Folks,
Would someone help me here? What is the current policy regarding linking
dates such as Birth and Death in biography articles?
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
Hi all,
The current <ref>...</ref>...<references/> system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref>David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.''
History Magazine, 2019.</ref>. The next day, Thursday, was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<references/>
(That's a very simple example, too. References start to become a lot
larger once they start to include other information and/or are
produced via a template.)
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually _defines_ and _displays_
the note. For example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref id="smith"/>. The next day, Thursday,
was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<reference id="smith">David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History
Magazine, 2019.</reference>
This makes the raw wikitext easier to read, since the text of the
actual reference is in the _references_ section instead of in the
page's primary content.
I think this could work ...
--Thomas Larsen
In a message dated 4/16/2009 9:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
> He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even
> in
> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of
> proclamations
> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention
> to.>>
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
I don't see anything to tell me that Larry was complaining about anything
or anyone except something Jimmy said.
Will
**************
Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at
$479
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=htt…)
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". - Mark
Twain
Since Citizendium is all the rage on this mailing list, a review and
comparison of Alexa stats seemed like a good idea. Here's how things stack
up:
TRAFFIC RANK:
Citizendium: 63,929
Wikipedia: 7
REACH:
(Percent of global Internet users who visit the site, 3 month average)
Citizendium: 0.00155%
Wikipedia: 8.711%
Of course, the numbers vary a bit depending on what ranking service one
selects. But not by all that much. It's been two and a half years since
Citizendium's launch. The project has 10,500 articles and slightly over 100
approved articles. English Wikipedia topped 100,000 articles in January
2003, just about two years after launch. In January 2004 English Wikipedia
reached 200,000 articles. Arguably, Citizendium both gains and loses by
launching later: the site can draw upon a large pool of existing free
content at Wikipedia, but Wikipedia had already become a prominent website
by the time Citizendium started.
With respect extended toward Larry Sanger and his undertaking, a few
questions are worth asking:
1. Is Citizendium a snapshot of what Wikipedia's growth would have been, if
Larry Sanger had remained with the project?
2. Will Citizendium become a top 1000 website within the next five years?
3. Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to
go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has
been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such
we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Regards,
SV
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wp freedom fighter <wikifreedomfighter(a)googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Morwen <morwen(a)evilmagic.org>
Dear X,
We notice you haven't edited Wikipedia for some time. Perhaps you grew
disillusioned with the project after seeing the corruption and bureaucracy
at every level? If so, why not help us to help you. We are currently
expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains
dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take
you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to
this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!
Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
--
This e-mail was sent by user "Wp freedom fighter" on the English Wikipedia
to user "Morwen". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and
you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on
privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing,
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwave.google.co…
(See from about 31:00 onwards for the relevant bit...)
Real-time collaborative editing. Scroll back and forth through
history, showing changes by a single user or of a single paragraph.
Embedded comments updated in real time. Edit from multiple clients.
Could we please have all of this? This is several orders of magnitude
better than MediaWiki's collaborative editing features.
Steve