On 04/08/11 5:55 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote
A fork could
easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve
differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that
freely and independently
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 04/08/11 5:55 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote
A fork could
easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve
differently. They may
Although, to be fair, the Wikipedia article on Kangaroos does fail to
note the Aboriginal beliefs on where kangaroos come from, as well as
the idea that they floated there from Mount Ararat on a log (and also
fails to mention why the whole idea of arriving on logs is bloody
stupid).
On
I think that the 404 might be the blocks Sarah was talking about.
-James.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9 April 2011 13:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2011 12:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly only Liberapedia and one of the conservative sites,
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page are actually open for
editing.
But Europeans might contaminate Conservapedia with *gasp* things that
don't test your faith!
That site's a mess. Better that the world /doesn't/ see it, really. They
might start thinking conservative Christians (like myself) are all that
ignorant. And according to the article on dinosaurs, I'm
Conservapedia seeks to rewrite history, it makes Convservative Christians
look like uninformed idiots, most Christians ALREADY KNOW that man did
land on the moon, the earth isn't flat, dinosaurs did exist, the earth
CAN'T possibly be 6000 years old and that the earth revolves around the sun.
I
Not to be supporting Conservapedia (more like playing Devil's Advocate),
but isn't rewriting history different from reinterpreting history?
It's like interpreting The Bible; that is, there are different
interpretations of the entire book that span the entire one-dimensional
political spectrum.
Sorry, good point MuZemike, that's what I meant. The world would benefit
more
if the kind folks at Conservapedia tore down the site. Andrew Schlafly is
full of
bull... Colbert's interview with him is... interesting, tch, yeah Wikipedia
is biased
Dream on Schlafly!
--
-Ancient Apparition
On 04/08/11 4:08 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites
Jimbo runs?
Definitely not.
There is a difference between hosting a site and running a site.
Jimmy's company wikia hosts a number of sites including Liberapedia -
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page None of the various
conservative sites seem to use wikia, unless that is Wikia allows
sites to use their own domain
On 9 April 2011 12:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly only Liberapedia and one of the conservative sites,
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page are actually open for
editing. Conservapedia http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
currently comes
Sad indeed. I am not entirely convinced Conservapedia is even maintained
by conservatives. Most of the stuff I've seen on there looks as though
it was designed to poke fun at conservatives, rather than to represent
us accurately.
I've not heard of Liberapedia; I might check it out in a bit to
On 9 April 2011 18:23, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Sad indeed. I am not entirely convinced Conservapedia is even maintained
by conservatives. Most of the stuff I've seen on there looks as though
it was designed to poke fun at conservatives, rather than to represent
us
Sad indeed. I am not entirely convinced Conservapedia is even maintained
by conservatives. Most of the stuff I've seen on there looks as though
it was designed to poke fun at conservatives, rather than to represent
us accurately.
And Glen Beck is a Stalinist intent on discrediting resistance
On 04/07/11 11:37 AM, Sarah wrote:
One of the key skills that Jimbo brought to Wikipedia was knowing when
to be hands on, and when not. If you look through the early mailing
lists -- not just the very early ones, but the first few years --
that's the thing that shines through again and again.
On 04/07/11 2:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
On 04/07/11 4:13 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing
so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
On 04/07/11 5:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of
On 04/07/11 9:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
IMO, the next best thing will be whatever can come along and solve
our social and community problems technologically, while being easier
to edit.
Social and community problems cannot be solved technologically.
Treat assholes like bugs in the
On 07/04/2011 19:26, David Gerard wrote:
snip
Knowino (and Argopedia, and the survivors of Citizendium, and everyone
in fact) needs to look at this and see what they can do. Is there room
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
Work like a startup. Wikipedia now
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 04/07/11 9:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
IMO, the next best thing will be whatever can come along and solve
our social and community problems technologically, while being easier
to edit.
Social and community
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:26:41 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I confess that when my wife and I are sitting in front of the TV, and a
question arises from whatever we are watching, Wikipedia's relevant
articles become a first source of information on our laptops while we're
watching. When we do
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:26:41 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I confess that when my wife and I are sitting in front of the TV, and a
question arises from whatever we are watching, Wikipedia's relevant
articles become a first
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites
Jimbo runs?
Bob
On 4/8/2011 3:32 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 04/07/11 5:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't this one of the sites
Jimbo runs?
Definitely not.
___
Good :) I'd be embarrassed for whoever does run that site.
On 4/8/2011 6:08 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:57, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Already been done, Conservapedia. The most disgusting mockery of
conservatives I've ever seen. Then again, isn't
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
A fork could
easily start with copied material which from that moment would evolve
differently. They may choose to abandon NPOV. Having several sites that
freely and independently do this would in fact put our own NPOV
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely
how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and
kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated
user suggestions like they were *threats*. I just read a Paul Graham
article which contains
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:26, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely
how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and
kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated
user suggestions
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How do you beat Wikipedia?
With more Wikipedias.
This is my idea for Wikipedia:
on 4/7/11 2:26 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Sanger started Citizendium with a detailed plan for precisely
how it would work, which he detailed in a Slashdot article in 2005 and
kept firmly to. This produced the weird phenomenon where he treated
user suggestions like they
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 1:37 PM, Fajro wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
in the encyclopedia game? I sure hope so. How
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
started to form wikis of any sort, but
On 7 April 2011 21:56, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but isn't that what we have been doing
so
far (i.e. with all the other sister Wikimedia projects)?
Yes, but also other niches Wikipedia leaves. Wikia, for example,
started to form wikis of any sort,
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network. And if it was glossy and facile enough, plenty of people
would probably be dumb enough to use
Why does Conservapedia come to mind :)
-MuZemike
On 4/7/2011 7:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network.
On 8 April 2011 01:03, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
You should be careful what you wish for. It's not hard to make a
'viable competitor' encyclopedia that would be so corrupt and
inaccurate it would make the Fox News network... look like a news
network. And if it was glossy and
On 08/04/2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
more successfully hoodong
Yes, although on some articles it's interesting to read, translated
back to me via google translate, what is clearly my own text, with the
same images I selected, from an encyclopedia that claims they now own
the copyright
IMO, the next best thing will be whatever can come along and solve
our social and community problems technologically, while being easier
to edit.
Treat assholes like bugs in the software - code around them, figure
out how you can make the experience downright painful for them while
making it
40 matches
Mail list logo
