Definitely NOT the "bookshelf" version!
Whatever version you go with, DO include the link to those instructional
videos. I didn't even know we had those!
Sent from my Droid2
Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipongo(a)gmail.com
On Feb 20, 2011 5:28 PM, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all;
I'm hoping you can help me. Any page where Template:Outdent is used more
than once is causing my Android's browser to freeze-up. This includes the
template page itself and all the on-wiki fora (VPT, ANI, etc.) where I might
bring up my problem, which is why I'm posting here. I was having no problems
just the other day, so I figure something must have changed recently.
Thanks for your help!
[[User:Elipongo]]
Sent from my Droid2
Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipongo(a)gmail.com
Heather Ford, a former Wikimedia advisory board member and researcher/writer
in South Africa has written an essay, "The Missing Wikipedians" about
systematic bias on English Wikipedia (especially) against new users and
topics pertinent to Africa and other diverse places/people.
As an example, she cites the English Wikipedia article [[Makmende]] and the
deletion request made, biting the newbie.
http://hblog.org/2011/02/16/the-missing-wikipedians/
Please read and discuss. What might we do to help make Wikipedia a more
welcoming place for newbies and for such diverse topics?
Cheers,
Katie (@aude)
Every now and then something gets nominated for deletion and fans of
it go feral and say "I'm going to start an inclusionist fork! No
notability policy!"
Do we have a list of these anywhere?
- d.
There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical
articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-ne…
(That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again).
And more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_underst…
And the section immediately below it.
I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_diff…
The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at
least), was reverted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&diff=pre…
With the edit summary:
"It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people
can follow the link)".
Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me.
"In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The
topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all
equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in
whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth
3-manifolds."
I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it
said that the 3-sphere is the "the surface of the [[unit ball]] in
four-dimensional space." I suppose adding the word "informally" might
soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language.
Carcharoth
(to list as well)
On 17 February 2011 18:37, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 February 2011 17:52, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, the trouble with obsessive nerds who want things 100% right
>> is that articles become hideous unreadable thickets of subclauses. But
>> then, research appears to be a more widely available skill than good
>> writing.
> Or is it because writing well is difficult, and writing accurately is
> difficult, and writing well AND accurately is difficulty squared?
I believe that was precisely what I said in the quoted paragraph, yes.
> Nah, that would be ridiculous, it's just obsessive nerds who are broken; of
> course.
At this point you're reading things inside your own head rather than
things I wrote.
- d.
HI,
I am trying to add inthe missing ottman history of Prizren and getting into
some petty dispute.
please help advise on how to procede, in the city of Prizren the official
languages are Serbian, Albanian and Turkish, and there is a large Bosnian
and Gorani population,
if there are alternative names for mosques (and webpages) in those
languages, we should list them, no? How will people who want to research
more be able to find the, it took me a long time to do the research and find
references, and now they are just being removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prizren#Not_all_Viewpoints_Third_opinion
please help,
mike
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.orgflossal.org
Interesting post in Lorcan Dempsey's blog (influential librarian-blogger)
relates two interesting stories (neither of which are unique/new to us, but
interesting nevertheless):
"Using Wikipedia" February 13: http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/002155.html
Story one.
"Edward Glaeser includes a reference to Wikipedia in the acknowledgements to
his new book, *Triumph of the city <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/650211168>*
:
'Following common practices, Wikipedia is not listed in the bibliography or
citations, because any Wikipedia fact was verified with a more standard
source. But I still have a great debt to the anonymous toilers of Wikipedia
who made my research much easier at many points in time. I apologize if any
phrases from that, or any other source, crept into my prose - one research
assistant was assigned the explicit task of purging such inadvertent
borrowing - but mistakes do sometimes get through. [272-273]' "
Story two.
"My daughter (a sophomore in high school) was given an assignment to
introduce errors into Wikipedia. Presumably, the intention was to
demonstrate that entries could be 'unreliable'. Now, she chose a popular
page, and had her changes corrected almost straightaway, to the extent that
it was not possible to complete the assignment as given. In fact, she ended
up being barred from editing pages as her behavior was seen as
unacceptable."
>From which he goes on to say...
"Wikipedia is a collection. ... One cannot summarily judge its value in the
way that one might have done when deciding whether or not to buy or
recommend a reference book. Judgements about 'authority' and utility have to
be made at the article level, and who has the time and expertise to flag
individual articles in this way? Rather than continuing a tedious Wikipedia
good/Wikipedia bad conversation, we should recognize the attraction it has
as an addressable knowledge base, understand the variety of uses to which it
is put, and remind folks of the judgments they need to make depending on
those uses."
Nice.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata