Well as a free-content encyclopedia, are we really proponents of
special-linking only free projects? After all most encyclopedias reference copyrighted m
aterial, and I would think we'd really want more to reference the highest
quality material, not just if it's also free content.
So for example we could have a special template link for the Encyclopedia
Brittanica for those articles we have, which they also have. As a "blogger" if
you will, we, that is the entire project, could enjoy the same special
relationship with EB that bloggers do, that is, to deep-link and display content
if a user is coming from our project to theirs. (They recently added this
ability, normally you have to subscribe.)
To me, that sort of high-quality-link would be beneficial, and helpful to
have it specially noted, in the same way that say Wikisource or Wikiquote is,
and yet the material is copyright.
Will Johnson
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
In a message dated 8/28/2008 1:52:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Especially because, frankly, there's more community
overlap between us and some of the fan wikis, at least in the specific
pages that they'd be linked from, than there is between us and
Wikiquote on any given page that links there.>>
--------------------
OK so for example at my site _http://www.countyhistorian.com_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com)
which uses the Wikia software, I have perhaps the more thorough and in-depth
biography of Henry Fonda which exists on the internet.
So is my site, the sort of "fan wiki" to which you refer? So it could be
linked using a special link, even though it's not used as a "source" for the
article?
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
As some of you might remember, we have been working on author
reputation and text trust systems for wikis; some of you may have seen
our demo at WikiMania 2007, or the on-line demo
http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/
Since then, we have been busy at work to build a system that can be
deployed on any wiki, and display the text trust information.
And we finally made it!
We are pleased to announce the release of WikiTrust version 2!
With it, you can compute author reputation and text trust of your
wikis in real-time, as edits to the wiki are made, and you can display
text trust via a new "trust" tab.
The tool can be installed as a MediaWiki extension, and is released
open-source, under the BSD license; the project page is
http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/WikiTrust
WikiTrust can be deployed both on new, and on existing, wikis.
WikiTrust stores author reputation and text trust in additional
database tables. If deployed on an existing wiki, WikiTrust first
computes the reputation and trust information for the current wiki
content, and then processes new edits as they are made. The
computation is scalable, parallel, and fault-tolerant, in the sense
that WikiTrust adaptively fills in missing trust or reputation
information.
On my MacBook, running under Ubuntu in vmware, WikiTrust can analize
some 10-20 revisions / second of a wiki; so with a little patience,
unless your wiki is truly huge, you can just deploy it and wait a
bit.
Go to http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/WikiTrust for more information and for
the code!
Feedback, comments, etc are much appreciated!
Luca de Alfaro
(with Ian Pye and Bo Adler)
On 22 Aug 2008 at 21:26, "Ben Yates" <ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Apparently there's a competing app called iWik --
> http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=287487296…
>
> Anyone used it?
And there's an app, WikiMe, that finds geotagged Wikipedia articles
near you, but it's a pay app (99 cents). I'm not sure who's making
money off that.
Somebody had a "geowiki" app earlier for the old iPhone model that
was free, but was "unauthorized" and required "jailbreaking" the
phone, and I don't think it works in the new model which has tighter
security against people doing things Apple doesn't like.
--
== 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/
This issue was raised on the pages for the 2008 election of the Arbitrators
Committee,
and while I haven't been involved in that discussion I think its important
to get a wide
array of eyeballs on this particular question: Should the term of election
for the
Arbitration Committee be reduced to two years, from three, with annual
elections?
I think a one year term, and certainly anything shorter than that, risks
destroying
institutional memory and over-politicizing the arbitration process. Three
years was
obviously devised to insulate the Committee members from the intermittent
changes
in the will and makeup of the community, and also to ensure that the
committee had
a long institutional memory with regards to ongoing issues and past
decisions.
What I think is clear to most people is that a position on the Committee is
a difficult
and trying role. They are the last resort for disputes that have become
bitter enough
or severe enough that other community-based processes are unable to provide
a
solution. Every decision further embitters some, and some decisions leave
absolutely
everyone cold. The point is that being an arbitrator is a tough job, and it
is mostly
unacknowledged and unrewarded. We have all seen arbitrators become bitter
about
the process and its cases, we've all seen activity die off in formerly
heavily involved
arbitrators. Arbitrators have resigned early in dismay (including again,
just today),
and others who manage to complete a term essentially disappear from
Wikipedia.
On the ArbCom RfC and the election page, three current arbitrators and one
former
arbitrator have expressed support for reducing the term of election for
arbitrators
to 2 years. In a separate section on the RfC, 25 editors (including a number
of
admins) also endorsed the idea of removing the third year from the term.
Its unclear who would need to take the lead in making this change, so I hope
that
Jimmy particularly is willing to weigh in on this question.
thank you,
Nathan
Matt no, the problem is not in the *number* of rows or columns.
You are probably thinking about the situation where each Row starts with an
identifier and then continues with column-cell-data directly related to that
identifier. Fine, there's no problem with that sort of table.
The problem to which I refer is where each cell is an independent-datum, not
tightly related to what row it's in, for example "List of important cities
in California" might be a five-column wide table (let's say) and the row a
city appears in, is not relevant to the city itself, and each row does not have
an identifier simply because the entire table is just a "list" but in tabular
form to save row-space.
That's a big run-on sentence.
The table is not a data-table (like a programmer), it's just a "list" but
graphically structured as a table, because a table is the most efficient way to
show the data, while a list proper would take up many rows of space, mostly
white-space, which is not efficient and looks poor to the eye.
Imagine a list like "Apples, Bananas, Cherries...... Zebra" with dozens of
elements, but instead of being comma-delimited, it's all put into say a
6-column table just for beautification. Now add an element to the middle of the
list somewhere. You *dont* want the edge of the row to extend further right,
because that would be *ugly*. What you want, is everything to shift forward
so that at most an extra row is created at the bottom, which would look
normal, but not an extra column to the right which would look poor.
Will
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
Yes. You have a rectangle, five columns, six rows let's say.
As you add items to the table, you have to constantly move other items
downwards, to maintain the alphabetical, or chronological arrangement.
"Insert" in other words, does not automatically shift forward items already
in the table.
"Delete" does not automatically shift items backward in the table.
You really have to be familiar with the table structure to understand what
I'm saying.
If you've never worked with tables before in-wiki you won't understand my
point.
Will
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)