This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for
B-Class status:
1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met (many common
articles are not adequately referenced)
2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met (currently 3.5 million
of an estimated 4.4 million articles)
3. Structure: criterion met (seems to be reasonably well structured)
4. Grammar and style: criterion met (mostly good enough, but would
not please a purist)
5. Supporting materials: criterion met (multiple wikis surround and
support it)
I therefore award the Wikipedia class C:
The Wikipedia is substantial, but is still missing important content
or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The Wikipedia should have
references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues
or require substantial cleanup.
The Wikipedia is better developed in style, structure and quality than
Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may
have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance
or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original
research.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not overall provide a complete
picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is
needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.
--
-Ian Woollard
Greetings,
As you may know, the Wikimedia teach team has started to upgrade
MediaWiki on some wikis. MediaWiki is the software that runs all
Wikimedia wikis.
The most visible change for Wikimedia users will be the deployment of
ResourceLoader [1].
ResourceLoader optimizes the use of JavaScript in MediaWiki, speeding up
its delivery by compressing it sometimes, and cutting down on the amount
of unused JavaScript that gets delivered to the browser in the first
place.
The installation of ResourceLoader may cause compatibility issues with
existing JavaScript code.
Trevor Parscal and Roan Kattouw, the main developers of ResourceLoader,
will be available on IRC [2] on Monday, February 14th, at 18:00 (UTC)
[3], to answer questions and help fix issues related to ResourceLoader.
*If you maintain JavaScript code on your home wiki, please attend.*
Don't wait until your wiki's JavaScript is all broken.
Please spread this information as widely as possible; it's critical to
reach as many local JavaScript maintainers as possible.
Logs of the session will be published publicly.
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
[3] All timezones: http://ur1.ca/3819u
--
Guillaume Paumier
Product manager - Wikimedia Foundation
Support free knowledge: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Hi,
a cartoon illustrating Western double-standard in 2005th Muhammad
Cartoon controversy got speedy deleted on 2011-01-30 under WP:CSD
"F6: Non-free file with no non-free use rationale: invalid fair-use tag"
which is wrong, because it had a {{Non-free use rationale}} template.
Apparently it doesn't matter at all because on its WP:DRV
now it's claimed, that this cartoon is not contextual significant
enough for [[Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy]]. Why is Wikipedia trying so hard to proof this cartoon
to be correct?
How can you remove this cartoon
http://www.alghad.com/images_comic/1000/1079.jpg
while keeping the 12 Muhammad cartoons under the very same
Non-free use rationale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_12
Best Regards
--
Raphael Wegmann
User:Raphael1
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:25:17 +0000 (GMT), wikien-l-Andreas Kolbe
wrote:
> and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she
> met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I
> think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really
> clear about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I
> realize it is a religion just like other religions.
And a religion always stops being weird when you have a good friend
who's in it.
Personally, I find all religions to be superstitious nonsense,
regardless of whether any friends or family of mine are in them.
--
== 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/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lennart Guldbrandsson <wikihannibal(a)gmail.com>
Date: 11 February 2011 12:26
Subject: [Foundation-l] How should we greet newcomers?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello,
I know that some of you who are reading this have problems editing any other
wiki than your home wiki. It feels foreign. I myself have that problem
sometimes. But now you have the chance to do something remarkable. You just
have to go to the Outreach wiki to do it.
During the next 10 days, you can pitch in as many new versions of the pages
that the newcomers see when they get an account. For instance, if you think
that the newcomers should be met by a video that explains Wikipedia's
policies before they start editing, go ahead and make a page with a video in
it! You can add as many different versions as you have the time or
inclination to do. And it doesn't have to be perfect, either. We have a
design firm that can help us make it look good later on, so you can
concentrate on what the text should be.
By February 21st, we want at least five versions of the three different
pages that we can then do A/B tests on. (More versions are welcome, so do
not feel bad if your version becomes nr 6.)
This is the link:
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes…
Please edit those pages as though they were your own wiki. Make yourself at
home on the Outreach wiki.
You can read more about the Account Creation Improvement Project here:
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project
Best wishes,
Lennart
--
Lennart Guldbrandsson, Fellow of the Wikimedia Foundation and chair of
Wikimedia Sverige // Wikimedia Foundation-stipendiat och ordförande för
Wikimedia Sverige
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
While people are generally aware of the tendentious nature of some
infobox entries, there's a related issue that is just creeping into my
consciousness. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ahnentafel/doc
for a general idea what this is about - oddly enough Template:Ahnentafel
itself doesn't exist, but there are variants listed on that page. These
templates usually lurk in "hidden" form at the bottom of pages, giving
someone's ancestry going back about four generations. There are really
two points here: firstly that it is very easy for there to be unverified
information in such tables; and secondly that there is a fair amount of
pressure from those generally interested in genealogy and family history
for us to host this kind of information, when (it might be argued)
family history of most kinds isn't really encyclopedic.
The verifiability thing is more problematic to me right now. If you look
at [[Catherine Parr]], for whom as a royal there is some excuse for
interest in her antecedents, there is apparently a disagreement about
the father of Sir John Fogge, one of her great-grandfathers. There is
indeed a reference to a printed source. I think all that means is that
it doesn't make Wikipedia look stupid to include such information - it
certainly doesn't mean it's beyond dispute. As it happens the Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography entry has a different theory about
Fogge's father; and I'd be happier following that. One thing is clear
enough, which is that discussing this matter in detail on the Catherine
Parr page would be off-topic, unless it somehow mattered for her life.
So there are a couple of things going on here. NPOV on genealogical
matters cannot be achieved, when you go far enough back, just by citing
some reference, because you hit areas where there is a lack of
definitive and authoritative references. And there is a bigger picture,
which is what to do when genealogy-oriented references clash with
professional historians writing on the same matters. I'm with following
the historians, but that might be considered a bit snobbish by others.
Charles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12400647
"Robots could soon have an equivalent of the internet and Wikipedia."
Do you think they will let humans edit their Wikipedia?
Carcharoth
