In a message dated 8/11/2008 3:31:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ansell.peter(a)gmail.com writes:
Good point. I do the "as cited by" thing for published papers, but for
wikipedia with its mix of anonymous, and pseudonymous users, and its continual
evolution, it just doesn't look right to say "as cited by Wikipedia user
204.23.144.2 at 13:00 UTC on August 12, 2008" (if you even feel like taking the
time to figure out which user it was that actually put the citation in given how
many revisions are on many articles).>>
----------
I don't think you really have to go that far.
But I would say something like "Hippo of Carthage is supposed to have said
'I've had enough' right before he died of food poisoning" (''Annals of Tacitus,
Book 12'' as cited by Wikipedia "Hippo of Carthage").
It would be a bit complex if we felt we had to actually cite the individual
author of a polygamous work, instead of the work cited. I think a citation
of that sort should be sufficient. It would be at least better than
presenting a situation where it would *appear* that you yourself read Tacitus directly.
Now IN THOSE CASES where you merely spot that one source cites another one,
and then you *actually do* read the underlying source seperately, it's
probably more common to simply cite that underlying source. Personally I don't like
that, but I'm sure it happens. It detracts from the effort the author(s)
went to, merely to collect and extract the sources relevantly, and makes it
appears like you yourself made that effort.
For example, I'm today working on a new biography of Henry Fonda, from
scratch. I'm sure that bits and pieces of the *new* data I find will worm their
way into here-and-there without citing my work, but its fairly discourteous to
approach sources in that fashion imho.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Just cross posting here and on ANI for greater visibility. No
recommendation however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to…
- --
Best,
Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkifDi0ACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtW/FwCeNmqH5wg80Rm+Um1aXCfAdk/s
p0QAoIlb72TlKRWLWwosNYRYsPqYLsAz
=CYwi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi all,
I am new to Wikipedia and am involved in an organization that wishes to
incorporate wiki-style features into an existing internal collaboration
tool. I have looked into Wikipedia's structure and understand that all
processes related to quality control are completely self-driven on the
part of its contributors. What do you think motivates the average user
to contribute as much as he or she does? What incentive do the
individuals have to devote much of their time to monitor pages? One of
our challenges will be getting our organization's members to use the
wiki once we roll it out. Thank you for your time and help.
Regards,
Niki
Niki Mehrotra
Enterprise Applications
Deloitte Consulting LLP
Tel: +1 312 486 1746
Fax: +1 312 247 1746
Mobile: + 1 847 946 2225
nmehrotra(a)deloitte.com
www.deloitte.com <http://www.deloitte.com/>
111 S Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
USA
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message.
Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. [v.E.1]
In a message dated 8/9/2008 8:37:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
In this case, the reporting over
time on the subject has made it quite encyclopedic, and the fact that
-even the sources the article cites- give the name really eliminate
any privacy concerns.>>
-----------------------------------------
Which matches my issue with "Genie : The Wild Child" i.e. Susan M Wiley.
*That* someone was a famous *victim* should not restrain us from
re-reporting what everyone else has already reported. *That* someone or some other ones
have tried to blot out the name, should not restrain us either.
Perhaps you might Knol it. Knol may possibly, due to their privileged
position, beat out Wikipedia in position. Perhaps that's what for which they are
aiming ?
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
Here's an interesting article;
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/by-the-people/2008/07/29/1217097249794.html?…
interesting that the author notes "Wikipedia came into its own on July 7,
2005, at 8.50am, when four synchronised bombs exploded in London's
transportation system." - I'd be interested to hear thoughts in general
about this article - but on this point specifically... should the en-wiki be
encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a
core strength of the project....
cheers,
Peter
PM.
This is quite interesting:
http://www.k-web.org/
It's the James Burke institute which is related to James Burke who
wrote the famous 'Connections' documentary from back in the 70s.
Basically, they're trying to build webs of connections between things,
and plotting them in 3D, so you could pick something, like the
computer and trace backwards and find out what things led to its
creation.
They're doing it the hard way, but it struck me that the wikipedia
might be mined for this kind of thing- that many connections may
already be there and that the dates contained in articles might allow
a creation of an interactive graphic for looking at the wikipedia in a
new way.
It also struck me that perhaps the wikipedia doesn't value antecedents
very highly. I think that history sections tend to cover the first
example of something, but not so much things that lead up to it, that
weren't it, or forces that helped create it or make it practical or
economic to do that way.
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.
In a message dated 8/8/2008 2:10:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca writes:
Or alternately, that articles on pop culture subjects more frequently
have people gunning for their deletion, and lack of references is an
easy way to try accomplishing that. Few people are going to challenge an
article on a 19th century poet.>>
--------
You'd be surprised. Typically pop culture subjects don't fail from a lack
of references. Although at first people might try to use fan sites or other
poor web sites, typically you can find any number of newspaper articles about
some pop culture item.
I have had articles on older subjects challenged based on not being to find
much in Google. One in particular which springs to mind dealt with a
teacher/doctor who was important in the history of Seattle. This particular person
had an elementary school named *for* him and yet was challenged on notability
grounds. IIRC the article actually went through an AfD.
Which begs the question of whether we need to make it clear that "If someone
has a large structure named FOR them, then obviously they are *notable* no
matter what you can or can't find in Google."
Google is heavily weighted toward the last ten years, Google Books will
change that, but only '''very'''' gradually.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/8/2008 7:30:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net writes:
My suggestion was to spend more time on improving the
quality of the Articles that exist now.>>
---------
I'm doing my part by going through our Category of claims uncited since....
2006! (yes they exist and there are hundreds of them) Trying to pare them
down. In some cases the claims have been fulfilled, just the tag remains. In
other cases it's the wrong tag. At any rate.
Wikipedia is heavily heavily weighted toward modern pop culture references.
Which probably just shows that the majority of editors are not relying on
print sources, but on googley sources. It's a great help that Google Books now
exist, but that still represents a very tiny percentage of references.
The other day, just as a few examples. I was looking for references to Eba
Anderson Lawton and we have nothing on her. She was an author and socialite
at the turn of the century and her father was relatively famous. At any
rate, I had to make up my own article on my own site, just to prove to myself
that she was someone of some importance in her day.
As another example we have no article on "Richer of Rheims" whose work is
quite important in filling the gap we had had (before he was re-discovered) on
exactly how the Carolingian era ended. Again I had to write my own article
just to inform myself.
It would be instructive for some poor volunteer to go through say the first
50 pages of the DNB and compare the articles there to whether we even have an
article or not. The sheer number of biographical articles we now have
swamps what the DNB tried to do, so you'd think we'd have most of them, but
somehow I think the true answer would be surprising.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/8/2008 11:39:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Ensuring they are
about things other than chemicals and astronomical objects may be more
of a challenge.>>
-----------------------------
How about characters and episodes?
No but seriously folks take my wife please!
The other day as I was working on my Alice Ghostley article I just happened
to notice exactly the same five lines used in two different episodes of
Bewitched seperated by four years. Odd isn't it?
Maybe I'll write an article about it.
Makes me wonder who wrote the scripts and whether we have articles about
those writers.
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )