On 25 Aug 2004, at 22:05, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> How does having articles of borderline interest make it unusable?
> If I type "George Washington" into Google and end up at the excellent
> Wikipedia article of the same name, Wikipedia has proved very usuable.
> It is completely irrelevant whether a borderline article such as
> "George
> from Rainbow" is also available *for those who search for it*
>
> <snip>
>
> Pete/Pcb21
If all search results were always 100% accurate, well then... I'd agree
with you Pete.
However:
In this imperfect world with imperfect Google search results, people
*will* run across such "rubbish" or "not up to our standards" articles
pretty quickly on Google the longer said articles stay online here.
It's not exactly like we're situated at the a*se end of domain space
that Google bots warely visit.
So Rick has a fair point there.
- Jens
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > The root of the problem is that we haven't decided what it means to
> > be a *free* encyclopedia.
> I don't have any idea why you think this. There has never been any
> question about this at all.
> --Jimbo
Apparently you could clear it up for me then. Should a free encyclopedia be
redistributable by anyone in every country, or only the United States, or
need it not be redistributable at all? Should it be free for commercial
redistribution? Does the entire encyclopedia need to be editable? What
types of edits must be allowed? Can there be centralized control, for
instance linkback requirements?
All this talk of whether or not things are "free enough" led me to believe
that there was a lot of grey area. Maybe I'm wrong, and we do agree on what
it means to be a free encyclopedia, we just haven't agreed that we want to
be a free encyclopedia.
Anthony
Actually I (currently) have nothing whatsoever to say on this topic...
...but I really wanted to fix the typo in the word "anent."
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:19:22 -0700
>> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
>>
>> I agree very strongly with this. When I talk to reporters and this
>> topic comes up, I specifically ask them *not* to do it, because it is
>> very rude behavior, even as an experiment.
>>
>> --Jimbo
Dear reporters: Some of the nice people who live on my street have the
habit of picking any litter that they see on the sidewalk. I hope you
will resist the urge to dump litter on my sidewalk just to find out
whether anybody really picks it up.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Mathias Schindler <neubau(a)presroi.de> writes:
>
>
>Dear Ms. Stagnitta,
>
>thank you for your reponse. There were lenghly discussions on several
>places in the Internet. May I quote you
?
>
>
>Yours,
>Mathias Schindler
>
I just re-read what I originally sent to Al Fasoldt in the recent
Post-Standard column. I'm afraid I do have egg all over my face.
Another great illustration for my students about reviewing what they
have written in an email before they hit send.
I'll probably regret saying this... this is what got me in trouble in
the first place, but... you may quote me. I thank you for forwarding
this to the ongoing discussion.
While I was not happy with the way the column was worded (especially the
title), I take responsibility for the way it was interpreted by Mr.
Fasoldt. I did say in a direct quote to him...it appears that "the
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their
disclaimer on their website." What I was discussing was the difficulty
we all face in determining the authority of information found on a web
source. In particular... what steps can the average student use to
determine the authority of a website for research, if at every turn,
there is no author, no sponsor, or very long disclaimers that state the
content may or may not be valid. I commented that I thought if he was
going to recommend Wikipedia to his readers, that he should comment on
how the site was created. Specifically, that the Wikipedia was different
from the old fashioned print encyclopedia that his casual web surfing
readers may be used to.
The message was NOT... do not use Wikipedia as a source.... or that
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. The message was that the
best thing about the web (the sharing of information and ideas) can also
make it harder for the average high school student to make a judgement
call when checking the authority of a source used for research.
I'm sorry if this generated controversy over the authority of the site,
this is NOT what was intended. It just illustrates the problem. It
has generated some wonderful discussions though. Another great thing
about the web!
==================================================================
Susan E. Stagnitta
In a message dated 8/27/2004 6:57:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com writes:
Guanaco is now currently in the process of restoring, without a single word
of discussion, the items I deleted which Michael created without authorization.
RickK
Good. I have posted a lengthy comment on the Village Pump.
Danny
Hi, people.
Please could you guys stop creating stuff like this?:
{{Taxobox_begin | color = pink | name = Domestic Dog}}<br />{{StatusSecure}}
{{Taxobox_image | image = [[Image:Norwegian Elkhound 600.jpg|249px|]]
| caption = A [[Norwegian Elkhound]], a breed of domestic dog.}}
{{Taxobox_begin_placement | color = pink}}
{{Taxobox_regnum_entry | taxon = [[Animal]]ia}}
[... etc. ...]
{{Taxobox_end}}
This is not going to work in the long run. This is extremely prone to
error and extremely hard to maintain.
Please do it the correct way; something like
{{Taxobox | color = pink | name = Domestic Dog |
image = [[...]] | regnum = [[Animal]]ia | ... etc. ... }}
The former (current) mark-up gives me the creeps. It defies all the
principles of modularity and document structure. As such, this kind of
thing makes the introduction of a better/faster parser pretty damn hard.
Thanks,
Timwi
(1) http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030163.html
(2) http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030167.html
(3) On 30 Aug 2004, at 17:38, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> You said that [[Hanlon's razor]] applies. "Never attribute to malice
> that
> which can be adequetely explained by stupidity." This is calling the
> professor stupid.
>
> Then you said the "next problem would be hubris." Hubris is
> arrogance. So
> you called the professor arrogant too.
>
> Anthony
With reference to the above emails: You've got things mixed up there,
Anthony.
I said "[[Hanlon's razor]] applies" when talking about the Darthmouth
affair and User:pcw. That was way back when. See this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030030.html
I made the comment
> However, I do feel that I did not lecture but plead and also feel that
> I did not engage in hostile behaviour.
when the conversation had long since moved on and I was talking about
Geoff
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030157.html
1.
I asked you to clarify who/what you were referring to. Accusing others
publicly, not clarifying what the accusation refers to (even when
expressly asked to do so) and sending others off on a search is bad
form.
2.
I did not use the words "stupid" and "arrogant" when talking about
User:pcw. I said what I said and I stand by it. I stated what I stated
in a general fashion. Go re-read that email. (You will find that wasn't
trying to draw through the mud anyone there. You will find that I was
actually trying to put things in perspective and included the admission
that we all are guilty of the same crimes.)
3.
I would ask you to not send such emails to WP mailing lists in the
future.
If you still feel you have to, then please at least EXPLAIN what you're
referring to. Especially when asked. Not doing so forces others to
waste their precious time doing what you should have been doing to get
your facts straight, and doing it just so they can defend themselves
against criticism leveled at them.
-- Jens
>In dealing with matters like this to what extent do we protect
>downstream users? Should we go ahead and include the text, and add a
>warning that a downstream user republishes the material at his own risk?
I believe that there is always a risk to any publisher to publish anything.
Free speech is only skin deep. I also think that Wikipedia should allow all
media that should be public domain but for some strange copyright
strangeness isn't. Like Max Planck's speech and Mein Kampf. Or like all
those images that have become a part of the world heritage but are still
claimed copyright on. Like the pic of the WTC towers burning and the Che pic
just to take two examples out of tens of thousands. I know that that is way
to radical position for Wikipedia but that's what I feel about the issue.
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Point taken.
I was actually quoted out of context, but nevertheless:
My apologies for any inconvenience caused.
-- Jens
On 30 Aug 2004, at 07:10, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:19:22 -0700
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] in response to your article "Librarian: Don't
> use Wikipedia as source" in the Post-Standard
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040829161922.GD7406(a)wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>> So please don't tell people "go and try" (they will suceed if they are
>> halfway intelligent) but tell them: "most people just don't do it,
>> that's why wikipedia works".
>
> I agree very strongly with this. When I talk to reporters and this
> topic comes up, I specifically ask them *not* to do it, because it is
> very rude behavior, even as an experiment.
>
> --Jimbo
>