WikiEN-l March 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

86 participants
84 discussions

Moderation
by Jon 29 Mar '09

29 Mar '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Why has my message been moderated-deleted? Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknPqkEACgkQR7/9CWL6/5gEfwCfbsqOVaYxDbIWTNOBb5F0aWEK EzgAn1eocDM80M8EmNOEKwOdoGkXkx4v =igRI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Licensing update progress notice
by Robert Rohde 29 Mar '09

29 Mar '09

The licensing update proposal [1] to dual license all Wikimedia Foundation wikis under both the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA) is moving into its final phase. This proposal has been put forward by the Foundation and made possible by recent changes in the GFDL. Adopting the new licensing scheme is contingent on community approval. In several days a site notice for all editors will announce the start of three weeks of community voting on this proposal. In the mean time we would invite you to visit the update proposal and its associated FAQ [2] if you want to learn more. We would also appreciate your help finishing the translation effort [3] for the core documents associated with this process. -Robert Rohde For the Licensing Update Committee [4]. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Translation [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update_committee

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
by WJhonson＠aol.com 28 Mar '09

28 Mar '09

I like that. I wonder if there is a bot that automagically adds an unsourced tag to any article with zero or one source? That would actually be a USEFUL bot. I can't believe I just said that. Will In a message dated 3/28/2009 7:11:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes: The disclaimer should read: "please check everything written here against the sources provided - if there are no sources, the article cannot be relied upon". **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia isn't just a good idea - it's compulsory
by WJhonson＠aol.com 28 Mar '09

28 Mar '09

You're being hyperbolic. That isn't a good way to counter an argument. In a message dated 3/28/2009 6:33:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes: Replace the expert, who wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever made the last edit? **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles
by WJhonson＠aol.com 28 Mar '09

28 Mar '09

<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 7:26:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes: That's exactly my point. There is no lack of academic analysis of politicians, of artists, etc. But we do not seem to use any of it. For example, I can find numerous articles on George W. Bush on JStor. And once he is out of office there will be no lack of biogaphies written to analyze his presidency. >> First to attack your second point, why does W have to be out of office to have a biography ? There are several books about Bush out, which analyze his presidency. Secondly, are you actually willing to admit that you are complaining about something you're not willing to fix yourself? YOU my friend, if you can cite all these articles from Jstor, then do so! I personally have no access to Jstor, and I assume that the vast majority of our editors probably don't either. But regardless of that, I'm sure people cite what they can access and think is relevant. I do not (in any way) feel that "academics" have any toe-hold on "biography". In fact, professional writers, tend not to be in academia at all, and they write prose that is much more interesting (apparently from their book sales) then academics. We are not an academic encyclopedia anymore than we are a science one, a religion one or a fancruft one. In trying to represent the world as it is, we must use what resources are present. In general, for biographies, newspapers and hard-cover biographies, are much more *present* and readable than anything in a humanities journal. We're not trying to be technical as we can be, we're also trying to attract more readership. So again it's a balance. But by *ALL* means, if you have peer-reviewed biographical material, add it. However "peer review" is not necessarily the standard for all articles. TV Guide is not "peer reviewed" and yet we assume it's a reliable source for what's on TV Will Johnson **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)

6 7

Ooh, shiny: Wikirank
by Michel Vuijlsteke 27 Mar '09

27 Mar '09

Did anyone see? http://wikirank.com/en

2 1

Sourcemonkeys
by stevertigo 26 Mar '09

26 Mar '09

There was some discussion recently about WikiMedia paying for user accounts on proprietary source engines, to aid in providing sources to Wikipedia articles. I'm curious as to how that inquiry was dealt with, and how it was resolved. Seems like a good idea. If feasible, there would presumably be a limited number of assigned accounts given to specific interested users, who would have to commit themselves to assisting others in sourcing particular concepts, statements, and phrases. A common case may be where the Wikipedia author may be writing from knowledge, or may be referencing an inferior source, and can't directly quote from a superior or particular text because it is not readily available to them. -SV

5 8

How to ignore wikien-l.
by Jay Litwyn 26 Mar '09

26 Mar '09

news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english (Same people, same list, longer history, less demanding of attention, less likely to result in attitude contamination from spam. If you like it, then you can disable getting it by e-mail.)

9 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] Plagiarism
by WJhonson＠aol.com 26 Mar '09

26 Mar '09

In a message dated 3/26/2009 4:48:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes: > Clear emoticon 8-; (tung in cheek with sunglasses) for sarcasm. Probable > emoticon in your example :-( for frustration with someone who did not read > one page of the fine manual. The emotion was not sarcasm or incredulity, and > > the purpose is the same.>> > > Talk about esoteric! I'd never heard of this emoticon. So I have to assume that the vast majority of readers would have no idea what that semantic-unit that emoticon conveyed. Will ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

2 1

flickr, NC-BY-SA 2.0 vs 3.0
by Stephanie Clarkson 26 Mar '09

26 Mar '09

I'm certain this has been addressed *sometime*, but I didn't note it, and the archive search is borked. I have a set of pics from flickr that illustrate a page I want to work on *perfectly*, but they are, because it's Flickr, CC-NC-BY-SA 2.0 instead of 3.0. When approached, the photographer *wants* to offer them as a 3.0 license, but can't. Is there any solution that isn't going to involve her having to post the pictures elsewhere, under a different CC? This has to have been discussed before, so if anyone simply has links to that, I'd appreciate. S.

6 10

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l March 2009