http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/gfc-web-cc-announce
I'm pleased to announce that the Web/CC edition of *Good Faith
Collaboration* is [now available]. In addition to all of the book's
complete content, hypertextual goodness, and [fixed errata], there is
a [new preface] discussing
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011, Carcharoth wrote:
[Bit off-topic, but has anyone read that book?]
Yes, here's my summary:
Numerous Wikipedian vignettes and debates are used to explore issues
including reliability, verifiability, neutrality, and criticism. Also
includes historical parallels.
On Friday, January 14, 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sure, Jimmy is certainly capable of making mistakes, but unless there
is evidence to suggest that he did it seems sensible to me to assume
that he is correct. As you say, it's not a critical piece of
information so we don't need to try and
I've seen both Wales and Gardner (e.g., [1]) note that Wikipedia began with
Wales typing in Hello World.
[1]:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/12/wikipedia-internet
That's a neat historical fact, but is there a source? From the Starling archive
it appears the
On Monday, January 10, 2011, Tony Sidaway wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_03/b4211057979684.htm
I'm curious about Wales calling Wikipedia a temple of the mind; that's some
high-falutin verbiage! The earliest instance I can find is this Forbes article:
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, Tim Starling wrote:
I don't think this is the right approach. The server would have sent a
MIME type of text/html, which means that it's effectively CP1252.
Yes, you are right, sticking with CP1252 does seem better. I've just updated
10K and many fewer diffs are
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Reading the references Joseph Reagle's book I encountered this:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/12/wikipedia_will_1.htm
Yes, I've been thinking that it would be neat to have an online debate or
something over this, as I write in the
On Sunday, December 19, 2010, Martin Møller Skarbiniks Pedersen wrote:
Should probably be København and not Křbenhavn
Thanks Martin, that's evidence that there are still bugs, and that Python's
Universal Encoding Detector is probabilistic!
___
On Tuesday, December 14, 2010, Tim Starling wrote:
I didn't want to believe that those revisions had been lost forever,
and I even opened the UseMod source code and stared forlornly at the
unlink() call. What I (and Brion before) missed is that UseMod appends
a record of every change made to
On Wednesday 21 April 2010, Nathan wrote:
What's the point of using a phonetic alphabet that 95% of our
readership can't interpret?
I've never been able to. I always hoped that the theory was that from the IPA,
you could translate it into some scheme that would make sense in different
I've spoken with a lot of media folks about flagged revision of late. In one, I
was told I'd be on at the last minute with a WP critic and never got the
chance to correct the egregious errors in the intro segment (i.e., WP was
hiring people to review the quality of articles.) That was
Wales writes:
Previously, certain high profile and high risk biographies and other entries
were kept locked to prevent vandalism by users who had not registered
accounts on the site for a 'waiting period' of 4 days.
The thing I'm curious about is this will be great openness in those 5,137
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that eBay
seller did. It even says The right to use this work is granted to
anyone for any purpose, without any
On Saturday 12 September 2009, Keith Old wrote:
http://www.fun.chanun.com/funny-stuff/imagine-if-wikipedia-got-printed
It'd be a lot bigger than that! That's not even the width of a basic
multi-volume print encyclopedia.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
material form the 11th edition of Britannica and images now in
Commons.
]]
--
Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Friday 04 September 2009, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Would it be possible for you to do a comparison with Wikipedia just
before semiprotection was enabled? I've long wanted to know whether
the argument that semiprotections would replace full protections holds
any water.
This would also seem to
One of the best responses to some of the hyperbole out there about the closing,
failure, end of WP is the figure of how many articles are actually locked down
in any way, however, this is a difficult figure to authoritatively find/claim.
There's Main and Featured [1] of course, about 11
On Friday 04 September 2009, Joseph Reagle wrote:
One of the best responses to some of the hyperbole out there about the
closing, failure, end of WP is the figure of how many articles are actually
locked down in any way, however, this is a difficult figure to
authoritatively find/claim
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other
day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free
photographs, so
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Erik Moeller wrote:
The FlaggedRevs extension has been used in many of our wikis,
including the second-largest Wikipedia, for more than a year. However,
contrary to what's been reported in some media, the community has had
very thoughtful conversations about the
On Wednesday 01 July 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
::Archived at:
http://marc.info/?i=b8ceeef70907012048r74142a7av7b8db293e005b...@mail.gmail.com
There must be a page for predicting the three millionth article. I
can't find it. Where is it?
Sadly, there is none, but seeing that we're at
On Friday 07 August 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
The story about Kira fills in something Jimbo mentioned before, though.
I gave up a while ago on thinking the early history of WP was something
a historian could completely elucidate. This story adds another layer to
the question of the
Conservapedia is almost wholly a reaction against Wikipedia and describes
differences:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
My comment was written late at night. But I don't really understand why
the author thought (a) permalinks are uncool, but (b) paraphrasing this
WP stuff and passing it off as my own and copyright is clearly cool. And
issues this as an
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
[[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
how to cite Wikipedia?
I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's fine
for Twitter in the short term, but what happens when they go under and
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Andrew Gray wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewoldid=6042007
can be rendered as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
the DOI playbook,
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
goes.
I did not know that, that's great.
On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Joe but.
Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their
source.
They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying
source.
This normally implies I actually went to the source and viewed the
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Durova wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg
This file says its in the public domain.
[[
Permission
(Reusing this image)
Public domain
]]
[[
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of
the United States
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
Somewhat cynical: they thought they could just cite, looked at the GFDL
and thought damn, doesn't work that way, and then just went ahead.
Particularly ironic given the title and perhaps subject of the book.
On Friday 24 April 2009, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Just in case anyone wants to gloat and say See them too...
_http://knol.google.com/k/krishan-maggon/knol-site-metrics/3fy5eowy8suq3/42_
Knol is far inferior. Over 350 articles of suspect copyright infringement?!
Please, that's about a month's
Hi David, you can pick up on some of WP's ancestors in:
http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html
This work (and attention on documentalists) is further developed in my
dissertation, and book manuscript.
Bush's contributions/prescience is exaggerated according to Michael
On Thursday 12 March 2009, David Goodman wrote:
But most people at Wikipedia have not even bothered to find out what
their public or school library may already be paying for. Almost all
of them buy at least some packages.
As an example, this is what Brooklyn provides, just need your library
On Thursday 04 December 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
A popular approach? No offense, but isn't this just the way it should
have been done all along? It is certainly the way many journals and
books do it, and it is common sense.
By which standard? Short notes with bibliography is not that common
34 matches
Mail list logo
