On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> As with most such things, it's surely the latter. But do we want to
> encourage mass uploads? I thought people were already rather unhappy
> with so much fair use and copyvios and poor quality uploads (these
> were the cited reasons for not
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> One can hardly call a respect for good grammar pedantry.
If by "respect", you mean, congratulating those that use "good
grammar", then I don't disagree. If, otoh, you mean, "fixing" minor
errors or criticising mistakes...then yes "one can".
237mb downloadable in Ogg format - is there not a streaming version somewhere?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
wrote:
> Privacy."The video of that talk has now been posted and is available at:
> http://www.archive.org/details/nywikiconf_newyorkbrad_26july2009
___
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Surreptitiousness :
>
> Flaged revs all through would separate "draft" and "public" copies,
> but at the expense of the motivational effects of the working draft
> being live and public.
>
> There is no "finished". It's an eternal present.
>
>> I tend
>> to find I
Here is their sign-up page
http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&;
create=yes
Notice the requirement to be "affiliated" with some institution.
So again the entire concept of Scholarpedia is limited to universities and
possibly a few research laboratories.
I believe t
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
>
>
> > There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.>>
>
> There is. Right on the main sign-up page
>
> ""An editor of Scholarpedia should satisf
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
> Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.>>
This is a reminder of what you said.
I don't see why it's clear. You don't say "should" or "cannot" or "dont
want" but rather "W
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:27:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
> How is this different than the "peer review" at Wikipedia?>>
Wikipedia has no peer review at all.
I can make an edit and it instantly appears.
In addition, I get no "credit" line for my work.
Wiki
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM, wrote:
> My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
> Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By "pass
> into" I mean
> cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
> right now.
>
> So all I
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
> There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.>>
There is. Right on the main sign-up page
""An editor of Scholarpedia should satisfy the following requirements:
Have a PhD or MD.""
I t
My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By "pass into" I
mean
cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
right now.
So all I can think is that you meant, that we should not cit
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:19:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
> Papers are reviewed annually, or upon major new information, so they
>become a living document -- the paper on the higgs boson as it is now,
> and
>the same paper as it was a year, 2 years ago, s
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, wrote:
>
> That is how I envision this WikiJournal prospective. Not as another
> university-driven nowheresville which gets no traction because the vast
> majority
> of the world doesn't really care to read highly scientific and technical
> articles.
>
> Another
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, wrote:
> Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
> whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a
> PhD or
> MD.
>
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.
___
Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a PhD
or
MD.
Some fields of endeavor, for which a person could indeed be a qualified
expert, and perhaps the leading expert in the world, don't even hav
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
>
>
> > Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia. >>
>
> Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
>
> Will
>
Scholarpedia was design
Two perspectives on a "WikiJournal": should we compete in something not our
core, and where others may do better? Or should we go ahead anyway?
If we did try, then a WikiJournal would be a classic case where we could do
the job right using present tools, and achieve something that most similar
sit
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
> Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia. >>
Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
Will
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@l
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:14:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
> The "letter" of releasing Mediawiki to the
> public mean anyone can use it for any purpose, but the "spirit"
> dictates that if you don't intend to have people edit it in a
> "Wikipedia-style" fas
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/
>
> "Wikipedia currently has no way of addressing any of these issues due
> to the very nature of it being an “anyone can edit” wiki. This
> alienates a large number of academics who are al
> It doesn't have anything to do with the release of the software,
> it's just a matter of using the right tool for the right job.
You're right. My bad.
Emily
On Sep 13, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/13 Emily Monroe :
>>> You can restrict the editing, but if you don't intend
2009/9/13 Emily Monroe :
>> You can restrict the editing, but if you don't intend for your group
>> of readers and your group of writers to overlap heavily, then you
>> shouldn't be using wiki software. There are better ways for a small
>> group to collaborate of material intended for a much larger
> In Hawaiian, "wiki" (or "wikiwiki", I think) means "quick". In
> English it means a website that anyone can edit.
I agree with this. We need to acknowledge that standard Hawaiian and
non-standard English are two different languages and aren't even the
equivalent dialect.
> You can restric
2009/9/13 :
> If "wiki" means quick then it would be quick in that the time between
> writing and full publication should be much shorter than traditional in print
> journals.
>
> If "wiki" means anyone can edit it, then it wouldn't be a wiki.
> If wiki only means that *you* and your *peers* can q
If "wiki" means quick then it would be quick in that the time between
writing and full publication should be much shorter than traditional in print
journals.
If "wiki" means anyone can edit it, then it wouldn't be a wiki.
If wiki only means that *you* and your *peers* can quickly edit it online
2009/9/13 FT2 :
> We're no longer a few random people thinking "wouldn't an online
> encyclopedia be cool!". As a #5 website and the largest online reference
> site, anything that moves us to be capable of higher quality without
> compromising the open ethos that ultimately underpins integrity long
We're no longer a few random people thinking "wouldn't an online
encyclopedia be cool!". As a #5 website and the largest online reference
site, anything that moves us to be capable of higher quality without
compromising the open ethos that ultimately underpins integrity long-term,
is worth consider
In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
> This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
> open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
> gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of
Simple fixes to this proposal.
Use WikiJournal. Add peer-review to it.
Why not? Allow some WikiJournal articles to become more trusted than
others.
Will Johnson
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
Readers of this list who have not already seen or heard it may be interested
in a talk I gave in July at the 2009 Wikiconference New York. The (somewhat
pompous) title of the talk is "Wikipedia, the Internet, and the Future of
Privacy."The video of that talk has now been posted and is available at
This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of our
problems in maintaining NPOV.
I suggest we let them develop their model, and we continue ours'.
"This alienates a large number of academics who are already very
interested in learning about and contributing to Wikipedia but have
difficulty justifying it as legitimate work."
[[Academia]] claims "...Academia has come to connote the cultural
accumulation of knowledge, its development and tra
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:25:28 +1000
>> From: Steve Bennett
>>
>> Disagree. High quality, comprehensive, readable information is far
>> more important than English grammar pedantry. "Most well known" or
>> "best known"? Whichever one is currently in the article. Focus
http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/
"Wikipedia currently has no way of addressing any of these issues due
to the very nature of it being an “anyone can edit” wiki. This
alienates a large number of academics who are already very interested
in learning about and contributing to Wikip
34 matches
Mail list logo
