On 19/01/2011 00:05, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 18 January 2011 10:56, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17/01/2011 15:30, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I suppose my problem here is understanding how the discussion goes
fromthe useful part of the web is expanding faster than we
On 18 January 2011 10:56, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 17/01/2011 15:30, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I suppose my problem here is understanding how the discussion goes
fromthe useful part of the web is expanding faster than we can keep
up tothere is a problem with this.
On 16/01/2011 23:46, Tony Sidaway wrote:
We
don't need to be able to find every single thing on the internet, only
the useful stuff. A huge amount of the useful stuff is on Wikipedia.
This is true, but not particularly objective. The OP's question itself
has merit. The long-term view surely
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 16/01/2011 23:46, Tony Sidaway wrote:
We
don't need to be able to find every single thing on the internet, only
the useful stuff. A huge amount of the useful stuff is on Wikipedia.
This is true,
I suppose my problem here is understanding how the discussion goes
from the useful part of the web is expanding faster than we can keep
up to there is a problem with this.
On deep and semantic web, these are useful concepts that will help us
to develop more capable data mining tools, but not
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2011, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
To take a specific example, I very occasionally come across names of
people or topics where it is next-to-impossible to find out anything
meaningful about
Interesting thread and questions. A related question though is
whether unfettered eternal searchability of the Internet is
unambiguously a good thing. Take the types of BLP, privacy, etc.
issues we deal with everyday on Wikipedia, and extrapolate them to the
rest of the 'net
Newyorkbrad
On
I think the point is being missed. Wikipedia does not set out to
manipulate search engine results, that's just a happy accident of its
content being pretty good and many search engines weighting its
content appropriately.
We make the internet not suck by putting the information on our
website,
On 15/01/2011, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
To take a specific example, I very occasionally come across names of
people or topics where it is next-to-impossible to find out anything
meaningful about them because the name is identical to that of someone
else. Sometimes this is
(Following on from another thread)
I have a theory that Wikipedia makes only *part* of the Internet not
suck. Wikipedians aggregate online knowledge (and offline as well, but
let's stick to online here), thus making it easier to find information
about something, especially when there are lots of
On 15 January 2011 04:41, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
To take a specific example, I very occasionally come across names of
people or topics where it is next-to-impossible to find out anything
meaningful about them because the name is identical to that of someone
else.
11 matches
Mail list logo
