>I think it would be desireable for articles to also have links to relevant
>webpages, but due to the ephemeral nature of most web pages -- & the
>widely uneven quality of most material on the web -- I acknowledge that
>this resource won't be as widespread.
I would guess it will become increasingly more common, as information will
hopefully become more free and accessible online over time. At the present,
it amazes me how much is available. The goal here, IMO is to make the
wikipedia just such an easily clickable information resource, which others
might like to cite ;) JackLynch
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
Could someone give us a link to a draft page of emails to send to
someone using wikipedia content without respecting the terms of the
licence ?
I saw several times great emails examples published on the list (the
last one was really good). Does someone know the link ? Or is there
somewhere a page from which we can inspire ourselves to make a standard
copyright violation notice ?
Thanks
the non respect of the licence is there
http://www.voyagenow.com/travel-references/fr/wikipedia/b/be/belize.html
there is no reference to wikipedia as source in the page.
the only link to wikipedia is the [[edit]] link that goes to fr:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>
>Currently, we have almost no references (I would
>estimate 1 in 50 articles have references). To require
>citations on all of them would be ridiculous.
>
Why? Notice how 1911EB has a little para of refs glued onto the
end of each article, and they're not much noticed, but their length
is easier to see if you turn into bulleted list. Modern "real"
encyclopedias have refs on every article too, in very small print
typically.
Lack of refs is just another way for an article to be incomplete.
Adding refs is more complicated than it needs to be however,
and I've been designing a scheme to make it easier by using
a new namespace a la images.
Stan
== Policy suggestions ==
Most of the conflict I have had here (IMO) was due to disputes over quality
of information (and citations), or the inclusion or exclusion of POV
(Interpretations of said information, and citations). I'd like to propose a
few things, which might make my job here (assuming I get to keep it) and
yours a bit easier. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm well aware that I am
a dubious source of information, and I don't think I'm giving orders (I'm
pretty low on the totem pole, clearly) but I would like you to hear my
policy suggestions.
*only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it
with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable
difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented
*Multiple POV '''should''' be expressed, and differing citations given. wiki
is not paper. There is room for everyone to be heard, history shows us many
examples of minority opinion later being found correct. There is room for
all POV's so long as citations are given.
*There is always room for respectable citations that differ.
*The quality expected of the citations should be based on the number of
editors, and thus number of citations involved. The more citations provided,
the higher the standard (thus in an article with only one editor, a lower
standard of citation would be expected than in an article where numerous
editors are present and there are plentiful citations).
*NPOV can be promoted best by providing citations of differing POV's and
presenting said POV's in as impartial a manner as possible, thereby
providing the highest quality, objective information possible.
*I think some sort of forum for debate over POV should be made available, as
there seems to be no end of desire for it among some.
**editors who have proof of particular expertise should be considered a
citation in and of themselves (on the subjects that they have such proof of
expertise in).
p.s. I previously posted this on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitrators]], and I also
posted it on village pump and wikipedia:policy and guidelines.
JackLynch
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
en.wikipedia.org is now running on a much faster machine. Between that
and the database tweaks we've done in the last couple days, I hope this
should keep things more or less smooth for the next few weeks until the
new server farm is set up in Florida (thanks to all those who
donated!).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There has been a lot of talk on WikiEN-l about the need for citations in
articles. I tend to agree with that. But our current system of wiki refs only
encourage the creation of footnote-like references to external websites
(which is less than ideal).
I have put together a proposal that, if enacted, would create a more
wordprocessor-like footnote system that could be used for all types of
footnotes (web, ISBN, journal articles, and written out dead tree citations).
See and respond on:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footnotes
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Dear all.
We have a rough agenda:
PRINCIPLES
1) "Jurisdiction" - what disputes do we plan to get involved in?
2) "Rules" - How do we judge cases
3) "Outcomes" - what solutions can we impose?
4) "Transparency" - issues of privacy, openness, accountability, etc
PROCESS
1) "Requests" - how does one request arbitration?
2) "Who takes part?" - how do we pick arbitrators on a case?
3) "Trial" - How does the trial proceed?
4) "Judgement" - How do we give our judgement?
We might add points to that as they come up. Currently we're largely discussing
Jurisdiction, though we've also has some discussion about Requests and
Transparency prompted by your comments here and elsewhere.
A couple of current Jurisdiction issues:
* What sorts of disputes should the arbitration committee hear? Article disputes?
Wikiquette disputes? Copyright/Legal/Election disputes?
* Should we always require mediation, generally prefer mediation (with exceptions),
or not require mediation?
Your thoughts and opinions are very welcome.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
I am really impressed with the quality (and sunstance) of the debate on
this. I agree with Rick that citations can get out of hand, and I also agree
with others, who say that "non-clickable" citations are also quite good
(references to books, or other sources of information).
This is what I want: a hierarchy of citations. If it ever gets to the point
(I think it VERY rarely will) where an article has too many citations,
making it take up too much room, or it clutters too much (this would seem to
be aleviated by putting them at the bottom of the page, but whatever) then
you simply raise the standard. As I said in my original suggestion, the
quality expected of citations should be based on the number of them
presented. What is REALLY important to me is that differing citations be
allowed, so long as they are from reliable sources (and such reliability
should be based on the investigations of interested parties, perhaps even a
"citation arbitration board" could be formed, if ever needed, to judge
qualities of citations) and that differing interpretations be allowed,
expressing that "some hold XYZ POV based on ABC interpretation of [1]
information, but others...". This would be wonderful, and would definately
improve the information quality, as well as the egalitarian acceptance of
all legitamate (based on citation) POV's as being legitamately worth hearing
(and IMO, drastically reduce disputes among non-troll editors). I am NOT
saying everything needs to be cited, only things which are disputed should
have to be. But the more citations the better, IMO. JackLynch
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1
>Then what's the point of having an encyclopedia? Why
>not just have an article title and list all of the
>citations?
>
>RickK
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that it
would be better if we had citations in addition to the
articles so as to suppliment the article, since the
sources will always have more information that
Wikipedia's condenced article.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/