I notice that Bryce wikified two articles by Oleg Izyumenko,
and that Bryce later removed them, at Oleg's request.
What's that all about? I hope he wasn't angry.
On a side note, I am really enjoying the discussion under
the UnitedStatesHistory thread. I'll post some remarks there
later. :-)
--
*************************************************
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
*************************************************
The article mentioned below is covered by the GNU FDL and so could be
put on wikipedia, I believe.
Bryce
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:31:58 +0100
From: Sonic <sonic(a)arcormail.de>
To: info-gnupedia(a)gnu.org
Subject: [Info-gnupedia]New Article
Hi!
Some years ago, I wrote a research paper about Ernest Hemingway, and I
thought maybe I could contribute it to Gnupedia. It is pretty long
(about 20 printed pages), and still needs some work, but I'm not sure
what and how much I should leave out. If you want to, you can have a
look at it at http://people.freenet.de/sonics_homepage/hemtext.html and
send me your comments afterwards (sonic(a)arcormail.de)
Bye,
Sonic
I count 224 unique IPs and 4871 hits to wiki.cgi in today's access log
(after 23 hours).
Anyone's guess how many unique humans 224 IP addresses implies.
I was going to suggest we embed each page with a sophisticated counter
system so we could track hits to various parts of the wikipedia, but I
guess it would be simple enough just to do analysis on the access logs.
Tim
I supported the creation of this list, but it occurs to me
that quite possibly discussions which take place here ought
to be taking place on wikipedia itself.
It's just a thought. :-)
--
*************************************************
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
*************************************************
--
---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
From: rose.parks(a)att.net
To: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)aristotle.bomis.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] What's this list for?
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:49:43 +0000
Dear Jimmy and Wikipedians,
I am not sure how many people working Wikipedia are
list members. I think you should leave it and see what
happens for the time being.
Jusy my opinion...:-).
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> I supported the creation of this list, but it occurs to me
> that quite possibly discussions which take place here ought
> to be taking place on wikipedia itself.
>
> It's just a thought. :-)
>
> --
> *************************************************
> * http://www.nupedia.com/ *
> * The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
> *************************************************
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I was playing with Wikipedia this evening and became aware of the
following issues:
1. If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page. See for
example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of the
concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description. If a
discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard discussion
page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to from the
subject page.
2. Often the wiki links for noun and adjective forms of a word should
point to the same subject page. For example, SkI and SkiinG are
essentially overlapping concepts. We could say, on the SkI page, "To
engage in SkiinG". This is not elegant, but it works, I suppose. I see
on the WhichWikiShouldWeUse page that there are different versions of wiki
that might allow for different ways of linking. Do one of these
alternative ways offer a solution to this problem, allowing for different
links to point to the same subject page?
Tim
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)aristotle.bomis.com>
> Timothy Shell wrote:
> > 1. If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
> > appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page. See for
> > example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of
the
> > concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description.
If a
> > discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard
discussion
> > page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to
from the
> > subject page.
>
> There is already a cultural tradition in the wiki world called
> "refactoring". The idea is that there is a "discussion mode" and
> a "document mode". In discussion mode, people have a threaded
discussion,
> with many different issues being raised.
>
> Then, some WikiMaster comes through after the discussion has died
> down, and "refactors" the page. This involves editing/rewriting/
> rearranging, so that all points of view are presented fairly.
Well, I'm not sure that the history of wiki is relevant here, because we
are, after all, making an attempt at creating an encyclopedia, and
therefore we're making some attempt at being unbiased in our entries.
This is especially crucial in that this is a collaborative endeavor.
How can a collaborative endeavor *not* have a nonbias policy?
To respect this policy, I think people should feel free to edit main
articles, such as the controversial GeorgeWBush article, but also add to
corresponding discussion pages--linked from the bottom of the page.
That's what I did for GeorgeWBush; I made BushTalk and moved the
discussion there. As issues get resolved, or positions harden, in
BushTalk, the controversy can be described (not engaged, but described)
on GeorgeWBush.
So I agree with Tim, as you can see.
Larry