Gordon writes Time to return another "town"..... how about this quaint little hamlet (started as WikiProject in 2002)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London
How ironic. I had several London articles deleted or cut short as a result of the absurd 'community ban' that is still in force. One article, about an important London landmark and institution, is still deleted, and I am still waiting for someone to spot the fact and act - that was two years ago. The article about the London Greyfriars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_London was restored after deletion by Sandstein, but was only half completed. You can see roughly what the completed version would be like here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Greyfriars,_London (although the section on the library would not be appropriate for Wikipedia).
Wikipedia has no article on the Carmelite friary in London http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Carmelite_friary,_London, and the list of Franciscan friaries in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Franciscan_monasteries_in_England seems woefully incomplete (that may just be poor categorisation, I haven't checked). The Oxford Greyfriars article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_Oxford is also seriously inadequate. I did much research on that friary as part of my forthcoming book on Duns Scotus, much of which did not find its way into the book, but would have been ideal for a Wikipedia article.
There is an enormous amount of London material missing. Look at the article on Knightsbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightsbridge. I started the original article on Chelsea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London which is not much better than when I originally wrote it. There was no requirement for citations in those days, and I note the 'citation needed' template is still there from 2008.
Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia?
Edward
News Flash: Wikipedia isn't finished yet! Film at 11!
On 22 May 2012 10:30, Edward at Logic Museum edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
Gordon writes Time to return another "town"..... how about this quaint little hamlet (started as WikiProject in 2002)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London
How ironic. I had several London articles deleted or cut short as a result of the absurd 'community ban' that is still in force. One article, about an important London landmark and institution, is still deleted, and I am still waiting for someone to spot the fact and act - that was two years ago. The article about the London Greyfriars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_London was restored after deletion by Sandstein, but was only half completed. You can see roughly what the completed version would be like here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Greyfriars,_London (although the section on the library would not be appropriate for Wikipedia).
Wikipedia has no article on the Carmelite friary in London http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Carmelite_friary,_London, and the list of Franciscan friaries in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Franciscan_monasteries_in_England seems woefully incomplete (that may just be poor categorisation, I haven't checked). The Oxford Greyfriars article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars,_Oxford is also seriously inadequate. I did much research on that friary as part of my forthcoming book on Duns Scotus, much of which did not find its way into the book, but would have been ideal for a Wikipedia article.
There is an enormous amount of London material missing. Look at the article on Knightsbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightsbridge. I started the original article on Chelsea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea,_London which is not much better than when I originally wrote it. There was no requirement for citations in those days, and I note the 'citation needed' template is still there from 2008.
Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia?
Edward
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 22 May 2012 10:30, Edward at Logic Museum edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
<snip>
Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia?
I can't speak for that. Clearly many UK Wikimedians do, but the chapter is not directly concerned with content (as such).
Edward, you linked to your wiki at http://www.logicmuseum.com/, and I wish you well with this project. As I understand it from http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/The_Logic_Museum:Copyrights, the content there is copyleft, but not released under Creative Commons?
Charles
Its the community's job to improve the wiki projects. WMUK didn't put a pin in the map to chose Monmouth. The board backed "a man with a plan". It does this frequently and I believe the offer is open to ladies too.
A person, a university, a club or a business can suggest that the board fund work in line with our mission. There are a large number of cities that could do with more attention. We now have a model of what a town might look like when its (kind of) "finished" And we know that we can do the mission one town at a time.
Roger
On 22 May 2012 22:35, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 22/05/12 10:30, Edward at Logic Museum wrote:
Does WMUK actually have any serious intentions about improving the encyclopedia?
No. Just good PR?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org