At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Some time ago, we discussed the various articles on years, which are
invariably bald timelines of births, deaths and events; the
possibility of fleshing them out into prose was tossed around.
I've just been told someone finally did one of them :-)
with the old content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1345_timeline
- Andrew Gray
"A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone
who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read."
The project is not collaborative like Wikipedia, but for many topics,
there will be competing knols on the same subject. The goal is to
cover all topics, from encyclopedic topics to how-to-fix-it
instructions. The control over the article will remain with the
author, who can also choose to display ads and get a substantial
revenue share. Most probably, the license won't be a free one, but
"Google will not ask for any exclusivity on any of this content and
will make that content available to any other search engine."
It's too early to say, but the success of Knol may spell extinction
for projects like Citizendium: most "experts" would prefer to retain
sole authorship of their articles and get paid for it.
And of course, it may spell doom for Wikipedia as well. Knol will
certainly provide a more authoritative, more reliable source of
knowledge than Wikipedia:
On 12/31/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember that "notability" is a Wikipedia jargon word back-formed from
> the use of "non-notable" on AFD to mean "I've never heard of it."
Something just struck me as very odd with some edit patterns:
Are they one in the same person? I noticed they both just edited the
Led Zeppelin II article, and looking back at their contributions I was
surprised in noticing they edited Oasis and Primal Scream at almost
the same time periods, for some months now.
Then User:Indopug appears on the December 24th, I noticed very similar
editing patterns as well.
Led Zeppelin II, Stone Roses, The Smashing Pumpkins,
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joy Division, clasifying every
article B class... etc
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
> On 26/12/2007, Nachman <nachman.chayal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Additionally, it turns out that if intelligence employees have their names
> > published on a site like Wikipedia (even without a connection to their
> > position) they are dismissed or transferred to a public position (i.e .
> > public relations).
> > The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA
> > job fair representative."
> That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort
that is measured by IQ tests.
== 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/
Sorry if this has been asked before. I've looked everywhere I can think of
on Wikipedia to find out what to do.
On a particular contentious article I'm editing, there are 3 IP addresses
editing the article on one side of the debate. After looking these IP's up
on http://www.ip-adress.com/, 2 are from the same city and 1 is from a city
30 miles away. Thus, it sppears as though somebody is playing games and
editing as though they are 3 different people (the city isn't a big city or
anything so can't be by chance).
Anyone know what I can do about this?
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-to-do-about-messages-edits-from-the-same-user-wi…
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Some might find this interesting:
Over the holidays, I spoke to an individual I know well and was told that US
intelligence agencies keep a local copy of Wikipedia available for employees
who are isolated from the Internet for security reasons. Apparently, its
updated once a year. (Its separate from Intellipedia, which is used for
sharing information classified up to TS).
Additionally, it turns out that if intelligence employees have their names
published on a site like Wikipedia (even without a connection to their
position) they are dismissed or transferred to a public position (i.e .
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA
job fair representative."
(posted using alternate e-mail)