Steve Bennett wrote:
Ben Kovitzbkov...@acm.org wrote:
attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go
away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page
clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it.
That attitude is anti-wiki. I can diagnose far more problems
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially
everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is
available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries
(slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with
absolutely impeccable official
Charles Matthews wrote:
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of
public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed
and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate
it?
This is a really good point.
Subject-matter
On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:46 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting
article
on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat
inconsistent references to wikipedia.
Here's the article:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was
able
to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it.
By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference
answered
82 per cent of questions
On Feb 23, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Sam Blacketer wrote:
On 2/23/09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
WP:SALIENCY? :-)
Dunno about a policy but an essay on that subject might not go amiss.
I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack
at a short essay
I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack
at a short essay tonight, incorporating what people have posted here.
Couldn't wait. List of topics is now here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz/Salience
Thanks, Charles, for suggesting the word salience. :)
Say, does anyone else here edit Wikipedia as therapy?
I'm in grad school now, and my head has been spinning from the frequent
context-switching: jumping between one in-depth class and another and
another, without finishing one thing before starting another, and
without having time to dig in
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
A short article is not a stub. Repeat 10 times under your
breath.
... A subject that can be exhaustively
covered briefly, is not a stub. Period.
Thank you for saying this. Often, especially in biographical articles,
I've been seeing facts tossed in that seem
On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:53 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Paris Hilton is not notable for going to jail, lots of people go to
jail.
She is notable, and also she went to jail.
I can agree with this: some facts about a person become notable simply
because the person is notable. As David Goodman
On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/22 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
A one-paragraph article that
crisply tells the noteworthy fact or two about its subject can be an
excellent article.
If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article
should probably
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based
on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic
curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around
2013-14.
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
Sanger was one of the founders of Wikipedia, and of its failed
predecessor Nupedia, who left the fold because of differences over the
question of the proper role of experts.
Strange, I thought it was because he stopped being paid for it.
On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
We could discuss why [CZ] failed but I think the real answer is
simply that Wikipedia is good enough so there is very little
interest in a new project doing the same thing.
I think you have pegged it exactly right. In most large markets, the
14 matches
Mail list logo
