I need help.
After receiving a request via the OTRS to take a look into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hannan
I did what I could. I'm not all the up on the subject matter. Is there
anyway I could ask that a few people take a look at the article. It
seems awkward and largely unbalanced. Any assistance is appreciated.
I'm not so much asking for explicit sourcing on anything negative, I'm
more asking for some balance, so it does not come across so negative.
Only, if possible.
./scream
When you want to reference another Wikipedia article, it would be more
standard to use a "See Also" section, or to simply include a direct inline link.
I.E. not a citation.
Then you wouldn't run into any opposition
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Mr.Z-man and Maxim are currently requesting +crat at [[WP:RFB]].
There is also a discussion at [[WT:RFA]] relating to the need for more
'crats, and so I encourage everyone to consider these requests carefully.
Remember Encyclopedia of Life? They've just gone partially, er, live:
http://www.eol.org/
25 reviewed "example" pages showing the level they intend to reach for
every species; about 10,000 partial pages, and a million or so
"minimal species pages" (basically a substub placeholder). They have
funding and backing - it seems pretty likely they'll succeed.
Licensing is a bit of a mismash - some CC-BY, some NC, etc. All
labelled, at a quick glance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7263134.stm - BBC News story.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Hi,
I'm looking for picture-heavy tutorials on using MediaWiki (not
Wikipedia necessarily). For instance, a short tutorial that walks
someone through uploading a file, with annotated screenshots or even a
short video.
I know we have 5,000 help pages (approx.) on how to do this on en:wp
and meta (and commons), but I am looking for something a bit less
text-heavy and not focussed on Wikipedia policies, for use in teaching
and linking to on a local MediaWiki install.
Does anyone know of such a thing? I'm most interested in the basics of
being an editor: editing a page, uploading a file, possibly reading a
page history.
thanks!
phoebe
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:23:12 -0500, "Chris Howie" <cdhowie(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> At least that's what you'll have to do until we can get the
> [[Bat-Signal|Mop-Signal]] deployed.
Or start giving out Jimmy Olsen signal watches. Zee Zee Zee! (In
England would it go Zed Zed Zed?)
--
== 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/
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:42 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:49:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> << But seriously. You aren't suggesting that for real, are you? >>
> ---------------
>
> Not death to the internets :)
> Just all wiki talk, on-wiki.
> I've been a strong advocate for absolute and complete transparency, which
> includes meta-talk, for some time.
Good luck making that happen. You would need absolute control over
the lives of every administrator to pull that off.
But seriously, even if there is a secret channel, and some on-wiki
action is taken as a result of that discussion, you have every right
to demand to know why. And if the acting administrator didn't clarify
his reasons for the action he would stand a good chance of getting
desysoped.
--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
I was just reading about the New York Philharmonic Orchestra on en.WIkipedia after hearing they would be performing in North Korea. I'm certainly not the only person to do this; I imagine thousands of others have. The end of the article contains a new section on this particular news item, and something quite subtle struck me. Perhaps I am sensitive to this sort of thing, but here it is:
> Because of limited access to television sets, the question remains just how broadly such a telecast could be received in North Korea where only an estimated quarter- to half-million TV sets can be found.[10]
I clicked on the 10, and the citation was to:
> 10. ^ Wikipedia "Communications in North Korea"
I clicked on that, and here is the entire text of that section of the article:
> Television
>
> As of 2003, there are four television stations:
>
> * Korean Central Television (also broadcast internationally via satellite)
> * Mansudae Television
> * Korean Educational and Cultural Network
> * Kaesong Television targeting South Korea. [1]
I clicked on the reference for Kaesong and saw:
> 1. ^ CIA World Factbook: North Korea
I clicked on that, and here is the CIA's info on the subject:
> (includes Korean Central Television, Mansudae Television, Korean Educational and Cultural Network, and Kaesong Television targeting South Korea) (2003)
Useless. I went back and noticed that Korean Central Television was the only non-red link, so I clicked that as well, and finally found the "reference," which is itself uncited:
> The reach is limited, as only around 40% of North Koreans own a television set (with most of the owners living in large cities such as Pyongyang).
This kind of subterfuge strikes me as particularly nefarious. Certainly it is not in line with our goals to cite Wikipedia articles as if they were authoritative references? I would typically run a database query to see exactly how prevalent this practice is, but am unable to at the moment. Nonetheless, I find this single case disturbing!
Comments?
Brian