Listers,
I've submitted a suggestion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Burials
with regard to how burials can be referenced in more encyclopedic language
than currently used.
Comments and criticism welcome.
-SV
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967…
Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting
that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered
notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image,
as their 'lead' Media story.
S.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkoggQMACgkQdLl4k9IYqZrzMwCgnXCJuBnjOpzh26P4VPzRTwfx
jEQAoIDKqAB2uJxuo6pL6AIAXlJjcwr9
=bey5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi,
It is the happy circumstance that:
a) Articles about pieces of classical music are much better with an
excerpt of the music presented as an image
b) PDFs of enormous amounts of classical music are available, in
public domain, at the International Music Score Library Project
(imslp.org). For example, Chopin's coverage is virtually
comprehensive.
So the question is, how to get more excerpts into more articles
faster? Can anyone think of a tool (or propose one) that would make
this easier?
Currently, my workflow looks like this:
1) Find an article about a piece of music
2) Check if it wants another excerpt. If not, go back to 1.
3) Go to imslp, search (using their crappy search) for the piece (or
in many cases, just follow a link from the wikipedia article).
4) Choose one of the scores, click it
5) Verify that it's suitable, is the right piece etc.
6) Screenshot a piece of it using Snagit, save image as PNG.
7) Go to commons.wikimedia.org
8) Click upload
9) Fill in the form. This bit is complicated because there are so many
"authors"/sources: chopin, the publisher, the user at imslp that
uploaded/scanned it, imslp, me.... And choosing a name is always
annoying...let alone categories.
10) Upload.
11) Back at the article page, click "edit"
12) Add a [[Image:...]] tag with some creative text.
13) Preview
14) Save
It's pretty frickin' tedious. Here's one I did earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnes_Op._27_(Chopin)
It would be nicer, at least, if one could upload the entire thing,
then on the article page do a crop to the excerpt - rather than having
to crop it locally.
Any ideas anyone? Magnus's FIST was great, dealing with the much
harder problem of trying to identify any images anywhere vaguely
related to the article. Here, we know exactly what image we want, and
we know where to get it.
Steve
[[T:ITN]] : "The discovery of a 4,000-year-old skeleton showing the earliest
known evidence of *leprosy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy>* *(example
pictured)* in the Indian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India>
state<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_India>of
Rajasthan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan> is announced."
Interesting that an article about an ancient disease, just now on its way
out (763K new cases in 2002 \\ 400K in 2004) can make ITN, even with a
minimal-importance update. I think its great, especially when it links to a
great article. (Even linking to a bad article is great too, if it gets that
article attention and development).
My issues particular to the leprosy article (relevant, I think, as its a
front-page link. Will deal with there directly) are:
1) Ugly hatnote..
"For the malady found in the Hebrew Bible, see
Tzaraath<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath>.
For the
album by the band Death, see Leprosy
(album)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy_%28album%29>
."
...instead of a plain {{otheruses}} disambiguation note. Hatnotes to
hair/death/whatever "metal" bands on legitimate topic article, trivialize
wikipedia's coverage and are teh suck.
2) (Less important): The hatnote on [[leprosy]] references [[tzaraath]] as
"the malady found in the Hebrew Bible" rather than something more accurate
like "the original Hebrew Bible term for leprosy." The tzaraath article
claims that "some scholars suggest that any connection between tzaraath and
leprosy is altogether erroneous," though no actual citation or treatment of
this direct criticism is evident in the article aside from some necessary
treament of the conceptual variance in an old term. Thus the distinction is
terminological, not in the domain of medicine as implied by the term
"malady."
-Steven
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage
is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd want the person to be able to know that.
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377034x1201454326/aol?redir=htt…
MaystepsfooterNO62)
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> > At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
> and
> > the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
>
> Could they sue other people that have edited the article without
> fixing the mistake? What about someone that reverted vandalism to that
> sentence, thus putting back the incorrect information? We can't rely
> on the law only holding the person directly responsible liable.>>
--------------------
I don't think you would agree if this logic were extended to all articles.
Am I responsible, fixing the birthplace of George Bush, that someone else,
in another section of that article has said "He killed his parents when he
was three."
No I'm not responsible for that. I'm solely responsible for the edits I
make, not those of others.
Similar to reverting vandalism. If the previous version was incorrect,
than the responsibility rests on whomever put that into the article in the
first place. Not on any subsequent editor. We are not all experts in what the
PDR does and doesn't say. But any of us can fix spelling errors in an
article. That does not mean, that we must know and approve the entire article
and be responsible for it, simply because we are changing something of little
consequence in it.
That's true for all articles, not just ones on drugs.
Will Johnson
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)
<<In a message dated 5/28/2009 6:17:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
I hav been placed on moderation for feeding a troll. >>
-------------------------
I don't remember it that way. Maybe you could expand on that a bit.
Will
**************Cooking Dinner For Two? Sign Up & Get Immediate Member-Only
Savings.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222652750x1201460983/aol?redir=htt…
F%2Frecipes.cookingfor2.pillsbury.com%2F%3FESRC%3D934)
Folks,
I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the English
Wikipedia articles, materials, and various lists related to the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States; and I want to thank, and to
congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job! It is an excellent
example of what a truly collaborative community can do.
Sincerely,
Marc Riddell