On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote:
> See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Folks,
The "New York Times" Bits blog has a small section on Wikimania.
Considering that
Wikipedia<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?…>
has
reached Top Five world status among Web sites – with more than 330 million
users – its annual Wikimania conference, which ended Friday night in Buenos
Aires, featured a lot of hand-wringing about all the problems the project
faces.
After emerging on the scene less than a decade ago, growth is slowing down.
Why? Are new contributors being scared away? Are there too many rules? Why
are the biggest players in the community overwhelmingly men? And white? And
will Wikipedia ever become a true global phenomenon, as relevant to the
lives of people in the third world as it is in the developed world?
Like a freelancer suddenly overwhelmed with assignments, Wikipedians often
found themselves looking back at the sleepy days when they were largely left
alone. Scratch that. Maybe the better comparison is to the successful
journalists who look back to the time when they were so busy they never had
time to reflect.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/look-this-up-on-wikipedia-how-big-…
(More in story)
Regards
Keith
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:31:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
> ( 3b) (It's the infrastructure/databases/operatingsystems/browsers
> themselves that facilitate this ease - not just "wiki." Still, we
> don't call ourselves the "inter...pedia" or the "web..pedia" for a
> reason: Those domain names were already taken. ;-) )
{{fact}}... WHOIS shows that interpedia.org was regisgtered 16-Jan-
2005, and webpedia.org on 20-Jul-2004, which are both after Wikipedia
was founded in 2001.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
How do we know who twit? or tweet?
When a celebrity has an official web page, we can be fairly certain that
what is posted there as the core content is by their own authority.
How do you do that with tweets?
In a message dated 8/29/2009 12:04:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
What I'm wondering is whether that
counts as a source, and if so what sort and how and whether it should
be used (I'd say Wikipedia should hold itself aloof from gutter
journalism and celebrity wranglings).
Welcome Wagon, we used to have one didn't we? I don't know what happened
to it, it seems like stale news.
Free Tutor Program - new users can choose to sign up for tutoring for $10
an hour... ok or free whatever. Have you been bitten? Are you frustrated?
Do you get laid often enough? (ok scratch that) Sign Up Now, Not Available
in Stores, Supplies are Running Out - for Wiki Tutoring!
Evidently I am now a media darling
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=knol+craigslist
The oddest part of this entire experience (other than the fact that it shot
me up to over 1,000 views a day), is how much of this "news" is either
simple reposting of titles with link, or bloggers copying each other in a sort
of feeding frenzy.
I've never personally become involved in the blogging world. I would think
that a person would want original content, not merely be blogger number 87
on the list of people blogging about the really important news like me
selling a pair of speakers ;)
I'm world famous! I get more views than President.... uh... Harding... or
something. Ok maybe Zachary Taylor, at any rate I'm famous!
Maybe I'll write a knol about it. Sort of keep the cycle churning. How do
you do that exactly? I've never figured out completely how to be a media
whore, but I'm willing to learn. Any whores want to teach me tricks?
Will "Media Whore Wannabe" Johnson
In a message dated 8/28/2009 8:10:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecaliocean(a)me.com writes:
> Holy cow. Is Jimbo aware of this?>>
--------------
Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him next week.
W.J.