In a message dated 11/12/2008 7:26:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
anyone who really cares about credit for the authorship of his text,
should really pick some other medium than wikipedia. myself, I always
thought that was the implication of not own, and our warning about
what can happen to what you write. Its not as if it cost money to set
up a blog.>>
---------------------
A blog isn't an encyclopedia however.
Your argument works, until you realize that Knol is doing this already.
They are not a blog, but more like an encyclopedia, albeit just starting out.
Perhaps someone could address the similarities and differences in the
approach of WP as against Knol.
We already have a form of attribution, in the history and the tools already
pointed out.
All I'm suggesting is that it could be made more apparent.
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:30:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
Did you look at wikiblame? It does a lot more than just list a few names.
The preamble to the GFDL says as a secondary purpose, "this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not
being considered responsible for modifications made by others." Just listing
three names and "with numerous other contributors" doesn't preserve for
*all* authors (or any publisher) a way to get credit for their work, and makes no
effort to keep authors from being considered responsible for modifications
made by others. >>
---------------------------
And my idea is not to *replace* the history tab, it's to allow attribution.
The requirement of the license is satisfied by the history tab details.
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
link?
In a message dated 11/12/2008 11:10:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
One ancedote - they had an incident where they imported a Wikipedia
page that turned out to have information that another agency /
department insisted was special compartmented information, and that
they had to take down the Intellipedia page on it....
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
In a message dated 11/12/2008 2:21:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
In order to deprive us of
honor that you may then deprive us our wealth, you have always regarded us
as slaves who deserve no moral recognition.>>
---------------------
I.E. you do the work and your boss gets the credit.
I think Dolly Parton said it as well.
That's the shining light of Knol, or at least the theory. That those who
write the articles *do* get attribution, but so-far it's not quite working out
as I'd thought. I have two Knols where I actually have *minor*
co-contributors, but the majority just seem to be read without comment. Maybe I'm just
that perfect of a writer. I wonder if there is some measurement in Wikipedia
of the *average number of contributors per article* ?
Perhaps it's only something small like 1.5. Maybe most articles are written
by a single author.
Maybe one way to improve Wikipedia would be a two-tier approach where
articles start out with attribution but once an article achieves "critical mass",
the list of contributors just becomes "a bunch of people" instead of
specifying the names. (Don't try to convince me that the History link is
"attribution", people who write for a living know that it's almost unusable for that.)
Will Johnson
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red…p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
One of the CIA folks involved in Intellipedia just gave the opening
invited talk at the Usenix LISA conference. Interesting view into
what they are doing with some of the tools, some of the obvious
problems, some tool gaps, having to figure out how to deal with
compartmented, normal top secret, and secret networks and information,
importing from Wikipedia, etc.
One ancedote - they had an incident where they imported a Wikipedia
page that turned out to have information that another agency /
department insisted was special compartmented information, and that
they had to take down the Intellipedia page on it....
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
In a message dated 5/8/2008 5:47:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com writes:
*To say that "Ayn gave the impression that a work created by committee would
never achieve any degree of excellence" is simply untrue. It was her belief
that when man was driven by rational self-interest towards achieving his
end. For that purpose, he could function within a committee or an
organization as efficiently as an individual would have. One of the
features of strong capitalist societies are the huge multinational and
transnational corporations, which are more effective and efficient in their
zeal to achieve excellence driven by free competition in free markets.>>
--------------------
But that isn't a counter argument. The reason is because, even in that
multi-national corporation, if *you* are allowed to do your own work, without
undue influence (micro-managing) then you can still produce excellence.
However, if your work is developed by committee, where your best ideas are watered
down and changed to the point where they don't resemble what you had in mind
whatsoever, that is the thing that Ayn was against.
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer
programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked
for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I
require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
Will Johnson
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
Holiday needs. Search Now.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=htt…
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
In a message dated 11/11/2008 11:40:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com writes:
which went completely dead the moment I asked a question.>>
Ask me. I'll at least give you a flip and obnoxious response if nothing
else ;)
That's a joke.
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
Holiday needs. Search Now.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=htt…
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
For some time now featured articles have been promoted at an average
rate exceeding one per-day. The undeniable consequence of this is
that unless the rate of FA promotions drops off most featured articles
will *never* make it to the main page. I see no reason to expect the
promotion rate to fall, an several arguments why we should expect it
to increase.
Yet, being featured on the main page is still cited by users as a big
motivator behind their work on featured articles.
There is a simple measure that we could take which would substantially
reduce this gap: We could regularlly run two featured articles on the
main page like we are doing today.
By doing so we could also have more flexibility in our choices. When
two interesting things fall on a single day, we could possibly run
both. We could run similar articles for comparison, or dramatically
different articles for contrasting.
With the order randomization that we're using for today's two articles
we could compare differential click through rates and learn more about
what people will click on. We could offer readers additional choices.
To me this seems like a lot of advantages, at the cost of a little
less attention on a single article.
(When we're done with this discussion we could move onto the fact that
both of today's articles are hard-full-protected and how nice it would
be if we were using revision flagging with display-flagged instead...)