On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:35, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
By far the majority of people who come up and buck the system or
challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
people with an agenda. This started - as others have pointed out -
with a few
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 01:36 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:35, George Herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
By far the majority of people who come up and buck the system or
challenge established knowledge in this manner are, in fact, kooks or
people with an
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:32, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* do
well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of not-yet-legitimised
knowledge - whether the 'truth' is new analysis backed up by serious
Short version:
A few countries currently do not participate in international
copyright treaties. Most such countries have domestic copyright laws;
however, many works originating in these countries are considered to
be in the public domain in the United States due to the lack of a
treaty
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Mostly though, thanks to the Internet and multinational corporations,
godawful business jargon crosses all national borders. Words and
phrases like
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised knowledge
I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the legitimacy. This
seems to be being cast in the light of verifiability
What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, or in a
quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off from raising
the issues.
The expertise that is most valued at Wikipedia is
What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, or
in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
from raising the issues.
The expertise that is most valued at Wikipedia
Mostly though, thanks to the Internet and multinational corporations,
godawful business jargon crosses all national borders. Words and
phrases like 'onboarding', 'stakeholders', 'mission statements',
'platforms', 'proactive', 'sectors' and pretty much anything
'strategic', for instance.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and sensible
might be incomprehensible to a newbie. Simple things like
On 22 February 2012 12:44, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised knowledge
I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the
On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of
not-yet-legitimised
On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you
would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is
a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Terms like strategy, mission statement and stakeholder have
concrete organizational meaning. Yes, they are also often used as part
of marketing copy or organizational copy in ways that are unhelpful,
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 06:59 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't*
do well, which is to
What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight,
or
in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
from raising the issues.
The expertise that is most valued at Wikipedia
This idea of published can (and is) relaxed though. Indeed it is my
perception that in many topic areas we rely far too heavily on online
sources - there can be a distinct prejudice against offline source
material.
Tom
Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the case of
And this is what I meant about misunderstanding policies. Because nothing
in our policies precludes the use of primary sources. What you can't do
is
use them for interpretation or analysis. So to make up an example; if you
have an oral citation from someone who was arrested under an
Interesting because in the Haymarket case there is a 3,000 page
transcript of the trial on line. I thought we could not use it directly.
What can we use it for?
Can it be used as a reference for itself, in the
sense that the fact that there was a lengthy hearing with a great number
of
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
An aside: there are millions of oral testimonies hosted at thousands of
extremely reputable organisations - on Native American life at the
Smithsonian, or Holocaust history at Yale - which currently have no place on
Dear all,
Greetings from Wikimedia India !!!
The Wikimedia Chapter (India) celebrated its first anniversary on 3rd
January 2012.
Organisational Updates Formation of Task Forces:
The formation of the different task forces are still in progress. The
various task forces are a) Fundraising, b)
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
question for me - do I want to participate in the political
disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They
have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no
control over whether
I think you have inadvertently hit upon something essential.
Content has some relative value. Someone has always had to put energy
into creating content. More importantly for our current discussion,
someone has always had to make a decision to invest in the REPRODUCTION
of content. Printing
Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
question for me - do I want to participate in the political
disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They
have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and
An update: Steven Walling will be with me on NPR's Talk of the Nation,
today at 3pm US Eastern time talking about this issue.
In preparation for the show, I looked up Messer-Kruse's book on Amazon, and
I am pasting in the first two sentences of the blurb (bold emphasis mine).
In this
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
But I do share Mike Godwin's concerns on what this means for attracting
editors and for Wikipedia's public image.
This is where I disagree. But we can talk about this later. ;)
Steven
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
But I do share Mike Godwin's concerns on what this means for attracting
editors and for Wikipedia's public image.
This is where I
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
question for me - do I want to participate in the political
disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and
On Wednesday 22 February 2012 08:08 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the case of
the three journal articles in this case, behind pay walls. Those are peer
reviewed, while his book by a commercial publisher has not received
academic reviews.
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for
instance, which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
Hi All,
I think you guys can all see how useful it would be if the Chinese
Wikipedia also has the ebook/PDF creation feature as seen on other
language Wikipedias. Some countries don't always let their people
visit Wikipedia, so ebooks can be an alternative.
We have tried to solve this bug that
Side question:
Does Chinese Wikipedia indeed have an elected or consensus leader or
some sort?
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I think you guys can all see how useful it would be if the Chinese
Wikipedia also has
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
Side question:
Does Chinese Wikipedia indeed have an elected or consensus leader or
some sort?
Dunno, but he seems to be the community organizer.
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Tom, and Sarah, for your very helpful explanations - they are
extremely useful.
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
which highlights some of the interpretive problems
Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :)
There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance,
which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/**
The proposed change would mean all works where the country of origin
(as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
be freely used. The current discussion features a 9-3 consensus in
favor of this
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Marcin Cieslak sa...@saper.info wrote:
The proposed change would mean all works where the country of origin
(as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
be freely
Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a country
where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor
treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors
were from any other of the vast majority of Berne
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a
country
where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor
treatment - we are benefiting from their
Nathan, 23/02/2012 01:33:
Don't forget - while I used Iran as an example, it isn't the only country
affected.
Of course, but Iran is the case which worries more, I think; and the
first paragraph of my set of questions still applies. ;-)
Nemo
___
I was one of the initial subject editors at Citizendium. One of its
key problems was the poor choice of subject matter experts. The
selection of which people to trust was ultimately in the hands of the
founder, and he was unduly impressed by formal academic credentials
without concerning himself
Well, I'm not an active academic, but I have been given to understand
that the quality of the peer review process varies greatly. About 10
years back, I was briefly involved in an attempt to develop an online
peer reviewed publications infrastructure. This was one of our concerns
- is it
43 matches
Mail list logo
