http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=11381.30
The situation:
1) Wikipedia says game on PSP is emulated.
2) Person who looked at code himself says it's not emulated.
3) Since Wikipedia got its information from a "reliable source", wrong
information remains on Wikipedia. (Actually, if you read the "reliable
source" carefully, the company representative didn't even say it was emulated;
the interviewer claimed that and the company representative just didn't
contradict him. I am tempted to remove it on this basis, but someone might
argue that we must assume that the interviewer's statements, being part of a
published work, are fact-checked).
Your call as to whether this is verifiable-but-false, or a problem with
the reliable sources or original research rules.
Reminder to get your Wikimania program submissions in soon!
The deadline for submissions is Sunday, March 18 at 11:59 (San Francisco)
Pacific Daylight Time (or 06:59 UTC on 19 March 2012).
We seek submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, and other types
of sessions.
Topics may include anything related to Wikipedia, MediaWiki & tech (e.g.
mobile), Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons and other sister projects,
OpenStreetMap, third-party wikis (e.g. WikiHow), wikis in business,
government, etc., civic & local wikis, GLAM-wiki and other cultural
outreach initiatives, education outreach, research into wikis and
collaboration, and more. These topics are just suggestions.
You can view the call for participation and make submissions here:
http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
Cheers,
Katie
--
President, Wikimedia District of Columbia
http://wikimediadc.org
@wikimediadc / @wikimania2012
The MediaWiki developers have been working hard to integrate certain elements of the Wikipedia Education Program into MediaWiki. If anyone is interested in helping beta-test the new extension, click (or copy and paste) the link below to get started:
http://education.wmflabs.org/index.php/MW_1.18:Community_portal/Welcome,_be…!
Please note that this site does not will not represent official Wikipedia Education Program data. Feel free to alter the data on the wiki however you wish; the more testing you do, the better!
Thanks,
Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation
11450 Northridge Dr
Evansville IN 47720
c. 812.746.8347
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopae…http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-p…
Britannica president Jorge Cauz notes that their revenue from the
online encyclopedia was already 15x that of the print version -- 15%
of their total, compared to 1%. Most of their revenue for years has
come from other targeted educational materials. As he says in the
Guardian,
"Today our digital database is much larger than what we can fit in the
print set. And it is up to date because we can revise it within
minutes anytime we need to, and we do it many times each day."
SJ.
Hey guys
So, as you know, we have issues with how new pages are treated on
Wikipedia. A lot of the pages created by new editors simply aren't very
good; this is bad for the new editors, because their pages get deleted, and
bad for the new page patrollers who then have to wade through a tide of
junk. It’s also contributing to page patrollers being overworked.
Recently, Engineering has been working on two projects that we hope will
hopefully improve the situation: Page Triage,[1] which is aimed at making
patrolling easier, and the Landing System:[2] a better way for new editors
to create articles. With these project we hope to both reduce the burden on
patrollers by making it easier to patrol, and by ensuring the articles that
are created are of higher quality.
The first of the two Engineering is working on, partly because it lends
itself to being broken out into smaller pieces of work, is the Landing
System. Currently, when a registered newbie clicks on a redlink, they get
automatically taken to an edit page where they can create the article, but
without any context as to what is actually happening. With the proposed
system, instead of seeing a blank edit window devoid of context, they'll
see a new page that gives them various options.[3] They can create an
article there, go through the article wizard, or go back to wherever they
were before if they didn't mean to end up at that URL. If a new editor
tries to create the article, they'll be informed that they need a
familiarity with policy, an absence of a COI and several references
(amongst other things) before the tool recommends they create it.[4] If
they don't have those things, they'll be directed to the Article Creation
Wizard.
This is an experiment. Our hypothesis is that this could help increase the
quality of new articles and reduce patrollers’ workload, while making the
process more welcoming at the same time.
What our devs would really love is if people could provide feedback on what
they've put together so far. There is an early prototype at
http://ee-prototype.wmflabs.org/ <http://ee-prototype.wmflabs.org/;> , and
I’d encourage everyone to test it out. The tool is currently targeted at
logged in users since an account is required for creating a pge, so you
have to be logged in to see it. I’ve created a test account (username
“editor”, password “mailing list”) for people to work with. Then just go to
something like
http://ee-prototype.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:ArticleCreationLanding/test,
and take a look at what you’re presented with.
We know that the prototype server is fairly slow (sorry about that!) and
the prototype could be a bit buggy, but if you have suggestions as to how
we should improve the tool itself, you can send them to me at
okeyes(a)wikimedia.org, or to
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_Creation_Workflow/Landing_System,
where the devs are watching closely :).
Thanks!
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Page_Triage
[2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_Creation_Workflow/Landing_System
Just read that US chemistry professor Sherwood Rowland had died, and
went to the Wikipedia page to see if it had been updated.
I was initially worried to see a BLP sources tag on the article, but I
was getting an old cached version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Sherwood_Rowland&oldid=4807…
The current article has been tweaked and updated somewhat and the tag removed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Sherwood_Rowland&oldid=4815…
Though the source we provide reporting his death is still only an external link.
It is a bit depressing to think that some tagged pages only get dealt
with when they become topical.
Carcharoth
I suppose we're in favour of it. I note that [[digital inclusion]] is a
redlink, for the reason that it was a redirect to [[e-inclusion]]; which
went down under a PROD in October of last year, as "[[WP:OR|Original
research]] about a [[WP:NEO|non-notable neologism]]". Something of a
disaster, given that "digital inclusion" is a notable neologism.
Anyone prepared to revive? A good cause.
Charles