michael, could be found throughout Sonora’s Wikipedia page, which dates back to 2002. * *Vayne said Sonora’s lack of racial and ethnic diversity, non-Christian places of worship and economic opportunities make it an uninviting place for some. * *“Many (Sonorans) are of higher economic standing and tend to be unwelcoming to visitors without money,” Vayne wrote. “Visitors new to the area or who might be considered ‘ethnic’ should prepare for the high level of ethnic disparity by blending as best as possible. ... Most Latinos have sought work and opportunity elsewhere where they are less likely to be judged due to economic standing, skin color, or a linguistic barrier.” * *Vayne also weighed in on homelessness in Sonora, saying, “The local government literally ignores the homeless problem.” * *The entry was spotted by a Sonora resident on Aug. 24, who contacted Board of Supervisors member Liz Bass, who represents the city, and asked her to do something about it. Bass got some local staffers on the job of restoring Sonora’s entry. * *Bass said the unflattering entry amounted to “cyber-vandalism.” * *“It sounds like a disgruntled person who didn’t get what they wanted out of this experience,” Bass said. “I’ve lived here 37 years. Obviously, we do have shopping centers, a homeless shelter downtown, a bypass and people of color do live here.” * *Vayne had claimed that Sonora lacked malls, divided highways and homeless shelters. * *Monty Youngborg, a retired volunteer for the Tuolumne County History Museum, who does technical work for the museum, likes the idea of Wikipedia tweaking its policy, saying its editors “should have some verified pedigree.” * *“You get these people, maybe they got into trouble with the cops, who can really make a mess and put out a lot of untruths,” Youngborg said. “You never know what sets people off.” * *Youngborg called Wikipedia a “valuable tool,” which he uses often. * *He said the more technical the entry, usually the more accurate it is. * *Because of the plethora of false or biased data available not just on Wikipedia but throughout the entire Internet, Youngborg recommends that people use a “jaundiced eye” when surfing the Web. * *“I think people are going to have to get a little more calloused at the Internet,” Youngborg said.* This is our current article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora,_California Regards *Keith Old* ___ 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] PR firm accused of whitewashing Wikipedia article on Maldives
Minivan News, an independent article on the Maldives, has published accusations that a PR company whitewashed an article on the Maldives. A data-mining tool called WikiScanner http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ has purportedly revealed PR firm Hill Knowlton deleted a number of statements critical of the former government while they were employed by ex-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. According to the online tool, edits on the Wikipedia entry, *Politics of the Maldives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Maldives*, included the removal of the following*passagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prevoldid=15778660 *: “President Gayoom has systematically suppressed any and all political activity in the Maldives. His use of election rigging and imprisonment of political activists have all ensured that he went unchallenged for over 26 years in office. “President Gayoom routinely uses torture, propaganda, and censorship as a means to cling on to political power. “Independent news media is non-existent. The three running dailies are controlled by cabinet ministers of President Gayoom.” The company further moderated language on the absence of political parties in the Maldives, writing instead: “The Maldivian political system was based around the election of individuals, rather than the more common system of elections according to party platform.” (...) Critics of the former regime allege Hill Knowlton was hired by ex-President Gayoom’s government to help him improve the country’s image following growing civil unrest and allegations of human rights abuses. But speaking to Minivan News today, Mohamed Hussein Shareef (Mundhu), spokesperson for Gayoom, said the company was recruited in early 2004, not to whitewash the government’s activities but to teach officials how to interface with the international media and develop a communications strategy. On the changes made to Wikipedia, he said he did not believe them to be illegitimate due to the questionable authority of the online encyclopedia, which can be edited by anyone. “Wikipedia is a point of view or an opinion. The MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) used to play with the Wikipedia page on Gayoom all the time,” he said. “Just as someone has the right to call our government a human rights abusing government, as a government we had the right to say, no we’re not.” (More in article) 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] PR firm accused of whitewashing Wikipedia article on Maldives
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/2 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com: (More in article) I think you forgot the link to the article. ;) -- Regards, Isabell Long. isabell...@gmail.com [[User:Isabell121]] on all public Wikimedia projects. Freenode Community Co-Ordinator - issyl0 on irc.freenode.net PGP Key ID: 0xB6CA6840 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Isabell, So I did. http://www.minivannews.com/news_detail.php?id=7202 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
[WikiEN-l] Wired: Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text
Folks, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/ Wired reports: *Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.* *More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, **Wikipedia*http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/www.wikipedia.org * has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.* *Now, researchers from the **Wiki Lab* http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/* at the University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf. Called **WikiTrust*http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page *, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.* *Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view and edit the new text, it gradually gains more “trust” and turns from orange to white.* 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
[WikiEN-l] Look This Up on Wikipedia: How Big Is Too Big?
Folks, The New York Times Bits blog has a small section on Wikimania. Considering that Wikipediahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org has reached Top Five world status among Web sites – with more than 330 million users – its annual Wikimania conference, which ended Friday night in Buenos Aires, featured a lot of hand-wringing about all the problems the project faces. After emerging on the scene less than a decade ago, growth is slowing down. Why? Are new contributors being scared away? Are there too many rules? Why are the biggest players in the community overwhelmingly men? And white? And will Wikipedia ever become a true global phenomenon, as relevant to the lives of people in the third world as it is in the developed world? Like a freelancer suddenly overwhelmed with assignments, Wikipedians often found themselves looking back at the sleepy days when they were largely left alone. Scratch that. Maybe the better comparison is to the successful journalists who look back to the time when they were so busy they never had time to reflect. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/look-this-up-on-wikipedia-how-big-is-too-big/ (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
[WikiEN-l] New York Times: Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People
G'day folks, The New York Times reports on flagged revisions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?partner=rssemc=rss Wikipediahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org, one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web, was founded about eight years ago as a long-shot experiment to create a free encyclopedia from the contributions of volunteers, all with the power to edit, and presumably improve, the content. Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed. Officials at the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home, the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people. The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. (More in article) Regards *Keith Old* ___ 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] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000 species
G'day folks, Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000 species. http://www.physorg.com/news170396645.html The Encyclopedia of Life, an online project launched in 2007 with the aim of creating a webpage on every known animal and plant species, has reached 150,000 entries in its second year. * * * In a statement marking the anniversary, the collaborative project said close to two million people from more than 200 countries had contributed to the website (www.eol.org). Users can create a page that describes a plant or animal with text, images or both. The information is then submitted to experts, verified and made available for free. The project's creators hope to accumulate a page for every 1.8 million animal and plant species http://www.physorg.com/tags/plant+species/ known to scientists over 10 years. More in article. This would compare well with Wikipedia's progress over a similar period. 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
[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
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Art dispute pits artists against Wikimedia Foundation
Folks, Ars Technica reports: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars Wikipedia uses plenty of copyrighted material and trademarks under the doctrine of fair use. But a trademark infringement lawsuit against a couple of artists would put the Wikimedia Foundation on the opposite side of the fair use fight. Two artists attempted to create a performance art piece by establishing a Wikipedia entry entitled Wikipedia Art, which could then be freely edited and transformed by anyone choosing to do so. The page lasted a mere 15 hours before being summarily deleted by Wikipedia editors and admins. Now, the pair's archive and continuing discussion of the project is being threatened by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, which has effectively threatened to pursue legal action against the artists for trademark infringement. More in article 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
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has 97 per cent of online encyclopedia market
G'day folks, E-consultancy claims that Wikipedia dominates the online encyclopedia market. http://econsultancy.com/blog/3185-wikipedia-has-97-of-the-encyclopedia-market-online *Online collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia has a massive 97% share of internet visits among the top five reference websites, highlighting the amount of work that rivals like Britannica.com have to catch up.* Britannica.com announced some new Wikipedia-style community featureshttp://econsultancy.com/blog/3176-encyclopedia-britannica-takes-a-page-from-wikipedia last week as it attempts to make up some of the ground lost to Wikipedia. According to stats from Hitwisehttp://weblogs.hitwise.com/us-heather-hopkins/2009/01/britannica_20_wikipedia_gets_9.html, it currently has just 0.57% of US internet visits to the encyclopedia category. Other reference sites like MSN Encarta and Encyclopedia.com also trail way behind Wikipedia, but Britannica.com comes bottom in this category: (More in story) Regards Keith Old ___ 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] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
G'day folks, From the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/battle-to-outgun-wikipedia-and-google/2009/01/22/1232471469973.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version. New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, * Britannica's* president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview today. (More in story) Regards Keith Old ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
