On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
People with a view on this may like to contribute to:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Move_references_out_of_the_code
Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
People with a view on this may like to contribute to:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Move_references_out_of_the_code
Good link! Note I've proposed a move on the talk page.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l
David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
From the excellent little book Keywords in Evolutionary Biology by
Evelyn Fox Keller Elisabeth Lloyd,
Adaptation, Current uses by Mary Jane West-Eberhard,
An 'adaptation' is a characteristic of an organism whose form is the
result of selection in a
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
But even that is not technically accurate - adaptation is a
perception of overall change - based in a *quantitative estimation of
things being different from what they were before.
Correction - should be: 'adaptation is a
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
The main disadvantage would be technical - revision data held in an extra
field.
What you'd have is a list of named references, and the main text only
including ref name=WHATEVER / and references / tags. As the cursor
moves to
One immediate if minor advantage: old references don't get lost from the
text, when their first mention is removed.
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
The main disadvantage would be
2009/8/29 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
One immediate if minor advantage: old references don't get lost from the
text, when their first mention is removed.
There's a bot running - or, at least, was recently - that looks for
unmatched ref name=whatever/ comments and digs through the article
history to
FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually is there a reason why refs couldn't have a separate section?
The main disadvantage would be technical - revision data held in an extra
field.
IIRC Greg Maxwell mentioned something about this a couple years ago.
He acknowledged the issue of diminished
Indeed. It was a milestone compared to what went before, and enabled citing
to become a norm or expectation (rather than an option) in practice not just
theory.
But its some years on and we're in the #5 and useability... methynks we can
do better still :)
FT2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM,
FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. It was a milestone compared to what went before, and enabled citing
to become a norm or expectation (rather than an option) in practice not just
theory.
But its some years on and we're in the #5 and useability... methynks we can
do better still :)
Well,
How do we know who twit? or tweet?
When a celebrity has an official web page, we can be fairly certain that
what is posted there as the core content is by their own authority.
How do you do that with tweets?
In a message dated 8/29/2009 12:04:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
2009/8/29 wjhon...@aol.com:
How do we know who twit? or tweet?
When a celebrity has an official web page, we can be fairly certain that
what is posted there as the core content is by their own authority.
How do you do that with tweets?
Some celeb accounts are verified. Also, if the twitter
From the excellent little book Keywords in Evolutionary Biology by
Evelyn Fox Keller Elisabeth Lloyd,
Adaptation, Current uses by Mary Jane West-Eberhard,
An 'adaptation' is a characteristic of an organism whose form is the
result of selection in a particular functional context Accordingly.
Well-sourced junk that reads like it belongs on Simple En.wiki:
'''Adaptation''' is one of the basic phenomena of
biology.refWilliams, George C. 1966. ''Adaptation and natural
selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought''.
Princeton. Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of
14 matches
Mail list logo
