Anyone else see something wrong here?
[[Beauty contest]]
''A C-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia''
:''For the concept in economics and game theory, see Keynesian beauty contest.''
A '''beauty contest''', or '''beauty pageant''', is a competition
based mainly...
G'day folks,
The New York Times reports on flagged revisions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?partner=rssemc=rss
Wikipediahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org,
one of the 10 most popular sites on the
wiki doesn't mean quick to me
That derivation I think is pretty obscure.
To me when someone says Wiki whatever or wiki whatever for that
matter, it means collaborative editing.
W.J.
-Original Message-
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia
I'm waiting for actual definitive information on enwiki or meta.
FT2
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Keith Old keith...@gmail.com wrote:
G'day folks,
The New York Times reports on flagged revisions:
Similar story also reported by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm
Before you shout, Mike's already been on to them to correct the subsidiary
wording.
Wikipedia to launch page controls
Jimmy Wales, Getty Images
The call for flagged revisions came from Wikipedia
Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the
New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is
something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement.
The difference is that you have someone in between the source - the
2009/8/25 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Andrew
Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
Similar story also reported by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm
Oh dear. Same picture as for the previous BBC story on Wikipedia.
Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you.
FT2
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Andrew
Turveyandrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
Similar story also reported by the BBC:
2009/8/25 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com:
Note for Jimbo - we need new free pics of you.
FT2
There are better free pics but BBC sticks to Getty for the most part.
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance
if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary
source is something like a census return or,
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other day.
Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the copyright
violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free photographs,
so they don't use them. Bizarrely they'd rather pay
Are we talking at cross purposes here?
Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that
are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable
pre-date Wikipedia.
Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research.
-
In a message dated 8/25/2009 11:12:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the
other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
copyright violation checking on Wikimedia
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
snip
Here at um wikifreeverified.com we ensure you that all our content has
been triple-checked by expert triple-checkers to ensure that it's all free
free free! To use that is. For your ease of mind you will pay us $1000 per
This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
* When's Flagged Revs being switched on?
* Where's the latest version of *precisely what's happening*?
* etc?
I can arse it through for Radio
2009/8/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
The latest estimate is 2 weeks time, or probably a bit later. A trial
of it on a test wiki started today.
And this is the proposal that's being tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions
So, two months
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:43 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
The latest estimate is 2 weeks time, or probably a bit later. A trial
of it on a test wiki started today.
And this is the proposal that's being tried:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
This is telly and Very Important. I'll have my suit and tie ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight
Perhaps I'll get Paxmanned!
I NEED INFORMATION.
* When's Flagged
Brion's blog:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/weekly-wiki-tech-update-pre-wikimania-edition/
Risker
2009/8/25 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:43 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/25 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
The latest estimate
2009/8/25 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Try and read up on as much of the reliable on-wiki stuff as you can,
and try and get in touch with people who will be talking about it at
Wikimania maybe? And mention Wikimania, where I believe it will be
discussed.
I don't want to confuse
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false
alarm, I'll let you all know ;-)
Are you going to be on or not? If so, I'll watch. I don't usually,
but the flagged revisions thing is particularly interesting! Good
luck David!
--
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false
alarm, I'll let you all know ;-)
Are you going to be on or not? If so, I'll watch. I don't
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I don't want to confuse stuff at all. I just confused the hell out of
the researcher on the phone trying to keep stuff simple ... so it's
going to be REALLY DUMB SOUNDBITES ALL THE WAY.
Points I'd try to remember, in no particular order:
* this
2009/8/25 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
Final details will be announced soon, this is all provisional, maybe
mention something about Wikimania as an ongoing conference where the
details will emerge.
Thinking about it, this is probably the best one to hammer on. We
don't know
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 Isabell Long isabell...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
It's 7:50pm and they haven't called back to confirm. Could be false
alarm, I'll let you all know ;-)
Are you going to be on or not? If so, I'll watch. I don't
2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently
on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice.
Hang on, Newsnight doesn't start until 10:30pm. Did you mean ~10:45pm?
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Andrew Turvey wrote:
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the other
day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
copyright violation checking on Wikimedia Commons to be able to rely on free
photographs, so
Interesting. I've had emails from the BBC in the past asking to reuse
images I've taken and uploaded to Commons (to which I replied saying
yes), but I haven't seen them actually using them yet. Perhaps this
explains why.
Mike
On 25 Aug 2009, at 19:11, Andrew Turvey wrote:
I had an
G'day folks,
Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000
species.
http://www.physorg.com/news170396645.html
The Encyclopedia of Life, an online project launched in 2007 with the aim
of creating a webpage on every known animal and plant species, has reached
150,000
Keith Old schreef:
Phys Org reports that the Online Encyclopedia of Life has reached 150,000
species.
Impressive number.
There are 128,000 articles on WP with a Taxobox template; this includes
species, but also families, genera, and other ranks.
Eugene
2009/8/25 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
As far as I can tell from IRC chats with some of the coders hanging
out with Brion at Wikimania, a lot of this is still up in the air but
this is still the closest thing to canon:
So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became
successful ?
-Original Message-
From: Keith Old keith...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 2:00 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000
2009/8/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became
successful ?
The Online Encyclopedia of Life? No idea, I'd never heard of it until
I looked it up after reading this email! Maybe that's me not looking
further than Wikipedia for most things?! I
Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book
only held in 12 libraries.
However if that item is published that does not create a secondary
source.
And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not
make it a secondary source.
A primary source is
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Erik Moeller wrote:
The FlaggedRevs extension has been used in many of our wikis,
including the second-largest Wikipedia, for more than a year. However,
contrary to what's been reported in some media, the community has had
very thoughtful conversations about the
Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world.
From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper
is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified
in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources
at the end of an historical book or
2009/8/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became
successful ?
$10 million of backing for the most part.
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
2009/8/25 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
According to that plan, for a 2 month trial, active flagging (where
unflagged versions don't show up by default) will only be used in
place of semi-protection/protection. BLPs will be available for
flagging, but unflagged edits will still go
2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an
intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional
editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to correct that, and
I know who gets to
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
If we have days-old unapproved revisions at the end of the two months,
that'll be a failure because editors wouldn't stand for it. But,
speaking as a BIG FAN of flagged revs for BLPs, I'll be trying to do
my part to make this work!
Me too! I haven't
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 Joseph Reagle rea...@mit.edu:
In speaking to the press today, one of the things I believe I heard in an
intro segment on a live radio discussion was that WP would have professional
editors flagging trusted content. I didn't get a chance to
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab. Apparently
on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at short notice.
Hang
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Kevin is someone who Knows His Shit about the Internet. Basically we
sat there agreeing on everything. Kirsty Wark was somewhat surprised
to have two guests furiously agree ;-)
I'd been wondering who else they would have on. They usually like to
have
2009/8/26 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
And I got to call my fellow Wikipedians encyclopedia nerds on
national television ;-p
I prefer geek myself, but I'll forgive you!
Top 10 site, that's prima facie evidence of usefulness. I suppose
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Looks like it's a happener. Just waiting for call re: cab.
Apparently on ~9:45pm (BST), but times may change at
I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source.
And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project.
I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources.
Some are, some aren't.
Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe
that every
Yes, chronicles are accepted as primary sources, because there is
nothing further back from them--they serve essentially the same
function as newspapers. Obviously, they have to be used with a good
deal of interpretation,just as newspapers. I don't believe everything
in a newspaper happened just
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/26/a-quick-update-on-flagged-revisions/
Please reference if there's any further confusion about this.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/26/a-quick-update-on-flagged-revisions/
Please reference if there's any further confusion about this.
This post says that the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
trial will put
49 matches
Mail list logo
