On 15 February 2011 20:18, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Arguably the answer is "yes", back to the 16th century at least. There
> has actually been quite a lot of havoc onsite over stub MP biographies
> during the past year, but it transpires that there are pretty good
> sources back to 1660, and usu
On 15/02/2011 18:17, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 15/02/2011, geni wrote:
>> On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard wrote:
>>> Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
>>> really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
>>> biographies???
>>> Because that
Interesting post in Lorcan Dempsey's blog (influential librarian-blogger)
relates two interesting stories (neither of which are unique/new to us, but
interesting nevertheless):
"Using Wikipedia" February 13: http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/002155.html
Story one.
"Edward Glaeser includes a refe
On 15 February 2011 18:17, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 15/02/2011, geni wrote:
>> On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard wrote:
>>> Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
>>> really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
>>> biographies???
>>> Becau
On 15 February 2011 04:00, Ian Woollard wrote:
> I then checked the British biography 'Who's who'. They have about
> 30,000 entries, but that's only about 1 person in 2000 in Great
> Britain, so even less.
This is actually quite an interesting angle to come at the problem from.
Who's Who has 34
On 15/02/2011, geni wrote:
> On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard wrote:
>> Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
>> really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable
>> biographies???
>> Because that's what that page is assuming to calculate that
On 15 February 2011 16:19, Ian Woollard wrote:
> Yeah, really. That page claims we only have 3% of notable Poles. Are you
> really, seriously, telling me we only have 3% of ALL notable biographies???
> Because that's what that page is assuming to calculate that 40 million.
It's possible. Our cove
On 15 February 2011 04:33, geni wrote:
> On 15 February 2011 04:00, Ian Woollard wrote:
> > Anyway, so I stop there. Even 40 million appears completely
> > unsupportable. It looks like it's off again by about another order of
> > magnitude.
>
> Oh really?
>
Yeah, really. That page claims we onl
On 14/02/2011 22:31, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> If something like WYSIWYG
> editing were to bring in a new wave of editors then the model would
> break and it would be possible to think in terms of how many potential
> articles qualify.
I think there is a point here. There are certainly a number
On 15 February 2011 11:22, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:33 AM, geni wrote:
>
>> We can establish a lower
>> bound since the Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over
>> 1,335,000 biographies.
>
> The 2007 edition of the ODNB (British biographical history) has
> "50,1
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:33 AM, geni wrote:
> We can establish a lower
> bound since the Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center contains over
> 1,335,000 biographies.
The 2007 edition of the ODNB (British biographical history) has
"50,113 biographical articles covering 54,922 lives". What cri
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:03 AM, geni wrote:
> I'm not sure that judging a project with 3 million articles based on a
> sample of just one article a great idea.
That was tongue-in-cheek, but a reminder to be wary of the state of an
article. I wonder whether the recent editing history should be m
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:59, Fred Bauder wrote:
> 10 controversial Wikipedia topics:
>
> http://www.deseretnews.com/top/97/10-controversial-Wikipedia-topics.html
>
This is really goofy. Having lots of footnotes doesn't make something
controversial. It makes it well-sourced. Sometimes the reason
Reminder: this is 15 minutes.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Guillaume Paumier
wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As you may know, the Wikimedia teach team has started to upgrade
> MediaWiki on some wikis. MediaWiki is the software that runs all
> Wikimedia wikis.
>
> The most visible change for Wikimedi
14 matches
Mail list logo
