In a message dated 9/5/2009 1:22:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> Yup, there is a reason the WJhonson(a)aol.com mails still have a killfile
> chez moi. Managing to miss the point that if a link appears broken to
> anyone in the world it might simply get removed seems a fundamental
> error. It wasn't about whether I'm deprived of the info, but what form
> of citation is good to have on Wikipedia for this patchy service.>
And you seem to be missing the point, my pointy friend, that you should
always cite to *your* source, not their source.
If you read it on Google books, then you should credit google books.
That's standard citation practice.
Will "the point buster" Johnson
No people *should* break and ignore stupid rules :)
Just like the pigs do.
What you didn't live during the '60s ?
I mean it's not like you're going to be sued by WMG for 2.4 million .....
W.J. "fight the man"
Folks,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/
Wired reports:
*"Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you
find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code
every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and
the length of time it has persisted on the page.*
*More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each
month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But
despite its popularity,
**Wikipedia*<http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/www.wikipedia.org>
* has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because
anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to
vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no
easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by
vandals.*
*Now, researchers from the **Wiki Lab* <http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/>* at the
University of California, Santa Cruz have created a system to help users
know when to trust Wikipedia—and when to reach for that dusty Encyclopedia
Britannica on the shelf. Called
**WikiTrust*<http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page>
*, the program assigns a color code to newly edited text using an algorithm
that calculates author reputation from the lifespan of their past
contributions. It’s based on a simple concept: The longer information
persists on the page, the more accurate it’s likely to be.*
*Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background,
while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade. As more people view
and edit the new text, it gradually gains more “trust” and turns from orange
to white."*
More in story
*Regards*
**
*Keith*
Folks,
Sorry if this is a duplicate thread but I haven't seen anything about
reaching this milestone.
The Christian Science Monitor reports/
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-…
"Wikipedia, the upstart social experiment that trusts the online mob to
steward world knowledge, has hit a major milestone.
The English volume of the Web encyclopedia reached its 3 millionth article.
That massive number of whos, whats, wheres, and whens culminated with a
profile on Norwegian soap opera actress Beate
Eriksen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Eriksen>.
In the less than 24 hours since she marked the 3 millionth entry, more than
1,000 new articles have already flooded in."
It concludes with info about the disagreement between inclusionists and
deletionists.
"Both see the other ruining Wikipedia, either by defeating the point of an
open encyclopedia, or by expanding its “pages” until the site dies from
irrelevance.
Which side do you come down on? More the merrier? Or quality over quantity?
Let us know below, or join the conversation by following us on
Twitter<http://twitter.com/csmhorizonsblog>
."
Regards
*Keith Old*
Forwarded. Anyone here in range of Tennessee?
- d.
2009/9/3 Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com>:
>> Details about the meetup in Nashville Tennessee over Labor Day
>> weekend, Sept 5th and 6th.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Nashville
>> Y'all come on down for some good times :-)
>> Sydney
Hi all,
The current <ref>...</ref>...<references/> system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref>David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.''
History Magazine, 2019.</ref>. The next day, Thursday, was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<references/>
(That's a very simple example, too. References start to become a lot
larger once they start to include other information and/or are
produced via a template.)
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually _defines_ and _displays_
the note. For example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref id="smith"/>. The next day, Thursday,
was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<reference id="smith">David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History
Magazine, 2019.</reference>
This makes the raw wikitext easier to read, since the text of the
actual reference is in the _references_ section instead of in the
page's primary content.
I think this could work ...
--Thomas Larsen
Well-sourced junk that reads like it belongs on Simple En.wiki:
'''Adaptation''' is one of the basic phenomena of
biology.<ref>Williams, George C. 1966. ''Adaptation and natural
selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought''.
Princeton. "Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of pervasive
importance in biology." p5</ref> It is the process whereby an organism
becomes better suited to its [[habitat]].<ref>The ''Oxford Dictionary
of Science'' defines ''adaptation'' as "Any change in the structure or
functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its
environment".</ref> Also, the term ''adaptation'' may refer to a
characteristic which is especially important for an organism's
survival.<ref>Both uses of the term 'adaptation' are recognized by
King R.C. Stansfield W.D. and Mulligan P. 2006. ''A dictionary of
genetics''. Oxford, 7th ed.</ref> For example, the adaptation of
horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast
and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable
population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully,
that is, by [[natural selection]].
The above will be changed, obviously. Note also the large inline
<refs> make editing difficult, which in turn lets nonsense writing
persist. If we can't come up with some better technical means of
separation - all ref tags under their own invisible section maybe -
then at least carriage-returns - putting the <ref> on the next line -
would work well enough. Still showing up the same in view mode, but
the text can actually be readable in edit mode).
Anyway, working on something unsourced like:
In [[biology]], '''adaptation''' is an observed ''effect'' of the
process of [[evolution]] —wherein canonical [[organism]]s
(species) appear to [[change]] over time to survive more efficiently
within their [[habitat]]. The concept of adaptation was developed
before the theory of evolution —Lamarck had made some
groundbreaking observations which inspired Darwin. "Adaptation" in
reality does not refer to changes within individual organisms, but to
the canonical form of the species — changes brought about by a
process of [[natural selection]]. "Adaptation" in the context of
biology, thus is a largely a colloquialism for natural selection.
-Stevertigo
Sources available upon request.
In a message dated 9/3/2009 7:21:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecaliocean(a)me.com writes:
> Yeah, but see, the thing is, you don't "own" the blog. The person
> writing it does (well, technically, the blog hosting service does).
> They have the right to not have a comment show up. We could use the
> same argument on Wikipedia.>>
---------------
What? That Wikipedia puts a "comment on this article" and someone says "I
love this person" and "we" or at least someone decides that fan mail is not
something we want ?
I suppose there would need to be a guideline started to decide what sorts
of things are OK for comments.
Will