Interesting statement by Jim Skinner, CEO of McDonald's on CNN today. He
said one of the biggest reasons McDonald's is doing so well during the
recent economic slowdown is their change of focus from being bigger, to
being better.
Just a thought.
Marc
"Anonymous prestige or money and fame?"<http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=1178>
medipedia.com seems like a potential serious project.
Fayssal F.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:00:54 +0100 Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Knol product manager suggests it as a source
for Wikipedia
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4889B266.5020102(a)ntlworld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
<snip>
I don't doubt people will look up medical info there. As long as it's
updated.
<snip>
Charles
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 64
****************************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There is a proposal to autoconfirm admins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AutoconfirmAdmin
- --
Best,
Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkiLligACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtU1IQCfanFsAKKcpQw9nXz6XK6g6q9E
ncoAoKrwgMMPZi/DFcvbfinWBWD4oXyC
=2kLp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> From: Jon <scream(a)datascreamer.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA idea...
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
> As some of you already know, I've undergone an RFA recently. Thats ok.
> No matter the result, I try to vote on some RFA's whenever I ask for
> the community do discuss me.
>
> On the same token, I try to vote on some AFDs (or close some) whenever I
> submit an AFD.
>
> As I read some of the RFAs ongoing, I discovered a trend. So I looked
> into the recent historical RFA votes. (Lets not get to wrapped around
> vote=!vote, for simplicity of this proposal/idea, I'll call all
> comments, discussions... votes)
>
> I have discovered what appears to be a trend in clique mentality and
> power centralization. Also, I have discovered some crazy oppositions,
> for example "I view self noms a prima facia evidence of power hunger."
> This is among the craziest I've seen. Not that the editor is crazy, but
> the oppose is.
>
>
> Here is my suggested solution:
>
> Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped
> under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edits
> and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks.
> Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship. If this
> idea has some support on the mailing list (with any suggested
> alterations) I think I might put up a policy page as I have done on
> IPBLOCKEXEMPT for discussion.
>
> The advantages of such a system would eliminate power centralization,
> clique mentality, and some of these outrageous opposes.
>
> Everyone here is an academic. We are building en encyclopedia.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> - --
> Best,
> Jon
>
> [User:NonvocalScream]
I'm not sure it'd work. Not everyone who has [number]+ edits and has been
around for [time]+ months/years would make a good admin. The current RFA
process, besides some wonky-ness on the part of the !voters, should be able
deal with this fairly well. Besides that, not every user wants to be an
admin.
I still think the idea is worth putting up on [[WP:VPP]], though, or on
[[WT:RFA]]. While I kinda' doubt it'd go through, some constructive things
might come out of the discussion (on the other hand, something constructive
might come out of this as well, so whatever you like).
There was a suggestion in one of the RFA review responses that suggested a
!vote limit in RFAs to reduce the cliche problem (hell if I can remember
which one, though), which should solve the problem as well. Thought I'd
throw that out there.
[[User:Lifebaka]]
For some reasons, there exist some people who call every detergent "Tide" or
every toothpaste "Colgate". There are some others who call all kinds of
encyclopaedias "Wikipedia<http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/07/25/medical-wikipedia-is-looking-for-a-f…>"
for some other reasons. It works for the best of the *brand*s in the first
case but i am not sure if it is helpful for the second since people who use
detergents and toothpastes are *not* necessarily well-informed. It is also
not helpful because the online medical encyclopedia "Medipedia" has already
started to look for a "few [well-informed] good doctors."
Tomorrow there would be stuff like "Cosmopedia" and "Militaropedia" looking
for some few good experts. There exist but I am talking about Web 2.0/3.0
expert-generated content encyclopaedias. There's a risk for us losing
ground. Well-informed people would stop calling every encyclopedia
"Wikipedia". Also,Google brings much traffic to Wikipedia (supposedly
because "Big Daddy" is based on incoming links' count) but things may change
quickly and, assuming google algorithm would be kept unchanged, websites
linking to Wikipedia articles can start linking to new expert 'pedias once
content starts growing.
Fayssal F.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:27:33 +0100 "Fayssal F." <szvest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Knol product manager suggests it as a source
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
<2a8c5680807250527k420533fdj5028b6bb3250397e(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
"Anonymous prestige or money and fame?"<http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=1178>
medipedia.com seems like a potential serious project.
Fayssal F.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:00:54 +0100 Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Knol product manager suggests it as a source
for Wikipedia
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4889B266.5020102(a)ntlworld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
<snip>
I don't doubt people will look up medical info there. As long as it's
updated.
<snip>
Charles
------------------------------
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 64
****************************************
I thought it might be an opportune moment to offer some feedback about
out internal search, because I think there are a few pretty easy
changes which could help a lot - and also I wanted to offer thanks to
wherever it's due, because it's certainly vastly improved since I
first played around with it, and found it quite useless!
I tried a variety of searches, but the general points apply to this,
my latest, one;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=cambridge+UK&go=Go
First up I'd like to suggest some re-wording / re-flowing of the
information above the text box - if someone could point me in the
right direction for such suggestions it'd be appreciated! (mainly just
small things like establishing whether or not "No article title
matches" and "No page with that title exists." represent redundant
information - and just generally making a bit more sense to readers!
I'd also suggest that the search term text box be at the top of the page.
I'd further like to ask if there's any way that the text information
included in the search results could be reliably culled to be the
introductory text only (perhaps ignoring everything within {{ would be
a good start? - if that doesn't break something.....).
I think the size of the article is self explanatory, but would suggest
a "Date last modified :" explanation for that bit.
Finally, the results page has some interesting choices with the first
20 results, especially when compared to the index. This one;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri
seemed particularly esoteric, especially when compared to something like;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire
which doesn't appear until ~ 200 (although it is mentioned in the 4th
result... I wonder if there would be any way of having our search
function treat disambig. pages a bit differently, and providing the
links within them directly to the search results page? - a bit like
the Google style in the first result here;
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=wikimedia+foundation
that's enough to begin with! - I'm actually really heartened by the
improvements that seem to have been made on this, and hope that a few
more little ones might push it over the hump into something genuinely
handy!
cheers,
PM.
(ps. if still on moderation, could this please be lifted? thanks......)
In a message dated 7/25/2008 10:54:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:27:15PM -0400, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> > They are not the standard however. For example in biography the number
> of
> > "peer-review" articles is vanishingly small. In Physics it is
> overwhelming.
> > Quite different animals.
>
> If you are saying that too many of our biography articles (and pop-culture
> articles) rely heavily on substandard sources, I completely agree. >>
-----------
No I'm saying that in certain subject-areas, the sources simply are not
peer-reviewed by nature.
When was the last time you read a biography that was peer-reviewed? It just
doesn't happen. Sure they are fact-checked by publishers, but that's not the
same as peer-review. Whatever "peer review" occurs with works of certain
types, occurs as an afterthought in the way of published reviews and critiques, so
in those cases, we'd note the biography and we'd note the critiques as well.
As we do.
-----------
>
> > You are wrong to lump "self-published material" with "even from experts".
>
> > That isn't what the policy states, nor what we hashed out over and over
> years
> > ago on this very point. We made a clear distinction between
> self-published
> > material from non-experts, and self-published material from experts. You
> > argument seems to blur that distinction that we carefully tried to draw.
>
> Here is the entire text on the subject of self-published expert
> sources from the current version of WP:V:
>
> Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when
> produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose
> work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable
> third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when
> using such sources: if the information in question is really worth
> reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
>
> This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the use of self-published expert
> writing. It explicitly encourages cautious use and a search for more
> reliable sources (the "someone else").
>
> In the end, we _should not_ be encouraging the use of self-published
> expert writing, for the reasons I laid out in an earlier email. A lack
> of ediitorial review is a magnet for theories and interpretations whose
> due weight in our articles is very low. >>
> ---------------
>
And I did not say a "ringing endorsement" Mr. Straw Man argument :)
There is a wide gap being "encouraging the use of" and "*allowing* the use
of", I'm sure you would agree.
We are always, even in the case of "peer review" encouraged to seek more
reliable sources, however the writing of "an established expert in the revelent
field who has been previously published by reliable third-party publications",
is by our policy a reliable source.
Should you use such a source cautiously and meanwhile seek a better one.
Sure. Just as you'd hopefully do with all sources. The use of any source
requires a certain amount of common sense and skepticism.
We are explicitely stating that such experts understand how to exercise
self-review, self-censorship, and competency. They are not identical with the
general public.
Will Johnson
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
In a message dated 7/25/2008 10:23:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
WP:V is very clear that peer-reviewed sources by professioanl
publishers are our preferred sources in the areas where they exist.
It is also clear that self-published material, even from experts, should
be taken with a grain of salt. I'll include some quotes below. >>
-------------
Your quotes are misread. Peer-reviewed articles where they exist are more
reliable.
They are not the standard however. For example in biography the number of
"peer-review" articles is vanishingly small. In Physics it is overwhelming.
Quite different animals.
You are wrong to lump "self-published material" with "even from experts".
That isn't what the policy states, nor what we hashed out over and over years
ago on this very point. We made a clear distinction between self-published
material from non-experts, and self-published material from experts. You
argument seems to blur that distinction that we carefully tried to draw.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
In a message dated 7/25/2008 5:48:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
We need to treat Knol the same as any other self-published,
non-peer-reviewed source. The use of these sources has to be as minimal
as possible, even if the sources are written by experts in the field. >>
--------------
Peer-review is not our standard however.
If you review our policy on V and RS you'll find that we do treat expert
presentations on a different level from other self-published material.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
>> Cutting and pasting wikipedia content without following the terms of
>> the GFDL is rather problematical.
>>
> At least he preserved the section entitled History...
> http://knol.google.com/k/sheldon-rampton/-/8r9tdjdcsltq/2#H0-History
I created my article with an "All rights reserved" license. Knol gives
me two other Creative Commons optiions. Not being an expert on the
Talmudic details of GFDL, I don't know whether any of these options is
consistent with its terms.
For me this is just an experiment so I can get a feel how Knol works.
I don't have any desire to become a permanent maintainer of the
Wikipedia article on Knol. The identified author of each article seems
to be responsible for overseeing edits, and I don't have the time.
Eventually I'll probably just delete the Wikipedia article.
One thing I'm curious about is how Knol handles disputes and
complaints. If someone here wants to try submitting a complaint about
my "All reserved license" or about the accuracy of the article, I
won't be offended. I'm wondering myself how Google would handle it.
Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, if you search for Sheldon's Wikipedia article instead of
> following the
> link you won't find it. That is because, apparently, Google has not
> made
> most of the user added knol's publicly searchable. If you search for
> your
> own while logged in, you'll see it - but no one else will. At least
> in the
> early stages, it means a lot of people will create duplicate articles
> unaware of what has already been written.
Interesting. As Nathan pointed out, my Wikipedia article shows up in a
search when I'm logged in, but not when I'm logged out.
I'm usually very impressed with Google's offerings, but so far this
one leaves me underwhelmed. In theory, the WYSIWYG editing should be
nicer than Wikipedia's wikitext, which is a lot less user-friendly
than its proponents imagine. In practice, however, WYSIWYG editing on
a web browser tends to be buggy, and Knol doesn't seem to have solved
that. And things get worse when it comes to collaborative features.
Other users can submit proposed changes, but the only person who can
see a proposed change is the article's owner (at least in "moderated
collaboration" mode). When someone submits a change, Knol tries to
show me a WYSIWYG version of the diff, which I find confusing rather
than helpful. Someone else here pointed out that Knol looks more like
Google's alternative to Geocities than like an alternative to
Wikipedia. I'd second that emotion.
-------------------------------------------
SHELDON RAMPTON
Research director, Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713
Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email:
<http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html>
Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts:
<http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed>
Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the
public agenda:
<http://www.sourcewatch.org>
Support independent, public interest reporting:
<http://www.prwatch.org/donate>