2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful
model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically
adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit
the website.
Two things which, incidentally, go hand in hand. NPOV would be
virtually impossible to achieve without open and public debate about
every
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com:
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful
model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically
adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit
the website.
Two things which, incidentally, go hand in hand. NPOV would be
virtually impossible to achieve without open and public debate about
every
Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can
be
balanced by including a NPOV article imported from Wikipedia.
Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from
an NPOV article *on* Wikipedia...
--
That would be true if it were not for the
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Yes, but failures to present a complete spectrum of points of view can
be
balanced by including a NPOV article imported from Wikipedia.
Or, indeed, by linking to the editorial pages of major newspapers from
an NPOV
2009/4/5 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
The obvious alternative is to allow point of view editing but structure
the wiki to include articles from diverse points of view, not an
innovation, editorial pages of major newspapers are typically structured
in that way.
I'd say that's not
Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful
model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically
adopt
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has developed a very successful
model,
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:13:23 -0600 (MDT), Fred Bauder wrote:
Wikipedia works like Wall Street works,
Not exactly the most auspicious example to use these days...
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo
missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis
citizendium.
I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm
Citizendium. And that would be bad.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo
missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis
citizendium.
I don't. Citizendium can't harm
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/4 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo
missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis
citizendium.
I don't. Citizendium can't harm Wikipedia, but Wikipedia could harm
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I do however in the larger scheme of things think that
having a credible fork of the English wikipedia at this
stage of its life-cycle wouldn't be counter-productive,
ghod knows somebody needs to keep it honest. But I
have very little hope of
geni wrote:
2009/4/4 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Contributors could be offered motivation in things like 1) promises of
ad-revenue share. 2) meaningful attribution, where you can personally
take the kudos of writing a superb article into the real world (CV
etc.). 3) Ability to publish
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
- d.
___
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 Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
- d.
'I think the whole debate is silly. Ironically, I think Larry is given too
little credit for his role in the early days of Wikipedia as the
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.bigoakinc.com/blog/interview-with-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales/
A very nice and reflective interview, waxing philosophical.
The only regret I personally have about that one, is that Jimbo
missed the one big opening at a knock-out punch vis a vis
Very few academics are actually good textbook writers; they usually
need extensive help from editors who know the art.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Sounds a lot like Simple English Wikipedia.
bibliomaniac15
--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo interview
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009
20 matches
Mail list logo
