Ooh! Wikinews have a page rating system for their readers to use. How
long has that been in use for and how much traffic does it get and is
it in use on any other Wikimedia projects? There is also a "Share
this" feature to allow cross-linking and social bookmarking. Nice.
Same questions for that feature!
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Social_bookmarkshttp://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/Archive/16#Addi…
The above was the closest I could get to the news article rating
feature. Is there a wikinews page somewhere about that?
Carcharoth
Hi all,
Have been working on coaxing the return of a talented editor by the name of
Shoemaker's Holiday--who is by far WMF's most skilled volunteer at restoring
historic etchings. Turns out he's been working on an important project:
perhaps someone can help obtain source material.
The subject is Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre:
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.19159http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.01657
As you can see, both of the Library of Congress copies are missing sections
of data due to damage. If we can obtain a high resolution scan from a third
copy of this etching, it will become possible to assemble a composite of the
complete engraving.
(For Wikimedians who aren't US-Based, the Boston Massacre was a key event
that preceded the American Revolution. Paul Revere's famous depiction
helped spread dissatisfaction with colonial rule).
What we're looking for are editors who to interface with historic societies
or libraries that own an original copy of the engraving. Particularly
within Boston or Massachusetts, although copies probably exist across
various locations in the eastern United States. We're looking to obtain an
uncompressed scan of the document on the order of 25MB-100MB. Source credit
will be provided to the institution, of course, and the final work might be
selected to run on Wikipedia's main page.
Please contact me if you can assist or provide contacts.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute
resolution issues.
I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are
closed-source,
and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling
disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
I have spoken.
-Stevertigo
> Stevertigo wrote:
>
> But do I understand correctly, Emily, that
> > by "social aspects" you mean more what we might call "community," or
> > "collective," or perhaps "synergetic" aspects?
> Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com> wrote:
> Yes, that's what I mean!
>
I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.
>
(Because we've gotten our hellos out of the way, I've retitled the thread)
It generally "goes" nowhere here unless you seed it with a question or idea.
If your stated interest can be translated into a question, it might go
something like:
What socially-oriented ideas might make Wikipedia better?
Though you may not yet understand the intricacies, it still would not be out
of place for you to suggest some ideas yourself. Especially when you want to
start a new conversation. In threads like this, we can deal with a few
different things at once, and who knows what might come up?
I myself am wondering if anyone has seen any userboxes made into
bumperstickers.
-Steven
In a message dated 6/26/2009 5:12:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
Worth quoting here:
"Wikipedia could not be reached for comment.">>
-----------------
The coffee I had this morning was crappy. The coffee could not be reached
for comment.
Wikipedia is not a person who can comment. In fact Wikipedia is not a
person or even sentient or even living.
How exactly do you get comment from Wikipedia anyway?
Oops I stepped in that one....
Will Johnson
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
> Andrew Gray
> (This has caused much elaborate conspiracy theory in the past
> revolving around nofollow and "favoured" Wikia links, etc)
Well, in defense of critics, I think it's important to
acknowledge that there are many aspects of the situation which
certainly *look* suspicious. And the tendency of *some* (not all, but
*some*) Wikipedia people to react by making name-calling personal
attacks, along with longstanding antagonism against SEO's, doesn't
help. It pretty much makes a mockery of the idea of "civility".
I've investigated the "nofollow" issue, and come to the
conclusion that there's less there than meets the eye. But I certainly
do understand where the harsh criticism of Wikipedia comes from. For
example, speaking as a journalist, I've never been able to get a
straight answer as to who was ultimately responsible for changing the
"nofollow" policy. There are conflicting public accounts from the
people involved. Moreover, the most obvious interpretation of that
discrepancy is very negative. Now, I'm not saying I believe that very
negative interpretation; for several reasons I think it's incorrect.
HOWEVER, I wouldn't say someone who did take a cynical view was being
irrational.
Pre-emptive rebuttal: At this point, someone usually rushes to
explain to me that the nofollow exemption applies to all wikis on the
interwiki map. I know that. But then they argue that aspect refutes any
implication of favoritism from Wikipedia to Wikia, Inc. I don't agree
with that. There's a kind of favoritism which come not from outright
discrimination in the application of rules, but needing to know the
right people and make the right requests in order to get a benefit.
When you have the co-founder of a venture capital funded commercial
start-up being highly involved with policy changes on a top-ten
website that affect all such start-ups, it's really quite reasonable
to examine the situation very carefully.
Pre-emptive rebuttal: It's legal. I know. That's not the point.
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
Web site - http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
I was trying to follow the nofollow discussion
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nofollow#Current_use_on_Wikimedia_projects).
I see it hinges on "external links", and my question about it would be
concerning when an interwiki link to a sister project is deemed
"external". For context, I use many links to Wikisource pages I have
created as references, and was wondering whether the [[:s: ***]]
construction is read as an "external" link.
Charles
"Like Boiling a Frog", David Runciman. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html
>From the last issue of the London Review of Books, a long and chewy
article about Wikipedia; generally positive, though it draws attention
to the problems of writing quality and "recentism". There's a review
of Andrew Lih's book buried somewhere in it, too...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
out a person's religion.
I think most of us would clearly be wary of it because you could find out
what sort of *porn/sex* I like. I don't care if you know my religion (I'm
the spawn of Satan.)
I mean just imagine if some insider dropped images of the city manager
dressed up like a sheep.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323000x1201367220/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62)