Re: [WikiEN-l] Bing Reference - Wikipedia and Freebase
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Microsofts-Bing-Adds-Reference-Page-634550/ http://www.bing.com/reference Bing is attempting to differentiate itself with a nicer reference page. Wikipedia quote at the top. (We're famous enough now that I could say of course.) The search up top says Search Wikipedia. The thing that caught my eye in the article (and the results) was it actually searches Freebase as well! Unfortunately best I can tell their version of enhanced wikipedia is basically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popups Plus some of the new Babaco features (outline of sections on the right side) :) (which is, to be fair, is something I *really* like -- try it out via preferences - editing - experimental features). -- phoebe * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia: a liberal cesspool of fact-checking, sources and citations
KillerChihuahua wrote: So if you're verbose in the name of Liberalism, that's wordy and bad, but if you're verbose in the name of Conservatism, that's strong and good? check. I'll remember that. I'd hate to be verbose for all the wrong reasons. That's not the distinction that I would make. Conservatives don't need to be verbose because they believe that they already have God's truth. Liberals too easily spend much time on trying to figure out what to create in place of God, and figuring out how to avoid stepping on the merry-go-round. - Original Message - From: Tony Sidaway On 10/6/09, Charles Matthews wrote: Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness is pretty good though (scroll down). That's a doozy. Note also that principle 4, Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms, links to another of Schlafly's crackpot projects, to prove that since 1612, Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] FTC Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
2009/10/9 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com: The report on National Public Radio the other day stated it was unlikely the FTC would be very aggressive about this. Yet the piece's principal focus was bloggers. It'd be an interesting question how they'd handle the matter when it bleeds over to Wikipedia. About two seconds after the dedicated POV warriors add it to their alleged COI arsenal. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research
Carcharoth wrote: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:37 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: snip Well the WP:SOHE idea to me seems a reasonable compromise -- one that makes small parts of copyright texts open to our research needs, while still respecting the needs of authors to keep whole works marketable. WP:SOHE being the page that you wrote recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sourcehelpers A nearly identical concept at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange (consisting of shared resources and resource requests) while expansive, is fairly inactive. Did you not think of trying to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange more active, rather than starting a new page and a new proposal? I don't care that much where WP:DREDGE ends up redirecting. I rhink we may still be at an early stage of conceptualising the useful dredging that needs to go on. For free texts, this currently looks like an internal Wikisource debate, which is why I was a bit guarded in discussing it. For fair use texts thre is sn obvious issue whcich is that fair use is determined to an extent by issues of context (or in other words it isn't a matter of delegating collection to a Wikiquote or clone). For database querying, unless the database is free/open, there are obvious issues about how useful it would be for verification. You'd have thought it would anyway be part of fact-checking in some cases, but the age fabrication thread would not have arisen if it was really straightforward as an issue. I wonder what a survey across WikiProjects would reveal, about the most standard or routine ways people do research in areas they know well.. I'm certainly interested in the general issues of lists of redlinks and how they get matched to combiuations of resources for articles. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia words
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: stevertigo wrote: Well, in our defence, hardly anyone used IPA before and now its everywhere -- thanks to us and people like Nohat, who IIRC got that started here. Yes, I remember the debate between using IPA and SAMPA. Are we still using the latter? Ec I still see SAMPA in Wiktionary entries, but I can't remember the last time I noticed it in a WP entry. -- gwern signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
Interesting article about how the International Olympic Committee is cracking down even on CC-SA licenses: http://www.thestar.com/olympics/article/707868--olympics-warns-man-about-sharing-photos-on-website I am certainly not in the forefront of the free information pack, but even I find this concerning. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research
stevertigo wrote: David Goodman wrote: Quite apart from the incredible range available from a research library, the great majority of *Wikipedians,* even experienced ones, do not use even those sources which are made available free from local public libraries to residents. Do these libraries *digitize* their books and make them available online? The paradigm shift is relevant: A keydrive full of PDFs is *so much easier to skateboard around with than a backpack full of wood industry products. The main problem is not one of digitization. It has more to do with making the digitized material useful. Digitizing major libraries' content will obviate the need for digitizing the duplicate material in smaller libraries, but these smaller libraries will still contain important material that may be unique. Once the material is digitized, how do you find it? There is more to that than depending on Google searches. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] International Olympic Committee tells Flickr user to change license
Who doesn't enjoy when a NGO imposses its unilateral will upon the world? -- Sent from my Palm Pre Risker wrote: Interesting article about how the International Olympic Committee is cracking down even on CC-SA licenses: http://www.thestar.com/olympics/article/707868--olympics-warns-man-about-sharing-photos-on-website I am certainly not in the forefront of the free information pack, but even I find this concerning. Risker ___ 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research
Carcharoth wrote: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:37 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Well the WP:SOHE idea to me seems a reasonable compromise -- one that makes small parts of copyright texts open to our research needs, while still respecting the needs of authors to keep whole works marketable. WP:SOHE being the page that you wrote recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sourcehelpers A nearly identical concept at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange (consisting of shared resources and resource requests) while expansive, is fairly inactive. Did you not think of trying to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange more active, rather than starting a new page and a new proposal? Indeed! Without commenting for or against the content of that page, I am disturbed by the acronymic profligacy that this represents. Gracing the page with an acronym as though it's something that everyone should know about does not help with communication. When I encounter an acronym like that my instinct tells me to ignore it. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research
stevertigo wrote: Carcharoth wrote: WP:SOHE being the page that you wrote recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sourcehelpers Did you not think of trying to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange more active, rather than starting a new page and a new proposal? I thought about it. Different concept though, and with too many bottlenecks. Near identical may have been overstated. Newer ideas will have to avoid those same bottlenecks, and that's why I wrote up a draft for a new idea. In certain ways we have to be open and openly helpful about not just collaborative writing, but collaborative source-finding. To some that seems to mean swinging from the Britannica ideal toward the Google/PirateBay direction. I little bit perhaps, but not all the way. The philosophic roots of this view make sense, but how do we resolve the opposing tendencies of bottlenecks on one side and dispersion of ideas on the other? And the encyclopedia (WP:ENC) characterization is way overstated anyway. Wikipedia's philosophy is entirely different from Britannica's -- which doesn't even have articles about 'paid erection maintainers' and 'stand-by penis alternates.' We on the other hand, do. -Stevertigo Nothing we can't shake... I really don't care whether Wikipedia has articles about what we can't shake on the other hand. ;-) Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WP and Deep Web, was Re: Age fabrication and original research
stevertigo wrote: The philosophic roots of this view make sense, but how do we resolve the opposing tendencies of bottlenecks on one side and dispersion of ideas on the other? Instead of fixing a hole, or not doing something for fear of creating new holes (or just for fear of holes in general), we 'apply good faith' -- understanding how we can help others be helpful to... others. It's called empowerment. I think. Facilitation, maybe? Hm: The facilitation of empowerment and the empowerment of facilitation? Heh - needs work. I don't know if you understood my point. Good faith is not a factor here since we assume it is present in both paths. In bottlenecks we get people digging in their heels and defending certain perceptions of an idea. Dispersion happens when someone abandons the bottlenecked sandbox and starts his own brand-new sandbox; with enough of these it becomes difficult for the new kid on the playground to choose which sandbox to play in. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] deletionism in popular culture
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I gave up. Eventually I came across a controversial topic that particularly interested me, where I had the background to understand the sources and where my research radically changed my mind. So I started working on it, I even bought a pile of books about it (on all sides of the controversy), and a major recent and very expensive mainstream work on it was donated to me, and I became much more vulnerable as a result, since I now had an opinion and a POV, based on reading the sources, and I started asserting content based on the most reliable of the sources, especially peer-reviewed secondary source. The information necessary for my major shift of POV is much more than most editors could absorb with some light reading. There exist secondary sources that cover the field that, if editors would trust them, would make it easy, but they don't trust these sources, even when published by independent, non-fringe publishers, since what they say contradicts the easy positions of ignorance. After all, doesn't everybody with a background in science know? Reliable source guidelines, if followed, would address the problem, but are useless against entrenched opinion, because editors will invent this or that excuse for disregarding them, so that the article doesn't fall into their view of undue weight. So ... I'm no longer a Wikipedia editor, I'm now working off-wiki, with real knowledge and research in the field that interested me, and, as well, on the kind of voluntary structure that I see as the only way out of trap that Wikipedia has fallen into. It's much easier, though, of course, it all takes time. I still have an account, and the block will expire, and I'm not burning any bridges, but once I realize that a wall definitely exists, I don't butt my head against it. I walk around it or dig under it or climb over it, if I actually want to get to the other side, or I do something else. So rather than address the problems inherent in this narrative so as to retain editors, we have a Bookshelf project to recruit cannon fodder. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
