On 18 Mar 2009, at 21:23, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Peter - are you really sure about geograph? AIUI only the photos are
CC-BY-SA, the geolocation is OS-derived. Please check.
Barry pointed me at this post from 2006 when they nailed the situation
down:
While the effort being put into links WITH wikipedia are to be
applauded, many of us are no longer contributing to wikipedia because of
their propensity to kill of material that is not 'noteworthy'!
On a number of occasions in the past I have linked to articles only
later to find the 'censors'
Hi Lester,
You could take a look at includipedia, which is basically a fork of
the wikipedia to become an inclusive version of the wikipedia.
Shaun
On 18 Mar 2009, at 08:53, Lester Caine wrote:
While the effort being put into links WITH wikipedia are to be
applauded, many of us are no
On Mar 18, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
While the effort being put into links WITH wikipedia are to be
applauded, many of us are no longer contributing to wikipedia
because of
their propensity to kill of material that is not 'noteworthy'!
On a number of occasions in the past I
2009/3/18 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com:
On Mar 18, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
While the effort being put into links WITH wikipedia are to be
applauded, many of us are no longer contributing to wikipedia
because of
their propensity to kill of material that is not 'noteworthy'!
On Mar 18, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
Wikipedia have their whole concept of notability. We have the concept
that if it exists you can map it. This isn't really compatible.
Then perhaps we need to, as Lester suggests, have our own information
base? Either link to includipedia or
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
Then perhaps we need to, as Lester suggests, have our own information
base? Either link to includipedia or else link to our own wiki --
which would redirect to Wikipedia if no such article exists.
I agree with the idea of
These should have been to the list ... pigging 'redirect'!
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Hi Lester,
You could take a look at includipedia, which is basically a fork of the
wikipedia to become an inclusive version of the wikipedia.
I have seen that - but it seems to have stalled? I've never been
These should have been to the list ... pigging 'redirect'!
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Hi Philip,
What's the status of Includipedia? Did the import every get fully
completed?
As long as you use 'search' Includipedia actually looks quite a complete
copy of wikipedia and none of the model railway
Hi,
2009/3/18 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com:
On Mar 18, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
On a number of occasions in the past I have linked to articles only
later to find the 'censors' message at the end of a link :( and I know
we have had this discussion in the past where other OSM
Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:
Hi,
2009/3/18 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com:
On Mar 18, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
On a number of occasions in the past I have linked to articles only
later to find the 'censors' message at the end of a link :( and I know
we have had this discussion
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
This is a serious enough issue that it should be escalated to the
OSMF.
OSMF telling the Wikikpedia people what to do would be like the
Wikipedia people telling us what to do. We'd laugh at them and go on.
A Wikipedia link from OSM is just like any other web link -
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sent: 19 March 2009 12:00 AM
To: Russ Nelson
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Alternatives to wikipedia?
Hi,
Russ Nelson wrote:
This is a serious enough issue that it should be escalated to the
OSMF.
OSMF telling the Wikikpedia people what to do would
13 matches
Mail list logo
