I remember a post way back about what the Wikimedia Foundation should do in
case it receives a large grant or donation.
For the past few days I've been collecting data for a number of new
articles, and I realized how lucky I am.
A lot of people don't have access to things like Pubmed and LexisNexis and
those are particularly useful in citing articles.
Buying a set of books and making their contents available is nice, but still
growing databases of information are more useful, especially now we should
focus more on sources instead of new content as Jimbo said at the Wikimania
conference. As soon as I finish my study, my access to those databases will
cease to exist. I don't know the numbers, but perhaps a number of
Wikipedians, say those in a referencing taskforce, should get access to such
services with the help of the foundation...
Mgm
"Stephen Bain" wrote
> On 12/17/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia
> > something like: "The consensus amongst legal
> > scholars is that opinion A is correct" (or similar),
> > with a footnote stating the evidence.
> >
> > Can I do that? My sources were the best that exist,
> > and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone
> > with a good library. On the other hand, I have drawn
> > my own conclusions from these observations so
> > maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
>
> Of course that's ok.
I think it's OK, too. We are suppoed to summarise existing knowledge: so NOR shouldn't take away the tool of giving an accurate precis. One can tweak the wording, so that 'most opinions follow that of X in [cite]' is perhaps better than 'consensus'. But I think many practical cases are like this, with a slight change of words helping out the look.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Can someone remind me where it's stated how our policies are
applied differently for different namespaces, and how many of
those differences there are? I'm pretty sure the rules for talk
pages are different, but are there also significant differences
between "project" pages and the main namespace (i.e. ns:0)?
(I ask because I'm becoming embroiled in a delightful -- not! --
tempest-in-a-teapot over proposed sweeping new policies for the
Reference Desks, and one of the sticking points seems to be the
extent to which core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V should be
applied there. But I mention this only for information; I'm not
trying to extend the RD debate to this mailing list.)
Hello folks, I'm new to this list and I've looked for a previous discussion on this, back to last month, and didn't see anything.. I just did a *fresh* install of 1.9alpha on my sub-domain name. After placing the LocalSettings.php file into the root/ of the sub-domain... I'm getting multiple redirecting loops..
http://wiki.spencerp.net/index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/Index.php/…
Also, how can I get the links to look like such in 1.9alpha?
http://wiki.website.com/Main_Pagehttp://wiki.website.com/Main_Page?action=edit
I had followed this guide below here, as well as some other ones, while I having 1.8.2 up and running.. and all was well.. =/ Since I decided to go with 1.9alpha.. it all went to hell lol..
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eliminating_index.php_from_the_url#My_e…
Any tips, suggestions would be greatly appreciated.. I really need to get that redirect loop fixed though sigh. =( Or, should I just stick with the 1.8.2 on a "live" wiki? /Yeah, maybe I shouldn't be using the alpha on the "live" wiki.. [slaps self]..
spencerp
Also, I wasn't sure at first which list to send this too, I've also posted this in the Mediawiki-I list.. =/
Fun thing to do with $1,000,000:
Buy the rarest stamp in the world, the [[British Guiana 1c magenta]]
(only one known to exist); last known value $935,000. If you can't
get the owner to sell, you might have to settle for another rare
stamp such as an [[Inverted Jenny]]. Anyway, get a rare, priceless
small paper object. Then feed it to a goat. Take the goat's feces
and mold it into a modern-art sculpture, and exhibit it at the
[[Brooklyn Museum]].
And this will benefit Wikipedia... how?
Well, um... I guess you can release the sculpture and pictures of it
under a free license to allow illustration of Wikipedia coverage of
this project and any controversy you manage to stir up about it
without resorting to fair use or anything else unfree.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Hello,
I love wikipedia so it was a shock to me when 4 weeks ago I couldn't access
it on my computer. Sadly it continued to be unreachable for 2 more weeks, at
which point I began searching the net for possible Wikipedia downtime.
Nothing came up...
Now it has been 3-4 weeks and I have asked many people (about 10) who call
all access Wikipedia within a few seconds, but it just won't work for me! I
even tried it on 4 different browsers.....So far NO luck..
So what is going on? Did wiki accidentally ban me? Is my PC messed up
royally? Any help needed alot, I'm desperate and I want my Wikipedia!!!!
thanks
~XMZL
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Problems-Connecting-to-Wiki-tf2824720.html#a7884985
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 12/13/06, Sarah (slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>*> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
*>* >>
*>* >> On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
*>>*> > MONGO: I lost count.
*>* >> Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this
*>* >> user I'm leaving."
*>* >> FloNight: at least 2 instances.
*
>I left once for about a week, and I believe FloNight left once too.
>Please get your facts straight.
If you were serious about leaving and not just pretending to in order to
elicit a reaction why didn't you ask to by desysopped when you quit?
Michel
On 15 Dec 2006 at 14:11, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> Looks like it's ready for the flaming debate on inclusion - "all
> glaciers are notable" vs "icecruft", which Google shows to be a term
> waiting to be coined... :-)
Ice, ice baby!
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
geni wrote
> On 12/15/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Wow, it's much expanded since I last looked at it, two years ago!
> >
> > Looks like it's ready for the flaming debate on inclusion - "all
> > glaciers are notable" vs "icecruft", which Google shows to be a term
> > waiting to be coined... :-)
> Nyet in this case the deletionists are being pro-active and are
> working on removeing the glaciers themselves.
Some sort of terminal murrain?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information