I had a glance at the history on [[Short story]] and couldn't spot the
alleged edits. Anyone else got any ideas? A public call to vandalism
deserves a reply.
Sunday Times (London) June 10, 2007
WICKEDLY INACCURATE? As a member of the Society of Authors, I felt it
my duty to correct Wikipedia creative-writing articles which stated "a
short story can be anywhere between 5,000 and 50,000 words" or had
grammatical errors, such as "Mary laid on her bed". The originator had
included the following invitation: "I hope someone would (sic) feel
free to add concepts and examples." I took him at his word, and
edited. The next day all my edits had been reversed.
Anyone dismayed by this "dictatorship of idiots" should not waste time
on futile attempts to turn Wikipedia into a reliable source. Instead,
help it to self-destruct by adding misinformation. Wikipedia has no
mechanism to deal with this other than the army of itchy-fingered
know-it-alls who know nothing.
Margret Geraghty Chandlers Ford, Hampshire
The Wikipedia Story is on BBC Radio 4:
Tuesday 24 July 2007 11:30-12:00 (Radio 4 FM)
Clive Anderson looks at one of the world's fastest growing websites,
the online encyclopedia to which anybody can contribute. Is Wikipedia
a valuable source of human knowledge or a symptom of the spread of
mediocrity and the devaluation of research?
There's a meetup being organised for *somewhere* in the UK... input would be
appreciated if you're interested in meeting some of your fellow Wikipedians
:) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/UK for info. Thanks.
On 31/08/2007, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Could people please make a note, somewhere, of what - if anything -
> they can and are doing to help - even just awaiting a reply, or
> researching, or something. Maybe on a /Tasks subpage of our bid on
> meta. I am currently thinking about nearby places to University
> College London, our venue - ie Regents Park and ZSL London Zoo - and
> corporate bodies who might help.
Atlanta has a page set up for people to coordinate their sponsorship contact
which looks like a good idea to me, as it would avoid twenty different
people contacting the same organisation
On 8/31/07, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 13:41 +0100 31/8/07, Gary Kirk wrote:
> >I had a look about funding and perhaps people could take a look at
> >lotteryfunding.org.uk and awardsforall.org.uk
> I am not sure either of these would work. The UK Chapter is in the
> process of becoming a charity, and hence would not have much of a
> balance sheet to show in 2008. Hence, funding agencies such those
> about would like to give money, but not so much money (ten or
> hundreds of thousands??) to such a new charity (less than one year
> Other sources are better (corporate sponsors).
I don't imagine this would be a problem. The Wikimedia Foundation is a
charity registered in Florida, and Wikimedia UK is, as you say, on its
way to becoming a charity soon. Having said this, I imagine (with
absolutely no evidence to back it up) that corporate sponsors are most
likely to give a quick response - at least to indicate possible
interest. Does anyone have experience of the time taken to apply for
funding from funds of the state and its agencies?
On 31/08/2007, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 12:10 +0100 31/8/07, Cormac Lawler wrote:
> >On 8/30/07, Majorly <axel9891(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 30/08/2007, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > All very well, but has anybody actually done anything? This is not a
> >> > dig because that serves no purpose, but - I did bring up the idea of
> >> > an unofficial bid in October last year - can people actually start
> >> > cross-checking the 2007 bid with the 2008 bid. I have been told by
> >> > it's likely technical facilities, rooms etc will be available same
> >> > last year. If we can decide on things like dates, UCL can start
> >> > putting things in place.
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Gary
> >> I *want* to help... but I have no idea whatsoever what I'm doing :S
> >I've been involved in a London bid before (two years ago), which
> >wasn't as good as others at the time - largely due to the perceived
> >expense of London, and an unresolved question about technical
> >facilities. If facilities are in place (and they seem to have been
> >fine from last year), the main cloud over any London bid will be cost.
> >Money. Sponsorship. If there is not an indication that there will be
> >significant sponsorship, and if accommodation/travel/food will be a
> >significant expense to visitors (who, bear in mind, and assuming it
> >doesn't change so much in the coming year, would be dealing with the
> >strength of the British pound), then I don't hold out much prospect
> >for a London bid. That would be my main advice for this bid - identify
> >full costs (both to Wikimedia, and to individual participants), and
> >show how/where they can be cut, offset, or minimised.
> >On dates, I would keep to the same schedule as previous years, ie
> >first week of August. The first few days of August 2008 are the
> >weekend - maybe have the hacking days over these days and start the
> >conference proper on the Monday, 4th. So, hacking days: 2-3;
> >conference 4-6 (inclusive).
> An excellent choice. And makes so much sense.
> Does UCL have these dates free?
> >To return to my main point - money - I think there would be *plenty*
> >of interest in Wikimania within the media, educational sector, and
> >business. Sponsorship would be forthcoming - and plenty of people not
> >yet committed to this bid will have links that can be milked. So,
> >consider that whatever funding opportunities could be explored in the
> >next month would not be the last word in funding - but still I stress
> >that we would need some indication of interest at this stage. However,
> >potential funders have to be made aware of the fact that this is still
> >only a *bid*, and that there is no guarantee that it will be
> >happening. We are simply wondering about the possibility of their
> >interest in the event of Wikimania coming to London. :-)
> >That's my tuppence worth for the moment,
> Or Manchester?
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
I think London is the location, and it's a little late to be thinking of
other locations... :P