I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
Carcharoth
Never heard of it, but the medical profession is piling on to it. I doubt anyone that is not a doctor is going to be allowed to edit.
Fred Bauder
I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
They register the editors, but allow anyone to comment, as far as I can tell. Dig around a bit and see what you think of the way they have adapted the wiki model to their aims.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Never heard of it, but the medical profession is piling on to it. I doubt anyone that is not a doctor is going to be allowed to edit.
Fred Bauder
I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it since.
It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly):
http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0&limit=500&... http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=&limit=500&...
-Sage
Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it since.
It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly):
http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0&limit=500&... http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=&limit=500&...
-Sage
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29 July 2010 22:21, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).
Slightly under 10% of all edits on enwiki were by bots - that's bot-flagged accounts, not the various automatically-assisted tools.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryTable.htm
The proportion has crept up a bit over time, but eyeballing the chart it seems to have been stable around 9% for the last year or two. There's a recent spike indicated there - I don't know if that's an anomaly or not.
Across all languages, it's 20% historically, closer to 25% as a proportion of current edits. Interestingly, it's clear that, roughly speaking, the smaller the project the higher the proportion of bot edits:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Proportion_of_bot_edits_on_Wikipedia_...
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Across all languages, it's 20% historically, closer to 25% as a proportion of current edits. Interestingly, it's clear that, roughly speaking, the smaller the project the higher the proportion of bot edits:
I think we can thank our interwiki bots for that. :-)
Here's what happens when you click on "suggest changes"
The edit window opens and this message:
"Suggesting Changes to Children and Diabetes Type your suggested changes to the Article in the box below and then click the "Submit Suggested Changes" to save them. The changes will go live on Medpedia when an Editor reviews and approves them. See Help:How to Suggest Changes for more step-by-step instructions."
I don't suppose this would be a problem if you made a useful well-sourced suggestion. This would have to be tested. My usual reaction once would have been to not even try, but now, after years on Wikipedia, I've got a good idea of what a useful well-sourced suggestion looks like.
Fred Bauder
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it since.
It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly):
http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0&limit=500&... http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=&limit=500&...
-Sage
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly):
General site notice is Creative Commons. Are they as careful with copyright? I was going to suggest that they look like a good source for certain import material as their medical take on medical topics seems both acute and compact. But maybe not suitable for import.
-SC