On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote:
> "Todd Allen" wrote in message
> news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83...@mail.gmail.com...
> regarding http://www.fractint.org/
> (...)
>> If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for
>> distribution rights at som
Stay Gruntled.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Todd Allen" wrote in message
news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83...@mail.gmail.com...
regarding http://www.fractint.org/
(...)
> If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for
> distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they
> don't pay up", i
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> We're shrinking because we've already written most of the stuff we
>> want to include.
>
> This is orthogonal to the main conversation here, but this is not nearly the
> case.
>
I'm just starting adding a list of the members of the (US) National
Academy of Engineering. we have only about 1% of them covered by
articles. there are dozens of fields like that where we haven't even
begun on the obvious. We have probably a similar coverage for pre 1990
US state legislators in a
I wonder about how much of the fruit we've gathered. The plant WikiProject
has about 30,000 articles, which include a mixture of articles about plant
species, plant morphology and anatomy, and plant biologists. There are
close to 300,000 plant species in the world. If we're only in the 5-10%
ran
2009/2/16 Phil Nash :
> I think the downside might be exactly what is covered by [[WP:NOT]] at
> present, and especially [[WP:NOR]]; I've seen several articles that were
> extremely worthy as research projects, but offended against those policies,
> and [[WP:SYNTH]] in particular. I hated to nomina
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/16 Phil Nash :
>>> I think that this was bound to happen; any venture based on
>>> describing the known universe has an inherent limit in any case,
>>> and it seems obvious that once you've reached some level of
>>> coverage, what happens then is more determined by th
2009/2/16 :
> Another example is that the vast majority of our articles on US
> Counties have next to nothing about the county history. That is, when
> was the county formed? What land was it formed out of? Did the
> boundaries change over time? What was the first city laid out? Who
> were the f
Another example is that the vast majority of our articles on US
Counties have next to nothing about the county history. That is, when
was the county formed? What land was it formed out of? Did the
boundaries change over time? What was the first city laid out? Who
were the first few documentat
2009/2/16 Phil Nash :
> I think that this was bound to happen; any venture based on describing the
> known universe has an inherent limit in any case, and it seems obvious that
> once you've reached some level of coverage, what happens then is more
> determined by the pace of real life events. Howe
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/16 Sage Ross :
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> wrote:
>>>
I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements
based on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a
logistic curve which levels out at around
2009/2/16 Sage Ross :
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based
>> on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic
>> curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around
>> 2
This isn't actually accurate. Wikipedia may have reached the point where
most people find it includes most of the stuff *that has been traditionally
found in encylopedias* they carry around in their heads.
Wikipedia is not paper.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/16 Charles
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based
> on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic
> curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around
> 2013-14. (It's asymptotic, but it
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews :
> Yeah, well, my reaction to the whole "fruit" discussion is that it is
> systemic-bias-lite.
Maybe but that doesn't address the problem. Wikipedia has already
reached the point where most people find it includes most of the stuff
they carry around in their heads. As a
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/16 Charles Matthews :
>>
>>> I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its
>>> potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life
>>> around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/16 Charles Matthews :
>
>> I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its
>> potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life
>> around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done.
>>
>
> Indeed. Current pre
I would include biography as well.
We are heavily weighted toward moderns, who are also, not coincidentally,
the easiest to research using Google.
That will change as more people get more familiar with using Google Books
instead to research the biographies of people who have been more forgotten
Ha! That's user:Ragesoss, real name Sage Ross, who is taking over the
'Post. Clearly I need a good editor before my stories go to print!
-- phoebe
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the newest issue of the The Wikipedia Signpost:
> http://en.wikipedia.
I'm pleased to announce the newest issue of the The Wikipedia Signpost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
which has several important changes:
* A new editor: User:Sageross has agreed to take over as editor in
chief from User:Ral315, who was editor from Sept. 2005-Dec. 2008
Forwarded from foundation-l.
At the time of writing we have 7272 links to *.yu sites on enwp; I'm
not offhand sure how many of those are in articlespace, but it looks
like a fair proportion.
Anyone interested in taking on the task of replacing them?
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Sage Ross wrote:
>
> I don't disagree. I'm just saying we should think of Citizendium as
> another (small) place for people to produce free content similar to
> the kind Wikipedia produces, as a potential collaborator with
> Wikipedia rather than a competitor (which isn't realistic, if it ever
> w
2009/2/16 Thomas Dalton :
> 30% by articles, maybe, but they were stubs weren't they, so it won't
> be 30% by words. (That may explain why their articles are longer on
> average.) Incidentally, I don't think Rambot articles were that
> significant - if you look at the graphs, rate of growth didn't
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews :
> I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its
> potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life
> around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done.
Indeed. Current predictions show growth in terms of article n
George Herbert wrote:
> There are
> whole fields of engineering and science that we have barely scratched the
> surface of at the moment.
>
>
I think that's right. Engineering is not one of Wikipedia's strong
areas, I believe, though I hardly spend time on that.
I do spend time on history -
2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll :
>> My calculations come out as about 1/10 the size by articles and 1/3
>> the size by words (so their articles must be longer on average).
>
> About 30% of the volume of WP at the time consisted of Rambot articles,
> which aren't too interesting as a measurement of
2009/2/16 George Herbert :
> We've picked off a lot of low hanging fruit, approaching all of it. Things
We've picked up all the fruit that's actually on the ground with neon
signs pointing to it. There's lots of low hanging fruit, e.g.:
> A month-ish ago, I spent a week putting together an ar
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> We're shrinking because we've already written most of the stuff we
> want to include.
>
This is orthogonal to the main conversation here, but this is not nearly the
case.
We've picked off a lot of low hanging fruit, approaching all of it.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> They've been going for over two years, if they were going to have a
> big recruitment push wouldn't they have done so by now? But really,
> trying to recruit writers is the wrong way round, they need to recruit
> readers, that's where the wr
Thomas Dalton schreef:
> I don't see a claim of exponential growth (which would be complete
> rubbish), just "good news". I don't think linear growth (even slightly
> below linear) is good news, personally.
I exaggerated somewhat. But he has spoken about ongoing exponential
growth before, so it an
2009/2/16 Sage Ross :
> However, I don't think we should think of Citizendium as having
> failed. Certainly, it has failed to realize Sanger's and a few
> others' hopes to be on its way to eclipsing Wikipedia. But CZ has a
> fairly stable community; it's shrinking a little, but so is
> Wikipedia'
2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll :
> Thomas Dalton schreef:
>> I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get
>> the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking
>> (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size
>> where anyone actuall
Thomas Dalton schreef:
> I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get
> the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking
> (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size
> where anyone actually uses it.
I've had a bit of an argume
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get
> the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking
> (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size
> where anyone actually uses
Carcharoth schreef:
> Weirdly, most of the history is not there:
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy&action=history
>
> But has been moved to a draft page:
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy/Draft&action=history
That's how they do that there. The approved page i
2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll :
> Charles Matthews schreef:
>> Guess what - sometimes you have to put up with the pesky
>> business of people needing to argue the matter out on talk pages.
>
> I've been following CZ for some time, and one gets the feeling that
> Larry Sanger doesn't really like ar
Charles Matthews schreef:
> Guess what - sometimes you have to put up with the pesky
> business of people needing to argue the matter out on talk pages.
I've been following CZ for some time, and one gets the feeling that
Larry Sanger doesn't really like arguementsi, or open discussion.
One of th
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this:
>
> Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama.
> The more movies you rate, the better your recommendations will be.
>
> My first thought was that they were going to start suggesting areas
> of Wiki
Agreeing in large part with George's insightful commentary. Adding a few
points outside the range of his comments.
Regarding block duration, extremely short blocks tend to backfire. Human
nature is that people usually become less grumpy after a good meal and a
night's rest. Nearly everyone will
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> wrote:
>>>
2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> I say, let them congregate on Citizendium. We should have a template
>> {{trycitizendium}} that we can post on the pages of our more aggressive POV
>> pushers.
>
>
> The template need not limit itself to Citizendium, though t
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
>>>
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
>>> No... the "free" part sho
on 2/16/09 12:32 PM, Jon at scr...@datascreamer.com wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Friends,
>
> I'm going into the field for the next three weeks. This means that I
> won't have internet for about four weeks. I've been particularly
> inactive for the past two week
Nathan wrote:
> I say, let them congregate on Citizendium. We should have a template
> {{trycitizendium}} that we can post on the pages of our more aggressive POV
> pushers.
The template need not limit itself to Citizendium, though the symbolism
of having it in the template name has a certain va
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friends,
I'm going into the field for the next three weeks. This means that I
won't have internet for about four weeks. I've been particularly
inactive for the past two weeks, in preparation for the field I've not
had much time. I've brought everyt
David Gerard wrote:
> Which in practice will end up a bit like this:
> http://reinderdijkhuis.com/wordpress/2009/02/12/citizendium-the-encyclopedia-only-pro-homeopathy-editors-can-edit/
>
> Precis: experts are not a panacea.
>
Mmmm, Larry of course does have a valid point in there, which is that
What Citizendium's Homeopathy article shows more than anything is that a
wide base of editors, and therefore a wide audience, is essential for the
success of Wikipedia or any similar project. The article shows a distinct
lack of the cleansing effects of sunlight; few people read it, few people
cont
On 16/02/2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
> The good articles are good basically because smart people take the
> trouble to research them and write them to a decent standard. The
> article on topic X is good, when it is, not usually because A, an expert
> on X, has filled it with A's expert knowledge
2009/2/16 Carcharoth :
> One thing that strikes me is that both articles are difficult to read
> and poorly written. In other words, when something is controversial
> and has a high rate of editing, the readability quality invariably
> decreases in the ensuing chaos.
That doesn't just apply to con
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> However, the Citizendium article on homeopathy is still an
> NPOV disaster.
I hadn't visited Citizendium for ages.
It is an interesting exercise to read through the Wikipedia article on
Homeopathy and the Citizendium one, and see the stre
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows:
>
> 1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit
> quality.
>
> 2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive.
>
> 3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality.
>
> 4. Aggressive people who wo
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews :
> K. Peachey wrote:
> >'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of
> experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger.
> 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert
> decision-making would be lik
K. Peachey wrote:
> Just a Heads Up slashdot has new article about wikipedia up and it's
> use of experts - "The Role of Experts In Wikipedia"
> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/0210251
>
>Sanger says the main reason that Wikipedia's articles are as good as
they are is that the
Well... that does happen. It's basically WP:OWNership. I find that
ownership usually, but not always, stops an article reaching its
maximum quality and/or coverage.
But ownership doesn't seem to dominate the wikipedia. And sometimes if
the owner really is really good then the article can end up ju
Oh Oh Oh sorry!!!
Gratis.
That happens to me when I do two things at the same time.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:15, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Alvaro García wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with
> > 'ware', it's because it's free (li
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Alvaro García wrote:
> Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with
> 'ware', it's because it's free (libre).
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
You've just contradicted yourself - you were right the first time.
Nathan
__
Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with
'ware', it's because it's free (libre).
--
Alvaro
On 16-02-2009, at 10:50, Sam Korn wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote:
>> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
>>> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
>>> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
>>
>> No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
>
> But
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
>> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
>
> No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre
2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
> Oh, but what I mean is that "freeware" means "free (gratis) software", not
> "free (libre) software"
Indeed, it does.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https:
Oh, but what I mean is that "freeware" means "free (gratis) software", not
"free (libre) software"
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:47, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
> > Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
>
> No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware"
2009/2/16 Alvaro García :
> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this ma
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
>>>
>> Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts
>> on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem
Do you frequently get *confirmation* e-mails? How many times do you
sign up?
--
Alvaro
On 16-02-2009, at 10:18, "Daniel R. Tobias" wrote:
> My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this:
>
> Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama.
> The more movies you rate, the b
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
--
Alvaro
On 16-02-2009, at 2:57, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote:
>> That's the description of the license on the software from
>> http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under
My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this:
Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama.
The more movies you rate, the better your recommendations will be.
My first thought was that they were going to start suggesting areas
of Wikipedia internal politics for me to ge
Will Johnson, he wasn't being incivil, he was being frankincivility is *
never* warranted
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
>>
> Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts
> on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem her
Carl Beckhorn wrote:
> Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a viewpoint that would be
> worth reading even if the author were anonymous. In particular, the
> following claim is quite accurate to my experience:
>
> Over the long term, the quality of a given Wikipedia article will do a
>
Patton 123 wrote:
> "I hate Ottava Rima" (An editor) is clearly incivility
>
I don't find that uncivil at all, especially not in the context in which
it was found. It says nothing about Ottava Rima. Instead, the speaker
is saying something about himself.
Ec
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:13
2009/2/16 :
> Marc I will not continue the discussion with you, until you apologize for
> stating that "I was a big part of the problem".
> I find that remark highly offensive and a personal attack. That you
> apparently don't see that seems relatively curious to me.
Not in the slightest.
The
72 matches
Mail list logo
