This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
* When's Flagged Revs being switched on?
* Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*?
* etc?
I can arse it through for Radio 5, but Newsnight is a bit scary!
- d.
G'day folks,
Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000
species.
http://www.physorg.com/news170396645.html
"The Encyclopedia of Life, an online project launched in 2007 with the aim
of creating a webpage on every known animal and plant species, has reached
150,000 entries in its second year.
*
*
*
In a statement marking the anniversary, the collaborative project said close
to two million people from more than 200 countries had contributed to the
website (www.eol.org).
Users can create a page that describes a plant or animal with text, images
or both. The information is then submitted to experts, verified and made
available for free.
The project's creators hope to accumulate a page for every 1.8 million
animal and plant species <http://www.physorg.com/tags/plant+species/> known
to scientists over 10 years."
More in article.
This would compare well with Wikipedia's progress over a similar period.
Regards
Keith
*
G'day folks,
The New York Times reports on flagged revisions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?part…
"Wikipedia<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?…>,
one of the 10 most popular sites on the Web, was founded about eight years
ago as a long-shot experiment to create a free encyclopedia from the
contributions of volunteers, all with the power to edit, and presumably
improve, the content.
Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three
million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed.
Officials at the Wikimedia
Foundation<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>,
the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within
weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of
editorial review on articles about living people.
The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an
experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by
the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in
Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and
visitors will be directed to the earlier version. "
(More in article)
Regards
*Keith Old*
In a message dated 8/25/2009 11:12:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com writes:
> I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the
> other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
> copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free
> photographs, so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay someone
> for an image, and hence be able to sue them if they had copyright problems,
> than get it for free.
>
> Which brings to mind an interesting business proposition..... >>
>
---------------
Fork! Fork!.... spoon?
Here at um.... wikifreeverified.com we ensure you that all our content has
been triple-checked by expert triple-checkers to ensure that it's all free
free free! To use that is. For your ease of mind you will pay us $1000 per
year plus 25 cents per image.
Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement.
The difference is that you have someone in between the source - the journalist in this case - sifting, analysing, compiling and interpreting the primary sources.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS for more details.
----- "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, 24 August, 2009 07:48:11 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BB...
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > Steve, news articles *in general* are primary sources.
> >
> > Here is how you can tell: Is what I'm reading the first time someone has
> > published what I'm reading?
> >
> > "So and so was hit by a car today" -- primary source, first time published.
>
> Oh, for some reason I thought primary source meant the subject
> themself had published it. Like a blog, autobiography, etc. I was just
> confused.
>
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
A success Wikipedia has thus far been, though issues there are still.
Observations, on these issues I will make.
1) Wikipedia is a collaborative website that tries to be an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia's got a funny name: It was named by the founders after the
"technology" it was based on, rather than the philosophy it was based
on - openness, egalitarianism, honest and honorable conduct, etc.
2) Thus the name "wiki" itself is misapplied to en.w.pedia
"Wiki" is a technological concept. "Wikipedia" is an egalitarian one.
Though people have for years tried to turn "wiki" into a larger, more
philosophical term, it just doesn't want to go there - wiki ultimately
doesn't mean anything more than "quick." We want "Wikipedia" to be
more than just a quickie resource.
3) Wiki facilitates easy editing, but then not everything we do is editing.
In fact the main thing Wikipedia does is just exist - existing in a
digital form at a free/open-access online database for ease of
reading/viewing. Wiki makes lots of things easy - some of which are
conducive to making an encyclopedia. The wiki made vandalism easy too,
but we learned that collaboration itself could deal with that.
( 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. ;-) )
-Stevertigo
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
"For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob
SquarePants#Plankton"?
Only added recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plankton&diff=308556264&oldid=308…
To me, this is an example of misplacing information. If some character
is named *after* plankton, then that should be a footnote in the
plankton article, if even that. If there really is a chance that
people will search for "plankton" in an attempt to find out about the
SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to
a disambiguation page ("for other things named plankton, see here").
And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries.
That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants
character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at
the top of an unrelated article.
Carcharoth
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:40:23 +0100, wikien-l-Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Be bold and remove crap,
Tell that to all the people on this list who insist on quoting back
half a dozen copies of the list footer, untrimmed.
--
== 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/
In a message dated 8/24/2009 12:23:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
> Birth dates and locations tend to be fairly structured within articles
> so are fairly easy to get. Dealing with a term as vauge as "celebrity"
> make the task impossible even with human intervention.>>
------------------------
Hmm I'm not sure I can agree with that. Is "celebrity" really that
ambiguous.
I make a list of 100 Nebraskans born on May 15th. I would think we could
all agree on at least ten of them as "celebrities" and probably 10 or 20 as
not. It's that grey-area where some local newscaster is a celebrity to some
and not to others.
What about "movie stars" ? That's not quite as vague. Can we do that today
without human intervention? People who have been in a film? Or is that too
vague
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)
In a message dated 8/24/2009 10:47:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
> Wikipedia with it's surprisingly structured
> entries is likely to be used as a significant stepping stone in this
> direction.>>
>
------------------------
"What is the name of every celebrity born in Nebraska on May 15th?"
Is that possible today without human intervention?
W.J.
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)