In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> - WikiTrust might be described as "a way to see how long an edit
> and how much trust it seems to have"; in most users' hands it'll be
> colored red/blue so its right/wrong."
> - People won't think, they'll assume and rely.>>
Interesting to see this by virtue of repetition in our mirrors.
And our pseudo-mirrors who *don't* event state that they mirrored us.
Then after a phrase has been cut from our version due to lack of source,
it's put back in citing a past mirror who hasn't removed it....
Unsourced statement one has "high trust" because it's been there for two
years, without a source. When a source is found contradicting it, will there
be a big fight because "100 editors has passed on this and haven't reverted
.... Shades of past warfare.
I just today noticed a new interesting thing while doing a Google search.
Under each result there is a cloud looking thing and if you hover it it
says "Comment". So I tried it.
Would someone else try this Google search
"arsenic and old lace" youtube
Just like that with the quotes and all. On the first few hits you should
see a result
_YouTube - Arsenic And Old Lace 1/15 (1944)_
Would you see if you can see a comment I left there?
I'm curious how this works.
To make this thread on-topic, I wonder if there would be any advantage is
allowing comments, separate from Talk Page comments, on our articles?
I notice that many casual readers will leave "comments" which you can
generally spot as they are not-tagged-with-a-sig and generally left at the top
of the Talk page without regard for headers and so on.
I just wonder if a more free-form "comment" section would encourage more
casual readers to become casual writers.
P.S. The only reason I picked this particular movie was because I was
casually looking for more movies to add to my
_Click here to see the entire list of Peter Lorre Movies on YouTube_
_Click here to see the entire list of Cary Grant Movies on YouTube_
Although obviously people are *watching* my nightly selections, they don't
seem to be adding any comments ;)
Maybe I'm perfect after all!
Minivan News, an independent article on the Maldives, has published
accusations that a PR company whitewashed an article on the Maldives.
"A data-mining tool called WikiScanner <http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/> has
purportedly revealed PR firm Hill & Knowlton deleted a number of statements
critical of the former government while they were employed by ex-President
Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
According to the online tool, edits on the Wikipedia entry, *Politics of the
Maldives <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Maldives>*, included
the removal of the
“President Gayoom has systematically suppressed any and all political
activity in the Maldives. His use of election rigging and imprisonment of
political activists have all ensured that he went unchallenged for over 26
years in office.
“President Gayoom routinely uses torture, propaganda, and censorship as a
means to cling on to political power.
“Independent news media is non-existent. The three running dailies are
controlled by cabinet ministers of President Gayoom.”
The company further moderated language on the absence of political parties
in the Maldives, writing instead: “The Maldivian political system was based
around the election of individuals, rather than the more common system of
elections according to party platform.”
Critics of the former regime allege Hill & Knowlton was hired by
ex-President Gayoom’s government to help him improve the country’s image
following growing civil unrest and allegations of human rights abuses.
But speaking to Minivan News today, Mohamed Hussein Shareef (Mundhu),
spokesperson for Gayoom, said the company was recruited in early 2004, not
to whitewash the government’s activities but to teach officials how to
interface with the international media and develop a communications
On the changes made to Wikipedia, he said he did not believe them to be
illegitimate due to the questionable authority of the online encyclopedia,
which can be edited by anyone.
“Wikipedia is a point of view or an opinion. The MDP (Maldivian Democratic
Party) used to play with the Wikipedia page on Gayoom all the time,” he
said. “Just as someone has the right to call our government a human rights
abusing government, as a government we had the right to say, no we’re not.”
(More in article)
In a message dated 8/28/2009 11:20:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> When we are done, we can revert and voila! Wikipedia has food forever!>>
Just imagine how many Terabytes of data are hiden under the iceberg tip
that is what the casual reader sees. I have yet to see any paper about say,
"The Twisty Turny Biography of Lincoln Evolves Over Six Years"....
That would probably keep someone busy for a long time. There must be
25,000 revisions to Lincoln.