-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The concern is legitimate, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is
usually in the top ranks of any Google search. But, Wikipedia is one
site out of God-knows-how-many on the Internet, and /someone/ has to
take the top search ranking on Google. If
Point one. I do not presuppose the existence of a single god who is
omnipotent. After all, if you believe in one omnipotent god, it
doesn't take any leap to believe that that number may be more than one.
I tend to write without the use of capitals at times. You assume my
religious
Why couldn't the logs be released to the public ?
-Original Message-
From: FastLizard4 fastliza...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] IRC Group Contacts Surgery, August 2009
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 19:32, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of
discussions. I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if I
asked. I asked, and was denied. Until IRC commits itself to openness, it
should have
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, FastLizard4 wrote:
The concern is legitimate, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is
usually in the top ranks of any Google search. But, Wikipedia is one
site out of God-knows-how-many on the Internet, and /someone/ has to
take the top search ranking on Google. If it
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:43 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Point one. I do not presuppose the existence of a single god who is
omnipotent. After all, if you believe in one omnipotent god, it
doesn't take any leap to believe that that number may be more than one.
I tend to write without the
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, FastLizard4 wrote:
The concern is legitimate, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is
usually in the top ranks of any Google search. But, Wikipedia is one
site out of God-knows-how-many on the
On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:46 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting
article
on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat
inconsistent references to wikipedia.
Here's the article:
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
To psychologists, to render the Rorschach test meaningless would be a
particularly painful development because there has been so much
research conducted — tens of thousands of papers, by Dr.
Keegan Paul wrote:
Was that English? :D
~Keegan
Irclish perhaps? ;-)
Ec
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:27 PM, FastLizard4 fastliza...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It should be noted that you can, like every other freenode user that
wants to keep
Ben Kovitz wrote:
The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able
to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it.
By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered
82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Sage Ross wrote:
This is very different from Brian Peppers. The rich body of research
on these tests (too much for anyone to easily digest) actually points
to the need for a Wikipedia-style summary of the relevant data. It's
one thing to say that the general public
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the
Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for
much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as
scientific when exposed to open criticism. It's not
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the
Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for
much longer.
the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of
follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was
able
to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it.
By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference
answered
82 per cent of questions. 'If
2009/7/31 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able
to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it.
By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered
82
That our own foolishness. this is information that essentially
everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is
available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries
(slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with
absolutely impeccable official
17 matches
Mail list logo
