Hi,
after being announced several times, the "Encyclopedia of Earth" (EoE)
has surfaced at http://www.eoearth.org/. It is published by the
Digital Universe Foundation and it is part of the Earthportal project.
It currently consists of 363 articles (according to the "All Articles"
list at http://www.eoearth.org/articles).
The EoE seems to be the only special topic encyclopedia that does not
cover its own topic itself. There is an article about the
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Crude_Oil_Windfall_Profit_Tax_Act_of_1980,_U…
but nothing about Earth (...yet).
The content is licensed under CC-BY-SA, so it is free (as in freedom)
but not compatible with the GFDL at present.
I have not counted how many articles are modified versions of text
that has already appeared somewhere else:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Meter
"This article is taken wholly from, or contains information that was
originally published by, the National Institue of Standards and
Technology. Topic editors and authors for the Encyclopedia of Earth
may have edited its content or added new information. The use of
information from National Institue of Standards and Technology should
not be construed as support for or endorsement by that organization
for any new information added by EoE personnel, or for any editing of
the original content."
In Berlin, I spoke with Larry Sanger from the Digital Universe
Foundation. He said (if I remember correctly) that the EoE people have
already "written" (maybe including as in cut&pasted from the NIST)
over 1000 articles.
You can listen to Larry's answer at
http://phalacrocorax.informatik.hu-berlin.de/fr/06_13h_QualityManagementInF…
90:05
Larry: "The Encyclopedia of Earth is under development. They have over
a thousand articles in the wiki but at present it is a semi-closed
wiki."
More stats here:
http://www.eoearth.org/stats
Published Articles 364
Updated in last week 139
Updated in last month 364
Published Topics 53
All Contributors 276
Published Contributors 106
Published Authors 83
Published Topic Editors 30
Published Copyeditors 8
Last Published 22-Sep-2006 20:05:13 UTC (9 minutes ago)
Mathias
"David Gerard" wrote
> Ideas please?
It's now a little while, and I have other concerns, but I thought _last_ year that a 'how to edit Wikipedia' book would be an excellent idea. (I went as far as getting a proposal turned down by a publisher.)
Still relevant in 2006? Scenario is non-Webbish person (middle aged, middle class) wants a book on how to interact with Wikipedia, with a specific end in view. About as interesting as 'spreadsheets for dummies' type literature, but actually comprehensive as a reference, and _not_ just a bunch of hypertext looking like overgrown rhododendrons.
This at least is one type of answer to DG's phone call issue (I can't tell you it all in five minutes but I can recommend a book); and an admission that however simple the theory, the practice has become demanding.
Charles
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] How to deal with direct requests for articles?
My phone number and email are publicly available for media contact
purposes. This means, of course, I get emails and calls about
*everything*.
A common call is "How do I get an article about me/my book/my achievement?"
Now. What's a helpful answer to this? Better than "You don't, someone
else has to write one," because you *know* they'll just write a really
bad one themselves and it'll all end in a tearful AFD entry and
someone hating or fearing Wikipedia henceforth.
Assume that referring them to a web page or policy page is less good
than being able to answer on the phone right there.
Ideas please?
++++++++++++++
David, I know that this will sound like it's self-serving promotion, but in
all honesty, MyWikiBiz.com could potentially be another alternative to
consider if your caller is asking about a notable, verifiable company or
non-profit organization that currently lacks an article in the mainspace.
We do our best to research the entity, evaluate both the "good" and the
"bad" news associated with it, and write a NPOV article. Then, according to
Jimmy Wales' request, we see if an independent, non-paid, non-employee
editor thinks it's up to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and we see if
it gets posted.
I think our examples at [[The Family & Workplace Connection]] and [[Arch
Coal]] demonstrate fairly well that we are not here to spam Wikipedia, but
rather, to fill in the gaps. Also, I know you have no way of knowing or
verifying this, but we turn away the potential business of about 20%-25% of
our contacts, usually on the grounds that they fail [[WP:CORP]]. One final
note -- we are currently running a promotion where, if the client is a
non-profit entity with a humanitarian mission, we complete the work on a pro
bono basis (no charge).
Kindly,
Gregory Kohs
MyWikiBiz.com
This may be of interest to some people, given our occasional habit of
fleshing out articles by raiding the personal sites of subjects:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003211808_fancher20.html
It's a brief report of a discussion at the Seattle Times about the
reliability and ethical appropriateness of using (say) the Myspace
page of a murder victim in reporting on them. Not much content, but
it's good to see people are asking themselves these questions.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
This is just a reminder that there are less than ten days lefts for my
contest. Here is a chance to improve articles and get rewarded for it. I invite
everyone to participate. See [[WP:DC]] for more information.
Danny
There's been some discussion here lately on the desirability of
including or deleting the article for some smallish private school.
Actually, it's my impression that, over the couple of years I've been
involved with the project, Wikipedia has been steadily moving in the
direction of inclusionism in a number of subject areas, including
schools, roads, pop music, and TV episodes. A while back, something
had to be highly notable to be included in those subjects, but now
there are articles on county roads, middle schools, upcoming as-yet-
unnamed pop albums, etc.
So is this a good thing or a bad thing? At least in some areas,
where there are bounded categories that are (fairly) well defined
(one can always expect there will be a few edge cases though),
there's some value to aiming for having a complete set of articles,
even if some of them are of marginal notability and don't have all
that much to be said about them. Some past U.S. vice presidents are
pretty obscure now, but it would be good to have all of them anyway
(do we?) We've got articles on all the popes (and various antipopes
as well), though some of the early ones have practically no known
facts beyond their regnal names and (sometimes approximate) dates of
office. We've got all the U.S. census-listed places, thanks to an
early "bot" run, and probably should aim to get similarly complete
coverage of the rest of the world, even including remote villages of
tiny population; it's useful in the aggregate to be able to look up
any place (particularly when this is integrated into applications
where you can click on a spot on a map for more information).
So, should we be just as complete for schools, albums, songs, TV
shows, and so on? Would that just be duplicating IMDB, etc., or
would it be helping to make Wikipedia a one-stop resource for more in-
depth info (including links where appropriate to other sites like
IMDB) on everything in each of these fields?
--
== 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/
Hi,
my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself banned.
i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons
1) 3RR rule
2) No useful edits
3) Copyright violoations
4) attacks on talk pages
They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons, they
really have no substance.
1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address and
editor
the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at work.
2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the
spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section, background
info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and zionism
page, and turkic.
3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced to a
website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their
copyright. So there was NO copy right violation
4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could be
said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.
Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at best are
minor violations that would carry warnings.
however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to block
rule".
my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses . Including
the person that banned me jayjg. These posts included
a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind
orthodox jews who oppose political zionism. This was reverted many times by
jayjg amongst others
also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the enemy of
the jews by alan hart",
who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well researched
'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.
Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason for my
ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user who
has a different view of zionism.
for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted by
me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned indefinately
thanks saladin
_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
G'day Con,
> Note that notability is not the policy. Verifiability is. Even if a
> school is notable "by default", as some claim, if there is no
> verifiable information about it, there should be no article.
Fuck policy. Get into the habit of saying "notability is not the basis
for my argument", rather than quoting policy as if it's the Last Word.
You're right either way, but by following the Sensible Route instead of
the Process Wonk Route you get the prestigious Fuddlemark Thumbs Up Of
Approval, and that's worth its weight in gold!
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse