Ian Woollard wrote:
On 30/03/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
And then someone will come up with a better way of delivering
information than a wiki...
Probably, but I think people, if they still live, will still be
talking about the wikipedia in a thousand years, like they still
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Further, I'm no historian of technology.
Read up on it - it is fascinating.
But the lesson surely is that
not much lasts for long.
Some technologies endure, but just change. Telecommunications, for
example. People
2009/3/31 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Britannica in its various incarnations and Encarta were excellent and
useful reference works. Britannica remains useful. Encarta I think
could have remained useful also. I really regret that we had a role in
killing it. Why should we be pleased?
By plastic records do you mean vinyl ? Vinyl is what they are made from.
They are still making new vinyl.
You need to *not* go to some uptown shop and instead shop at the hard-code
music stores.
I have no idea why full price shops aren't selling vinyl anymore, but new
vinyl is still coming
2009/3/31 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
Today's unassailable
phenomena, which no one can see anyone displacing, is tomorrow's
footnote. BASIC anyone? Sinclair? Plastic records?
[[Visual Basic .NET]]!
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Agreed. Though is it annoying when you see people working on things to
address this, and then see critics, who inspired some people, carry on
criticising the meta-processes, instead of supporting efforts made to
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Agreed. Though is it annoying when you see people working on things to
address this, and then see critics, who inspired some people, carry on
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:31 AM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
The community hasn't really woken up to the fact that Wikipedia
is no longer only an open shelf needing to be stacked, but it is a
depository of a huge wealth of material that needs to be protected,
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Agreed. Though is it annoying when you see people working on things to
address this, and then see critics, who inspired some people, carry on
criticising the meta-processes, instead of supporting
In the quest to simplify and improve Wikipedia's HTML code, the turn
has come to footnotes. Here is a proposal that describes how the
number of elements needed to represent footnotes can be halved:
http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/ref/
Some of the proposed changes seems to
On 31/03/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The Library of Alexandria was with us for between 350 and a thousand
years (depending on which history book you read), Wikipedia has been
with us for a total of 8.
Yes, and it's been ranked about 8 on the entire freaking internet for
a lot
+1
2009/3/31 Håkon Wium Lie howc...@opera.com
In the quest to simplify and improve Wikipedia's HTML code, the turn
has come to footnotes. Here is a proposal that describes how the
number of elements needed to represent footnotes can be halved:
2009/3/31 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
On 31/03/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The Library of Alexandria was with us for between 350 and a thousand
years (depending on which history book you read), Wikipedia has been
with us for a total of 8.
Yes, and it's been ranked
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
(In image search, Google and all other search engines still suck.
Here's to tagging coming to Commons.)
Isn't that because people don't label, keyword or otherwise tag images
properly? If they did, then Google would
2009/3/31 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(In image search, Google and all other search engines still suck.
Here's to tagging coming to Commons.)
Isn't that because people don't label, keyword or otherwise tag
In a message dated 3/31/2009 9:58:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
(In image search, Google and all other search engines still suck.
Here's to tagging coming to Commons.)
Somewhere in my hazy memory I remember two projects I'd read about.
There was a guy or a bunch of
In a message dated 3/31/2009 10:58:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
The plumbing of templates is horrible, but the actual template
interface is simple. Presumably WYSIWYG editing tools can be tweaked
to make it a fill-in form more accessibly.
This would be the BOMB,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:45 PM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
You realise, someday the announcement will read:
Wikipedia has been a popular product around the world for many years.
However, the category of traditional wiki encyclopedias and reference
material has changed. People
2009/3/31 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 3/31/2009 10:58:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
The plumbing of templates is horrible, but the actual template
interface is simple. Presumably WYSIWYG editing tools can be tweaked
to make it a fill-in form more
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:57 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/31 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
On 31/03/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The Library of Alexandria was with us for between 350 and a thousand
years (depending on which history book you read),
The thing that sucked me away from Yahoo and over to Google was that Google
actually crawled the net themselves. They did not rely on people submitting or
knowing how to submit their pages.
So if you just wait long enough, your page shows up. At least in theory.
Remember when we used to
The thing that sucked me away from Yahoo and over to Google was that
Google
actually crawled the net themselves. They did not rely on people
submitting or
knowing how to submit their pages.
So if you just wait long enough, your page shows up. At least in theory.
Remember when we used to
2009/3/31 Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com:
I think the challenge now is for Wikipedia to try and fill the gap it
has made.
Wikipedia for schools is the best effort in that area. Wikipedia has
never been very good at internally selecting subsections of wikipedia
for best ofs and the
2009/3/31 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 3/31/2009 9:58:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
(In image search, Google and all other search engines still suck.
Here's to tagging coming to Commons.)
Somewhere in my hazy memory I remember two projects I'd read
2009/3/31 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
I'm fine with that - it's inevitable, and so far as I can think, only has
three flavors-
- Wikipedia subsumes into whatever may come in future,
- Wikipedia becomes whatever may come in future (or specializes into some
niche),
- or Wikipedia is
2009/3/31 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
I'm fine with that - it's inevitable, and so far as I can think, only
has
three flavors-
- Wikipedia subsumes into whatever may come in future,
- Wikipedia becomes whatever may come in future (or specializes into
some
niche),
- or Wikipedia is
2009/3/31 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Yeh, you would. It is not that good. It is inconsistent and fails to
adequately define many terms because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and
fails to provide appropriate external links because Wikipedia is not a
web directory.
Those are not
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
And yet this poll seems to have significantly more support across the board
than any other proposal that has been put forward. If there's another way of
taking it forward that would have sufficient support,
On 31/03/2009, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yeh, you would. It is not that good. It is inconsistent and fails to
adequately define many terms because Wikipedia is not a dictionary
All encyclopedia articles are supposed to define their topic; they're
just not supposed to define
I would very much liketo take Wps redirect and disam system and
rationalize it. the first step would be to change the policy so the
full form of the name, including middle names, are always used when
available. The second is to add geographic designators for all local
events and places and
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Postlethwaite ryanpostlethwa...@hotmail.com
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 3:50 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll]]
Hello everyone,
This is just a quick email to remind you that [[Wikipedia
I messed up the link (I posted the talk link) - it's actually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll
Sorry!
Ryan Postlethwaite
From: ryanpostlethwa...@hotmail.com
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [[Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll]]
Hello everyone,
This is just a quick email to remind you that [[Wikipedia talk:Date formatting
and linking poll]] is now open and the community is invited to participate. If
you have time, it would be great to hear your opinions - the greater the
turnout the better!
Many thanks,
Ryan
On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Nathan wrote:
Well, the poll was closed with 80% support. It probably should have
been
extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued to come
in at a
pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close it on
deadline.
If I were a
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this casts a new interesting perspective on
the decision by Microsoft to buy out powerset.com.
I will be watching with interest, how they will develop
that product, and whether they intend to
35 matches
Mail list logo
