On 8/23/09, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
volume* encyclopedia up to featured or good status that would be a
great foundation.
That isn't going to happen, simply because we don't have enough people
interested in, or
2009/8/23 Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general
accept as a fairly complete general encyclopedia.
I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe they have machines to turn pages, and something to figure
out the distorted photo of the book and render it how it would look as
a flat page.
Yeah, there are videos of these machines. The book sits open, the
None ever published have approached either our size or our
completeness. There is no experience, and no prior basis for public
acceptance or non-acceptance. We have made many assumptions about
what the public wants, but the public will want different things, and
why should we think we can
Perhaps the more rational approach is to do what our structure can
do well, and let other projects in the future try other ways and
other things and other goals.
I think this is a great idea.
Emily
On Aug 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, David Goodman wrote:
Perhaps the more rational approach is
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Although we still haven't worked out what size people will general
accept as a fairly complete general encyclopedia.
I think if we had almost every article you would find in a *single
volume* encyclopedia up to featured or good
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 :-)
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
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
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
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
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Does my memory deceive me? Or is it true that 2 of the 3 millionth
articles related to soap operas?
A Scottish railway station, and the Spanish TV comedy programme [[El
Hormiguero]], were what you were thinking of. If you regard Europe as
one big historical soap
Those crazy Europeans! Why can't they just decide on one language!
-Original Message-
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
I updated the three millionth topic pool:
Answer: Beate Eriksen, an obscure Norwegian actress.
Winner:
Cryptic C62, Sarah Badel, an obscure actress.
Honorable mention:
Michael of Lucan, Norwegian post offices 1943-1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool
On Tue,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Keith Oldkeith...@gmail.com wrote:
Both see the other ruining Wikipedia, either by defeating the point of an
open encyclopedia, or by expanding its “pages” until the site dies from
irrelevance.
Wow. That's the worst characterisation of the
You may want to take a look at the Guardian blog post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/aug/17/wikipedia-three-
million
and also a couple by the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6042931/Wikipedia-
reaches-three-million-articles.html
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote:
snip
All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian Science
{{citation needed}} Monitor.
Really?
The Telegraph one was poor.
On 18 Aug 2009, at 18:34, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net
wrote:
snip
All of them are better reads than the article in the Christian
Science
{{citation needed}} Monitor.
Really?
The Telegraph one was poor.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote:
snip
* The article describes Britannica as the oldest English language
encyclopedia. In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
English language encyclopedia.
Interesting. What was the oldest English language
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917002,00.html
Time magazine ... can't get excited about the whole business really. But
why is Wales not James if Sanger is Lawrence?
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote:
snip
* The article describes Britannica as the oldest English language
encyclopedia. In fact, it is the oldest continuously published
English language encyclopedia.
Interesting. What was the oldest
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 :-) ... plus shipping :-(
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried journalists today do nothing
but research on it and misinterpret what they find? Puh-lease. To get
from that to It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward
Cunningham and Richard
...@gmail.com
To: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com; English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 3:33 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia reaches 3 millionth article
2009/8/18 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Err ... it's Wikipedia's fault if hurried
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why not scan them and store them at wikisource?
Lol. Indeed. Why not scan 200 volumes of an encyclopaedia? For fun, OCR it too..
Steve
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
27 matches
Mail list logo
