I'm afraid that sources like the Brittanica are not free of this. Tim . . .
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 9:38:50 PM, George wrote:
> Here's the problem. Academic rigor - which I understand, having done
> refereed papers for conferences and such - is all fine and good for
> scholarly original research papers.
> For an encyclopedia, the vast bulk of what we're trying to do is to
> simply convey the top level survey of a field to the general public.
You are arguing that for an encyclopedia, unlike for the academia,
reliability and fact-checking are not important.
The academic rigor exists not just due to their elitism: that's how
the Academia mentains their high standards of its publications.
From my experience on Wikipedia, unsourced articles are very unreliable
and may have plenty of wrong facts. Most of thse wrong facts are not
added due to malice (though that is not uncommon), but they were
added by people either from their (inevitable unreliable) memories,
from blogs and forums, which, on average have an awful lack of
accuracy or they are simply misinterpretations.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One week from today, Wikipedia's own Jimmy Wales is giving a talk
entitled *Free
Culture, Transparency, and Search* for the Free Culture Club at New York
University, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to be held at the Courant Institute,
251 Mercer Street, Room 109, in New York City. More details can be found at
www.freeculturenyu.org.
Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme
Wikipedia Club of New York - Unofficial Social Chair
As you know, Encyclopedia Dramatica has attack articles on many
Wikipedians. Well, they changed hosts so maybe their new host will care
more about abuse reports.
They used to be hosted by DreamHost who was unhelpful about abuse
complaints. Dreamhost now only their DNS now.
Their server IPs are:
encyclopediadramatica.net 72.249.60.226
pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com 72.249.60.227
A whois lookup on these shows they comes from colo4dallas.com and a
traceroute finds cogentco.com as the next closest hop. This means the
email addresses to report abuse to are now: abuse(a)colo4dallas.com,
support(a)colo4dallas.com, abuse(a)cogentco.com
If we get enough reports in, they may shut down their site.
________________________________________________________________________
Interested in getting caught up on today's news?
Click here to checkout USA TODAY Headlines.
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=198954&u=http://www.usatoday.com/news/front.ht…
On 24 Jan 2007 at 11:24, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Wikipedia is a give / take thing. you give your effort and in
> return you are rewarded with something which will help you in the
> search engine rankings with Google and possibly the other major
> engines.
>
> http://www.sepguy.com/2007/01/23/5-reasons-wikipedia-is-doomed.html
That page is a real "How many errors can you find in this page?"
brainteaser. The author's attribution of WikiSeek as having been
launched by Jimbo Wales (it's actually by a company named Searchme,
Inc., unconnected with the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikia, or any other
Jimbo Wales venture) is the most glaring error I noticed.
The site also refers to "wiki Nazis", thus triggering Godwin's Law.
Then the author links to a personal anecdote of "Wikipedia hell"
which turns out to simply be the fact that he once added a lengthy
section on "Search Engine Prominence" to an article and had it
removed and criticized by another editor on the grounds of the
terminology being "not really standard". Interesting definition of
"hell" as being a place where not everybody always agrees with you
all the time. (It kind of reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode
where hell turned out to be a place of eternal boredom where
everything you try to do works perfectly with no conflict of any
sort.)
--
== 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/
> The subject of the article should be notable BY ITSELF, not by
association.
Completely agree. A comic is not instantly notable because it was
published on Keenspace (note Keenspace is not Keenspot).
Fran
Apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinford had stories about
werewolves in the article, it got into the Irish edition of the Daily
Mail and so I'm on Irish radio again. Site at http://www.todayfm.com/
. Probably just a few minutes.
- d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecma_Office_Open_XMLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecma_Office_Open_XML
I've spent this evening working on press stuff relating to this. The
article is now at a much better (IMO) title. (I compare it to
[[JavaScript]] being the article about the Netscape/Mozilla version of
the language, but [[ECMAScript]] being the article about the
standardised version.)
Now it needs clueful editors who both know the subject area and
understand NPOV to keep it in order. We need to recover it from
advocates and anti-advocates and make it something informative for the
readers. You know how it is.
Mathias Schindler and I have been doing press about this, and also
talking to the Microsoft OOXML guys. Doug Mahugh from MS is on the
talk page, and does understand that editing the article himself would
be a conflict of interest and the talk page is the right place to edit
from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument also needs a similar degree
of attention.
With the amount of press attention this is getting, I expect both
articles to be features in a month ;-)
- d.
I have noticed that when you create an imperfect article (no stub tag,
no categories, or something badly wrong), someone tends to show up and
fix it. Often they add something else in the process. But at least you
get a tiny bit of feedback.
However, when you create a "perfect" article in one go (referenced,
with categories, links and incoming links), you actually get no
feedback. No one is drawn there to fix some automatically detected
fault. In short, no one even seems to see it.
This strikes me as slightly sad. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.
Steve
>-----Original Message-----
>From: · Firefoxman [mailto:enwpmail@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:58 AM
>To: andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk, 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to stop Encyclopedia Dramatica from making attack articles on us
>
>Wouldent they deserve their own article?
No, except for their attack articles on Wikipedia, its just another tits and ass site, nothing special. So not notable enough for an article.
Fred