On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get
> anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they
> are a part of the problem.
>
> Nathan
Sorry to jump in so late in the thread... At least in m
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I would have thought metaphysics and ontology are closer to the
> philosophical underpinning of an encyclopedia, but I guess it is
> harder to come up with names from those (Ontopedia??). The "nature of
> knowledge" is a bit different from the a
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Charlotte Webb
wrote:
>
> But even though you'll find disagreement about how many links are
> "enough" for a certain article. Five is right out. After a couple
> hundred you'll find people fighting the other way with their
> auto-delinking scripts/bots.
>
> —C.W.
>
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
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
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
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Carcharoth
wrote:
> I might try and do a personalised listing at some
> point, bringing out the areas I'm interested in and slicing up the FA
> cake in a different way. Such as identifying the more "general" ones
> and the more "niche" ones, and the "specific" it
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Mark Nilrad wrote:
>> I'm curious, as the growth in Wikipedia has slowed, has the numbers of
>> ACTIVE users slowed as well?
> If you're talking about the demographics of editors - I think it is now
> more three years since WP attracted
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i615140fc749e4798425e1349881c51f3
>
> Of course, at this moment it's a Twitter search on the word "skittles"
> instead. Leading to:
>
> http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/skittles-the-cau
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/4 David Gerard :
>> 2009/3/4 geni :
>>
>>> Getting access to existing collections and permission to make copies
>>> of them (county archives will generaly photocopy stuff for you but
>>> they won't let you point a camera at the stuff) is a more
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.newsless.org/2009/03/wikipedia-foretold/
>
> 'I was revisiting Vannevar Bush’s 1945 essay “As We May Think” the
> other night, a text credited with having presaged the Web. Reading it,
> I realized that Bush had also foreseen Wikipe
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Sage Ross
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> http://www.newsless.org/2009/03/wikipedia-foretold/
>>>
>>> 'I was revisiting Vann
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Alex Sawczynec
> wrote:
>> With all due respect, this isn't exactly "new": it's been open for almost
>> two weeks now. Is there a particular reason it's being posted to the list at
>> this point?
>
> I didn't
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Nathan wrote:
> What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either
> implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by
> de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll
> asks us to just give
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:27 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> Britannica in its various incarnations and Encarta were excellent and
> useful reference works. Britannica remains useful. Encarta I think
> could have remained useful also. I really regret that we had a role in
> killing it. Why should w
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM, wrote:
> Brittanica now allows any member of the public to edit (under moderation),
Have you tried to do this? I tested it out shortly after the editing
interface went live, and found that while I could access the text and
make changes, I couldn't actually subm
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:05 AM, wrote:
> When I signed up for Knol, one thing they did was allow verification.
> So one way to verify you was that you gave them a phone number and your
> name as it was listed in the phone book. They check that it's really
> there, they CALL you and give you a
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM, doc wrote:
> Sage Ross wrote:
>>
>> A related observation: presumably because of the delayed sign-up
>> process, only about half of new users ever make a first edit on CZ:
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:New_users.png
&g
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> I'm sure they'd be happy to delete a biography upon request.
This has been an issue in the past. They deleted the userpage of an
early heavy contributor who then left the project. But they realized
that, because they vest authority not strict
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/22 Thomas Dalton :
>> I think competition is fantastic and fully encourage people to start
>> competitors to Wikipedia, but in my view Citizendium has failed. It
>> wasn't sufficiently better than Wikipedia to attract enough writers
>>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:28 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
>
> I think this is in fact a market opportunity for a Metapedia. Import the
> organizational / title trees of all the publically available freely licensed
> encyclopedias, merge, present readers with alternate views / options /
> approaches
There was a bit of discussion about Wikinews on Foundation-l a few
weeks ago, which those of you don't follow that list might be
interested in. The thread starts here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051762.html
The gist of the discussion was that Wikinews doesn't have
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:36 AM, geni wrote:
>>> Linking to wikipedia pages would be kinda risky. One leak of what CIA
>>> IPs are and we can then use server logs to track what the CIA and
>>> simular are interested in.
>>
>> The IP addresses
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwave.google.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
>
> Could we please have all of this? This is several orders of magnitude
> better than MediaWiki's collaborative editing features.
>
Th
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 6/7/2009 7:15:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
>> Unsurprising indeed. I get the impression, from projects such as Knol,
>> that
>> Google is something of an admirer of the Wikipedia model.>>
>> --
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> "... encyclopedias have been made better by the advent of the internet,
> but newspapers have been made worse: the cumulative impact of the
> readers’ comments that can now be appended online to almost any article
> tends to diminish most f
Nieman Journalism Lab has some more about what's going on, including
details direct from Google:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/google-news-experimenting-with-links-to-wikipedia-on-its-homepage/
“Currently, we’re showing a small number of users links to Wikipedia
topic pages that serve as a refe
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> "The Future of Reputation: gossip, rumour and privacy on the internet"
>
> http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/
>
> Chapter 6 has a few pages on the Siegenthaler incident (as well as
> Wikipedia more generally), but a lot
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Andrew
Turvey wrote:
> Just seen my first Wikinews link from Google news. Uploaded it to:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/24667...@n04/3626171622/
>
Wikinews has been included in Google News listings for a while now,
since shortly after Stable Revisions went into
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
>
> Inclusion of Wikipedia articles in Google News appears to be based on
> a) having been created recently, and b) having as its title a term
> that is part of the core topic of a collection of articles that Google
> News determine
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/16 Luna :
>> As the project gains popularity, it's inevitable that more people will try
>> to subvert our aims, but I did find one thing a bit amusing:
>>
>> Top of post: "Personally I’m not a fan of Wikipedia..."
>>
>> Later in post: "
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Do we have any stats on how often people click the links in
> references? I suspect not. It would be good if we could get some,
> though.
>
Slightly tangential, a few days ago I was trying to figure out how
this Google News listing algorith
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, wrote:
> Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
> life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
> the first place?
>
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
notice of the k
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, wrote:
>
> So we're now going to set a "higher" moral position than any other
> information outlet does? Because I'm pretty darn sure that they would report
> it, if
> they had a reliable source from which to do so.
No. In fact, the New York Times contacted a w
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:26 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> The balance we're using is working for our public reputation among
> readers, the media, media critics and internet critics, policymakers.
> In this particular case, the controversy seems limited to our own
> internal review.
That's not t
Cross-posting to Wikien-l...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Unfortunately,
> community-created help pages tend to accumulate vast amounts of
> instruction cruft that distracts from simple high-level information.
Maybe it's time English Wikipedia (at least) created a set of
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> There are long-term stats somewhere, and they could be updated if you
> asked. I suggest identifying which of the featured areas you want to
> see long-term stats for, and asking at the relevant talk pages. An
> approximation to these stats coul
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> It's looking to me like 3.5 million is about the plateau, since the
> curve is bang on that, but we might make 4 million *eventually*.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth#Logistic_model_for_growth_in_ar
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:50 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Here's a question: how many articles are created and deleted within 24 hours?
>
In early 2007, I did a quick and dirty estimate that about 2400
articles were deleted per day, at a time when the net gain per day was
around 1800.
Activity of
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/7/14 Carcharoth :
>> Are you saying the numbers could go negative?? Contraction in real-terms? :-/
>>
>> Carcharoth
>
> It's happened at least once. Long term it would be unlikely since most
> deletions are of new articles.
Was that when the fau
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville
> Heiskanen wrote:
>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>>
>>> Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public
>>> domain material, running through their minds all the time.
>>
>> I hope you wil
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>
> Cool! I'm too lazy to look. Anything there worth discussing?
>
To me, the data is really encouraging. Take a look at the charts for
New Wikipedians vs. Active Wikipedians. We knew before that both of
those peaked in early 2007. But now it
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ken Arromdee 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 Internet, and /some
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
>
> Much familiar argument from threads here. Some of the usual suspects
> commenting, and everyone putting in their two cents. Somewhere in the
> middle is
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> The exact details of what to ask and how many levels to request are
> configurable.
>
Is there a page to discuss the configuration(s) of ReaderFeedback?
I notice the test wiki has the categories "Usefulness",
"Presentation", and "Neutralit
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
>
> Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
>
> I NEED INFORMATION.
>
> * When's Flagged Revs being switched on?
> * Where's the latest version of *p
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/26/a-quick-update-on-flagged-revisions/
>
> Please reference if there's any further confusion about this.
>
This post says that the "Flagged protection and patrolled revisions"
trial will put biographies of l
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>> Do we have a welcome mat rolled out and some magic pixie dust to
>> tell people to please not be BITE-y?
>
> *pixie dust pixie dust* ;-D
>
>> We don't want a large influx of editors arriving to help after
>> reading about things in the news, o
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for
>>> a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do
>>> with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think
>>> the lack of visible rew
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> The name strikes me as the biggest drawback of the current system.
>
I think de Alfaro put it well himself in his quote from Information Week:
'Despite its name, WikiTrust can't directly measure whether text is
trustworthy. "It can only me
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM, KillerChihuahua
wrote:
> Perhaps the image is intended to be the TOC or INDEX.
> -kc-
>
Here's the original source for those images:
http://www.rob-matthews.com/index.php?/project/wikipedia/
According to the artist who created it, it's 5000 pages printed from
fea
This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone
who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting
"wikibullying" can be for newbies and other editors who aren't
well-versed in the procedures and processes.
http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/09/04/b
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Durova wrote:
> ...I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is
> step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread
> nonproductive.
On that note, you stated in the second post of the thread that "The
vendor violates moral
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Put 'em on Wikipedia!
>
> Is it still super complicated and like a lot of hard work?
>
It's not too hard now if you're running Firefox 3.5. Just edit your
video in whatever video soft
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Sage Ross
> wrote:
>> It's not too hard now if you're running Firefox 3.5. Just edit your
>> video in whatever video software is easiest on your machine (e.g.,
>> Wi
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Durova wrote:
> Congratulations! And thanks for your dedication to the project. You
> realize when he turns thirteen he's going to die of embarrassment over
> this...?
>
That's the idea. We're stocking up on embarrassing things we can show
to his first girlfri
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Fajro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM, geni wrote:
>> 2009/10/9 Risker :
>>> Interesting article about how the International Olympic Committee is
>>> cracking down even on CC-SA licenses:
>
> The blog of the photographer:
>
> http://richardgiles.com/2009/10
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Does anyone actually use this
> in ways relevant to WP?
>
I rather like the first ("most helpful") sidewiki comment from the main page:
"Sidewiki provides what Wikipedia has long needed. A place for people
to discuss an article or its to
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
>
> Carcharoth
>
That would make a good topic for an opinion essay in the Signpost, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Opinion
-Sage
> On Sun,
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> I'm working on the theory that "volunteers will work hard at whatever
> they damn well feel like." This is one way to get n00bs in, and
> doesn't preclude other approaches.
>
I agree here, but the flip side is that they aren't necessarily
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
>> Google has agreed to take down links to a website that promotes racist views
>> of indigenous Australians.
This story says the SMH one is misleading:
http://www.inquisitr.com/57105/aus-media-gets-ed-story-wrong/
The statement from Google
I'd like to get a little wider input on this issue. Tony1 is
reviewing a recent academic book about Wikipedia for the Signpost, and
we'd like to include an image of the cover in the review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Book_cover_O%27Sullivan.jpg
Unfortunately, since the Signpost is project
Greg, I agree with much of your analysis, but depart at a few points.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>The only justification for
> including any non-free works on english wikipedia is that doing so is
> widely accepted to be a necessity (on EN, at least) to accomplish o
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 19 April 2010 18:46, Nathan wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there might be a subtle bias playing into these reviews.
>> Perhaps if reviewers begin with the assumption that the article was
>> written by amateur hobbyists, that influences the outcom
edit.
If you're interested, please visit our Online Ambassadors page for
more details on the position and how to apply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Online_Ambassadors
-Sage Ross (aka ragesoss)
Online Facilitator, Public Policy Initi
Yes, the Online Ambassadors program is open to people anywhere. It's
about helping people online, so there's no need to limit it.
The Campus Ambassadors, at this point, are limited to the handful of
US universities that we've been working with so far (but that should
expand in the future).
I sus
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I recently came across this wiki:
>
> http://www.medpedia.com/
>
> It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
>
> Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
>
It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't see
grant, expansion of the ambassador
programs to new campuses and beyond will be driven by the ambassadors,
and WMF will mostly or completely step back.
Cheers,
Sage Ross
Online Facilitator, Public Policy Initiative
Wikimedia Foundation
___
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
> 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
Since it's a WMF holiday and I can do whatever I want with my time, I
made one too. ;)
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Testing_content/Landing_page/Video_walkthrough
Like FT2, I welcome any edits to make it look better. And feedback
about the content is
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 February 2011 20:19, Sage Ross wrote:
>
>> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Testing_content/Landing_page/Video_walkthrough
>
>
> The person in the video frame that comes up i
Wikipedia:Spotlight [1] is an inactive project that many of you are
probably familiar with. The concept is, real-time collaboration on
building a specific article.
When it worked well, Spotlight was a great project; it gave
participants a taste of the best of Wikipedia and the feeling of
community
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Elias Friedman wrote:
> I didn't want to be the party-pooper, but since Thor's blazed that trail for
> me already I should mention that Friday night rather excludes those
> of us who are observant Jews. (c.f. [[Shabbat]])
>
That's a good point. Certainly, we coul
> On 28/05/2011 23:22, David Gerard wrote:
>> It turns out that if you're the encyclopedia that everyone actually
>> reads, the mountain will come to you: people will go to some effort to
>> get their field properly documented.
>>
>> http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/academics-in-new-move-begi
o_Wikipedia_%28Bookshelf%29/2013_edition/draft
Cheers,
Sage Ross
Communications Contractor, Wikipedia Education Program
Wikimedia Foundation
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
75 matches
Mail list logo
