A vote is currently underway on the central portal page
www.wikipedia.org, which offers a choice between different Wikipedia
languages. I'd like to point out that User:Forseti has recently created
a new design, which I think deserves some attention. The vote is still
running until February 11 - I encourage everyone who has voted for
Catherine's version (which is very nice indeed!) to take a second look.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_portal#Poll_on_Cather…
Regards,
Erik
Hi,
I've been working on an "extension" to the edit page which allows
editors to generate page previews on the fly, directly into the
browser and with no need for page reloads.
I've written a draft with instructions on how to install it which you
can find at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilaf/Live_Preview
So far it's still in development and it has some limitations, some of
which I plan to overcome soon, yet I believe it's mature enough to be
useful to some.
Please let me know what you think about it.
-Pedro (User:Pilaf)
Would it be feasable to just have a program that takes the normal English, French, Hindu... Wikipedia, and just creates a Flash character that signs the article out?
The animation would, in my dream world, change automatically, as the normal English Wikipedia was updated in its normal Latin text format.
Nick/"Zanimum"
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Larry Sanger believes that the solution to make
Wikipedia more credible are with experts. You can see
a good article descriping his criticisms here (
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/03/144207&tid=95&tid=1
) posted on Jan 3, 2004.
I think the easiest way to make Wikipedia more
credible is with a Fact and Reference Project, which
the community has been developing over a period of
more than a few months now: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check
).
The thing holding this project back, and ultimately
Wikipedia from sheading the skin of being
'noncredible' is the lack of intelligent foot/end
notes. A way to format an article with autonumbering
endnotes for crossreferencing is lacking. I am sure
with this feature programmed in this project can be on
its way to cross referencing all facts on Wikipedia.
You can see some examples offoot/endnote formatting
template here. JesseW has put much effort into trying
to create a formating guide here (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes ) and
another guide here (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources ).
Examples are here (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check…
).
How credible will Wikipedia be if each fact is
crossreferenced with 5, 10, 20 external sources like
academic journals, encyclopedias, books? Very.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Hi, I was wondering quite a lot when yesterday my bot for the Italian
wiktionary did not work anymore ... then I heard about problems witn
"one" user - vandalism of course.
Now because of this one person it is impossible to upload contents given
from colleagues for the Italian wiktionary (at the moment the Sicilian
wiktionary is not involved, but it will be soon, when the second part of
the wordlist is ready). What I can't understand is why you blocked the
bots for all wikimedia sites - wouldn't it be enough to do this first on
the one where you have the problems? Why do all of us now be unable to
work properly because of one stupid person who seemed love disturbing
just one site?
And: did you ever think about taking legal action against this person?
There are authorities that are there for jus this job ...
Of course some people do this as they have nothing else to do for the
whole of their day and are somewhat disturbed and simply "must" ruin
work of others, but there could also be someone interested in
miscrediting wikimedia.
Sorry, but I am absolutely not happy with this.
Best wishes - and today I'll be offline just to show a form of protest.
Sabine
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
The number of peer reviewed academic studies cited here is
substantial. And the conclusions reached by careful scientific
analysis appears to be overwhelming.
"In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a
median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in
individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the
fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug
use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet
1993;341:658)."
I urge everyone to read this page very very carefully before
commenting casually on this issue. Harry, I especially invite you to
read it and see if it changes your opinion that people are "censoring"
you.
--Jimbo
harry wrote:
> Stirling Newberry states:
>
> >There is now a
> >mountain of evidence that HIV is the necessary, though not always
> >sufficient, cause of AIDS.
>
> Again, the standard for "truth" in science is to publish research in
> scholarly scientific journal with peer review. Part of the peer review
> process is to establish whether the research results have been
> replicated by others. After all isn't that what we are after here - the
> "truth". Here are picture of the viruses that cause Polio, the Common
> Cold, and Herpes, http://www.usablemakeover.com/virus_pictures.html
>
>
> So Stirling please cite one study published in a scholarly scientific
> journal with peer review that states "HIV Is The Probable Cause of
> AIDS". Is it cited on Wikipedia for me to read? If not where can I find
> it? At the same time give me one reference to a electron microscopic
> picture of HIV.
>
>
> - Harry Pasternak
>
>
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
Without Prejudice
I attempted to post info on Wikipedia on the HIV=AIDS controversy - at
first my post was censored - then totally remove!
What I posted was info from Dr. Kary Mullis, a biochemist who was
awarded the Nobel Prize For Chemistry - he invented the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR), a central technique in molecular biology which
allows the amplification of specified DNA sequences. I wonder how many
inventions or Nobel Prizes the Wilkipedia censor(s) have?
Dr. Kary Mullis states that there is not one scientific study published
in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the
probable cause of AIDS" (notice PROBABLE). In Mullis book 'Dancing
Naked In The Mind Field" - Mullis states:
"I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I
got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and
asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly
problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple of years, I was getting
pretty upset when no one could site the reference. I didn't like the
ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign
against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth- century Black
Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall.
That defied both scientific and common sense.
"Finally I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and
AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he
gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to
ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier
would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't
you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?"
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV
is the probable cause of AIDS does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He
looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they
were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?"
the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those
monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just
published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original
paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS."
This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet
an acquaintance across the room. "
First of all, can your censors give me a reference to one (just one)
scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review the
shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS"? If they can't, then all
of the dis-information on HIV=AIDS needs to removed from Wikipedia.
At the same time - your censors stated that Mullis's views on HIV+AIDS,
is in the minority (that most scientists believe that HIV is the
probable cause of AIDS) - again can I see the statistical reference -
that is, a scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer
review to that claim?
I am interesting in sponsoring a live audio debate (in aacPlus codec)
on the WWW - with Dr. Kary Mullis and anyone one of Wikipedia
"censors" or so-called "experts" on HIV=AIDS, I am sure that we would
have thousands of listeners (from readers of Wikipedia and other news
sources) - what date and time would "you" prefer for this debate so
that I can finalize arrangements with Dr. Mullis.
- Harry Pasternak
In a message dated 31/01/2005 23:15:55 Eastern Standard Time,
node.ue(a)gmail.com writes:
I thought that perhaps, for a trial period, we could add a
prominently-placed button in articles for not-logged-in readers with
the title of "Report an Error or Suggest Information to Add".
I like it. It could be useful.
Danny
I thought that perhaps, for a trial period, we could add a
prominently-placed button in articles for not-logged-in readers with
the title of "Report an Error or Suggest Information to Add".
Since so many people don't realise that Wikipedia is for anybody to
edit, this could take them to a new page that explained in bold
letters the concept of Wikipedia and that they could edit the article
themselves, but still have an error-report field in case they still
didn't get it.
While this would obviously be open to abuse, it might also provide
useful feedback from people who otherwise wouldn't contribute
anything, and would definitely serve to let these people know that the
power is in their hands, what with the boldly-placed notice that THEY
can fix it themselves and all.
I'm sure there would be way too much feedback to ever completely sift
through, but I still think it might be useful.
Mark