-----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-----
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
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)
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)
<<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)
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
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)
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.