Timwi wrote:
>What exactly does 'contributed' mean here?
>If the articles are entirely new, then there's
>no reason to act at all, other than improving
>the articles.
You are completely missing the point; The point was that the terms and
concepts are pseudoscience junk and may not even warrent inclusion in our
encyclopedia at all. But a simple Google search of "plasma cosmology" brings
up this interesting website:
http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm
Which is a website which states (as fact) that "Plasma Cosmology has replaced
the Steady State (1950's - 1960's) & Big Bang Theories (1960's - 1990's) of
the Universe." (which is /complete/ hoghash in the most extreme) and also has
this to say about a future NASA mission:
:On July 4, 2005, NASA plans to collide a 350
:kilogram spacecraft into the antimatter Comet
:Tempel 1. The spacecraft's impact with the
:comet will result in a 7,500 Megatons explosion
:that will fracture the 125 billion metric ton comet
:into millions of fragments. The antimatter fragments
:will disperse into solar orbit and periodically collide
:with earth for years to come, produce tremendous
:explosions (equivalent to millions of Megatons of
:TNT), and will destroy life as we know it.
:Armageddon will have come.
Ee gads! I just paid off my mortgage. Bummer I won't be alive long to enjoy
it.
Give me a break.
I'm a bit sick and tired of having this type of pseudo-science crap on our
website. Real scientists don't have time to constantly neutralize every one
of these stupid claims and Wikipedia will look as idiotic as the
matter-antimatter website if we allow too much of this stuff.
Sorry, I'm in a bit of a bad mood over the Reciprocal System of Theory nut
Doug Bundy and his renewed efforts at trying to legitimize his pet "theory"
by linking to it from valid scientific articles on Wikipedia.
--mav
Toby writes:
> I'd argue that standard practice on a wiki
> is that if you want to know who edited a
> particular page, then you look at the page
> history. Understanding that, derivers must
> look there.
Speaking of which, I'd just like to remind people that
the final, unlinked (last) on a history page is not
always trustworthy. A few weeks ago I was praised for
having started the article on Alfred Hitchcok, but I
had not--I was merely the 50th most recent edit at
that point. There was another page of edits. Not such
a big issue now, maybe, but it gives an incorrect
impression.
Off to file a bug report,
kq
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Jimmy writes:
>(snip a bit about a hypothetical situation)<
> Are you ethically required to research whether or
not
> Bob is his real name? Or, since he said he
> was 'Bob', isn't that sufficient, morally,
> ethically, and legally?
>
>I think this is a non-issue, really.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Ok, you've convinced
me.
best,
kq
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
My two cents worth:
In the application for tax-exempt status, it's critical to
be clear, concise, and understandable, and to clearly
delineate past, present, and projected future activities,
cast in the light of public service (particularly
educational) purposes. If it's a really clean application,
determination may be awarded within three months. If not,
then it can take a couple of years of the IRS requesting
additional information.
--
John Knouse
jaknouse(a)frognet.net
Well then I guess it's really lucky that we found a lawyer to do the work for us pro bono :). I'm sure Jimbo was pulling his hair out trying to fill those forms out.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: John Knouse <jaknouse(a)frognet.net>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:36:51 -0700
>My two cents worth:
>
>In the application for tax-exempt status, it's critical to
>be clear, concise, and understandable, and to clearly
>delineate past, present, and projected future activities,
>cast in the light of public service (particularly
>educational) purposes. If it's a really clean application,
>determination may be awarded within three months. If not,
>then it can take a couple of years of the IRS requesting
>additional information.
>
>--
>John Knouse
>jaknouse(a)frognet.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I would like to make a vote for having a link on every page. We already have links to Bug reports on every page. A text link need not be intrusive. There are multiple cases where we could loose out on a donation, by not having a link on every page. For instance, it is my impression that a large number of our visitors visit via a google search. So, they will probably not be visiting the main page, or a donation specific page. So, in this case, we would benifit by having "donate now" link on every page.. It sort of confuses me as to why anyone would object to this? These are not really come-ons. We need money for operations costs, we have a non-profit org to recieve donations. If we don't provide a donations link on at least most pages, then we may loose out on donations from people who just don't know they can donate. Additionally, I think that any rational person could read a page, describing why we need donations, and not get upset and/or label it as an "Excessive come-on." I mean, I don't think we are talking about a pop-up ad, are we? If someone were to purpose a pop-up, or a big flashy ad, or anything besides a simple non-intrusive link, I would probably object too. However, I think a text link would be perfectly acceptable.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a. Mbecke
a.k.a. MB
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: David Friedland <david(a)nohat.net>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:49:49 -0400
>Once this is set up I imagine we will want a "Donate now" or similar
>link on Wikipedia. I would just like to start the discussion by
>registering a vote against having such a link (or worse yet, an image)
>appear on every wiki page. Excessive come-ons are a total turn-off.
>
>- David [[User:Nohat]]
>
>webmaster wrote:
>
>>The Network for Good is "a nonprofit collaboration to help nonprofit organizations increase capacity, reach new audiences, and build Internet strategies."
>>
>>They have a service setup that allows Nonprofits with a Web site to collect donations by simply linking to their nonprofit's donation page from Network for Good. See: http://www.networkforgood.org/npo/fundraising/donations/index.html
>>
>>Charities receive 100% of the donations.
>>Nonprofits pay no fees or costs.
>>Donors receive records of contributions for tax purposes.
>>
>>If no one has any objections, I will setup an account for us (unless Jimmy will do it, since he is head of the foundation [I think?]). So Jimmy, just tell me if you want me to take care of this.
>>
>>--
>>Michael Becker
>>a.k.a. Mbecker
>>a.k.a. MB
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> [Donations talk snipped]
Is there a meta page anywhere discussing what any donations would be
spent on? If time is ripe enough to discuss links... its ripe enough to
discuss what the money would be spent on.
There would seem to be some hard choices to make... e.g. it would be
great to make a dent in the current running costs to Jimbo... but it
would great if any money, such as it is, is used to do something that
would not have been possible if it weren't for donations,
Pete
While we're talking about the GFDL, www.4reference.net seems to have
a lot of Wikipedia stuff online. Bizarrely, most of it is non-article
space stuff like user pages, though some pages are real articles.
Anyway, their pages don't seem to mention the license either. e.g:
http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/HTML.html
They do however mention that they got it from us.
There are many such pages. A google search for:
site:http://www.4reference.net Wikipedia
turns them up. Top hit is Mbecker's white board. :-)
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman
a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
David [[User:Nohat]] wrote:
>Once this is set up I imagine we will want a
>"Donate now" or similar link on Wikipedia.
>I would just like to start the discussion by
>registering a vote against having such a
>link (or worse yet, an image) appear on
>every wiki page. Excessive come-ons are
>a total turn-off.
"Donate now" is a command so we wouldn't want to say
that. But a simple, text only, normal link titled say
"Donations" would be perfectly acceptable IMO. It
would link to a Wikimedia.org page dealing with
donations.
Having a simple link makes it easy for people who want
to donate to donate while not unnecessarily cluttering
the interface of everyone else and looking like we are
begging.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com