Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
snip
The problem with collecting all these is the space they take up. I've
just acquired a [[Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana]]
with supplements to 1980 for $1.00 per volume :-)
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just want to address this one quote.
You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary
and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.
Let's say that you have the tertiary (shudder) source EB 1911,
Cleopatra. You are aware that an enormous number
Less messages? If someone is on moderation, their messages will pile
up until they are moderated (also giving people the impression that
someone is sending messages through all at once), so it is unfair to
put that requirement on someone on moderation. If the messages are
irrelevant, why are the
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
snip
Goodness. Yes. That is a large number of volumes.
Why not scan them and store them at wikisource? Or are these modern
encyclopedias rather than old ones?
1,000 pages x 200 volumes = 200,000
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:21 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the
G'day folks,
From TechCrunch
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/poor-google-knol-has-gone-from-a-wikipedia-killer-to-a-craigslist-wannabe/
We’ve known for a while that Google’s Knol http://knol.google.com/ is no
Wikipedia
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange:
A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia?
B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it
A: Who told you to do
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Sure. It will take time. :-)
But once done, you will have space for more!
200,000 pages at 10 pages a day is 20,000 days, which is 54.79 years.
You might need to crowdsource the scanning.
There's cutting the binding off and auto-feeding the
2009/8/17 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
The Christian Science Monitor reports/
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/
WIKIALITY, The Tenderloin, Saturday -- The online encyclopedia,
knowledge base, social networking site, essay
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do
mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding
to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or
do
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob
Carcharoth wrote:
How do Google Books and libraries and Project Gutenberg and others do
mass scanning and OCR of books? Do they use lots of money and funding
to pay lots of people to do lots of scanning on lots of machines, or
do they automate it in some way?
Google apparently pays peanuts
Carcharoth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics
The only remaining task on Variation and selection is integrating
references, probably to their own authors' pages. That page is still
up for historical interest and to finish small amounts, but for all
intents
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
For the SpongeBob
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I
Carcharoth wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in
2009/8/19 Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk:
For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob
SquarePants#Plankton?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul
Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all
places.
I
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
reports of people doing this as sport, just to be annoying, but in my
experience,
Oh, now THAT'S funny.
Smiling,
Emily
On Aug 19, 2009, at 8:19 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/17 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
The Christian Science Monitor reports/
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/17/wikipedia-blows-past-3-million-english-articles/
WIKIALITY, The
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
One of my pet hates: when an IP changes a figure in in infobox or
somewhere in article, with no comment, and no source. I've heard
reports of people
Phil Nash wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic
article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
For the SpongeBob character, see
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item
disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]].
I remember bringing this up once yarns ago, and eventually getting
lots and lots of
Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done
with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too.
-Stevertigo
___
Carcharoth wrote:
...I've seen cases of HUGGLE and TWINKLE users reverting a
vandalised page to a still-vandalised state, and no-one else checking,
and such vandalised pages (now with the legitimacy of a revert
from an approved user) staying in that state for months.
Indeed. And I've seen
(Composed yesterday, delayed by system crash)
wjhon...@aol.com:
It's a question of the amount of coverage we want to give to fiction
details.
Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that is one side of the argument. It doesn't explain why the
argument exists and is so prevalent.
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.html
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.htmlNot
a terribly positive review; essentially argues that the
2009/8/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.html
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/08/18/18readwriteweb-wikipedia-lauches-official-iphone-app-21374.htmlNot
a terribly
2009/8/19 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done
with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too.
Q. Why did the chicken
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability,
David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. HITLER!!
Not accurate. It was actually the eugenics policies of the factory on
the east side of the strasse that motivated the crossing. Goebbels
Gobbles had better benefits too.
-Steven
Of course I wouldn't put them up for AfD. There is no reason to make
the previous text inaccessible--and conceivably some of it could be
used. I could do much more rewriting if people put fewer acceptable
(or at least fixable or mergeable) articles up for unwarranted AfDs,
or did not try to
This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named
planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems
overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob
Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing
named planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for
two items. That seems overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton
makes sense.
Repeat: And four years isn't too long I suppose for
those people to
So you repeat what I say and then say you're not repeating what I said, and
then repeat it
There's an issue here that you're arguing against your very own position.
I'm not sure you are understanding what I said.
W.J.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So you repeat what I say and then say you're not repeating what I said, and
then repeat it
There's an issue here that you're arguing against your very own position.
I'm not sure you are understanding what I said.
Um. Nice try.
-Stevertigo
Will, simple question: do you accept that trivial disambiguations can
be unencyclopedic and give the wrong impression, and if so, is having
a neutral dab hatlink better than a jarring note being sounded at the
top of a page, the first thing the reader will read after the title?
OK, that was a
Actually this looks like the perfect subject for a blog post. The
Beirut/beer pong diff is a classic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirutoldid=21810147
Got more like that? I'd be glad to blog it, or possibly grant editor ops at
the WikiVoices blog (a group blog).
Thanks very much
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html
Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way
through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service.
But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information
available does a lot to fight evil.
- d.
2009/8/19 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
As for the British parliamentarian, I can't identify him.
This was 2004, I really do not remember :-) If anyone who cares more
than me wants to grovel through my edits from five years ago ...
- d.
___
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html
Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way
through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service.
But it's an interesting essay suggesting that
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north747.html
Blog post by a Mises fan. He calls Wikipedia wiki all the way
through and thought Wikipedia supplied Google's translation service.
But it's an interesting essay suggesting that just having information
available does a lot to
Then I suppose it does no good to show our esteemed
anti-State/antiwar/anti-socialist what our mascot has to say about his
blasphemies:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Don%27t_abbreviate_as_Wiki_%28English_version%29.png
-MuZemike
--- On Wed, 8/19/09, David Gerard
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:59 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
The stable concept of deletionism isn't anything more than the
waste management principle: 'any organism needs a waste removal
system.' A fairly basic and agreeable idea. After that, inclusionism
sort of became a misnomer -
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Lunalunasan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
OK the other side of the argument is Wikipedia is not paper. That
is, presumably, that we have a virtually unlimited amount of space in
which to describe whatever we
I have no idea what you just ask. That's a lot of jargon for one
question.
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Will, simple
The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes
several secondary sources into one cohesive article. Let us first
set-aside those works calling themselves encyclopedias when they are
really specialist works that pretend to cover a subject area thoroughly
which is a different
In any subject, a tertiary work is almost by definition outdated.
There will necessarily be 4 delays before new work can be recognized:
A, The time to publish the new work, B The time for the reviewer to
assimilate the new information by C. The time to write the review
D. The time to publish
Well to me, a review is not a tertiary work at all. Personally I think
a tertiary work should only be considered those who synthesis multiple
secondary works in an article on the same subject. This would be as
opposed to commentary on a single secondary work as you seem to be
stating below.
51 matches
Mail list logo
