I guess I should say one more thing, just to be absolute direct: if you want to say something nice about Numenta in Wikipedia, the right way to do it is this: find a major magazine, newspaper or book that says something nice about Numenta, paraphrase that and add a little footnote pointing the the article.
> On Sep 7, 2015, at 5:43 PM, CHARLES GILLINGHAM <[email protected]> wrote: > > The right way to proceed is just to drop new content into the article, and > let the Wikipedia process work. Approval from Numenta is unnecessary — the > process will insure that Numenta’s interests are served. > > The most important Wikipedia policies that apply are these: > > (1) Everything in Wikipedia should be attributed to reliable sources, such as > prominent newspapers, published books, major news outlets, etc., (unless it > is something so obvious that it is “unlikely to be challenged”). The > footnotes in Wikipedia articles are there to provide verification (unlike > academic footnotes, which provide clarification or attribution). They are > there to prove that this isn’t something you just made up. > > (2) The subject of an article is not allowed to edit the article; e.g., no > one who works from Numenta should edit the article about Numenta. This is to > avoid self-promotion and self-protection. Wikipedia aspires to a “Neutral > Point of View”, and the assumption is that this is impossible when you are > writing about yourself. Anything that even appears to be self promotion > (regardless of who contributed it) will be deleted when it is noticed. > > (3) Wikipedia’s editors are encouraged to “be bold”. Wikipedia is always a > “work in progress”. Editors are expected to post drafts directly in the > encyclopedia and let others help edit them. > > (4) Once an article is written, it belongs to the community. The article will > go through many changes after you write it — some will improve the article, > some will weaken it. Some will be from people who disagree with your point of > view. Any dispute is resolved by providing more sources and better sources. > > I edited Wikipedia extensively several years ago, but retired some time ago. > The only time-consuming part is doing the research — i.e. finding reliable > sources that back up what you want to write. If someone else can do this > part, I’d be happy to handle the technical side (i.e. building nice looking > footnotes, flattening the tone, etc.), > > At Wikipedia, I’m [[User:CharlesGillingham]], if you want to contact me there. > >> On Sep 6, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Rohan <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi David >> >> Totally agree that the wiki needs updating. As someone who stumbled across >> On Intelligence two months ago, bridging the gap between the book release >> and where we stand today as well as key milestones between then and now has >> been arduous and required much research across a variety of sites. >> >> Happy to help if I can be of assistance. >> >> Also, as someone fresh to the area I'd typically prefer content >> authenticated via Numenta over a public wiki contributers' interpretation. >> The challenge is who at Numenta could manage the authenticiation process? >> >> Rohan >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:17 AM, cogmission (David Ray) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi George, >> >> I'm trying to avoid the modified text being made public before it adheres to >> an adequate qualitative standard as determined by Numenta designates. I'm >> not familiar with the editing procedure of Wikipedia (this will be my first >> contribution) - but I'm assuming there must be some attempt to have >> submitted text be "authenticated" by the domain experts (those that are >> being written about or accepted authorities on the topic)? I'm not sure... >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:35 AM, CHARLES GILLINGHAM <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> There's no need to develop the page outside of Wikipedia. Just make changes >> directly to the Wikipedia pages at any time. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 6, 2015, at 9:48 AM, cogmission (David Ray) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Simply put, I would like to see the wikipedia listing for Hierarchical >>> Temporal Memory improved and brought up to date. >>> >>> Problems: >>> The current listing has several inaccuracies regarding the current state of >>> HTM Theory; does not reflect the historical evolution of the theory; and >>> instead, superimposes the historical/older version's origins with newer >>> developments creating a cognitive mishmash of indistinct informational >>> attributes. >>> >>> Solution: >>> I would like to see the current page/listing accurately describe the events >>> following the publishing of "On Intelligence"; the formation of Numenta; >>> and the eventual split between approaches favored by Dileep George, and >>> Jeff Hawkins. I propose that coverage of Dileep George and his company >>> Vicarious link to another page that those in that camp can more fully >>> enhance at their will - and the rest of the listing then proceed to >>> describe the development of the Cortical Learning Algorithm and the more >>> current focus of Numenta et al. >>> >>> Unknowns: >>> 1. Is the term "Hierarchical Temporal Memory" currently used by Dileep >>> George and Vicarious? >>> >>> Process: >>> Once this proposal has been honed such that it reflects a satisfactory >>> approach and direction; that the current listing text be incrementally and >>> iteratively modified, then submitted for approval - each submission's >>> approval representing an interactive improvement of the entire text until >>> such time as it is considered to be an accurate representation. This entire >>> process is to proceed "offline" (not posted to wikipedia until finished). >>> >>> I propose this iterative approach because it will make things easier >>> (initially for me specifically, but maybe by a "team" of people who would >>> like to participate - I encourage this). Advantages: >>> >>> 1. the text updates can be made in small increments as knowledge is >>> acquired seeing as the "implementing team" doesn't possess the whole story. >>> [ Again, the "implementing team" will be initially composed of myself but >>> is wide open to other community contributors ;-) ] >>> >>> 2. Submissions of small changes won't take much time to "validate" and turn >>> around time can be more "immediate" leading to a quicker process.This will >>> consume negligible time on the part of the validator, increasing >>> willingness and therefore the process' general momentum. >>> >>> What does everyone think? >>> >>> Regards, >>> David >>> >>> -- >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> David Ray >>> Java Solutions Architect >>> >>> Cortical.io <http://cortical.io/> >>> Sponsor of: HTM.java <https://github.com/numenta/htm.java> >>> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://cortical.io <http://cortical.io/> >> >> >> -- >> With kind regards, >> >> David Ray >> Java Solutions Architect >> >> Cortical.io <http://cortical.io/> >> Sponsor of: HTM.java <https://github.com/numenta/htm.java> >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://cortical.io <http://cortical.io/> >
