It has been expressed by many users that the Wikimedia
Foundation should contact the authorities in control
of the Jordanhill railway station, and request a
plaque be placed at the station, in commemoration of
the 1 millionth English article.
If you agree with this concept in principle, you may
put your username here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordanhill_railway_station/Commemoration
You must be logged in to a valid user account, with at
least 5 unreverted mainspace edits, at the time of
signing.
Nick
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
I just spoke to Natalie Hanman from the Guardian. This is to appear in
Monday's paper, in the 'Office Hours' column in the Media section.
This will be in the paper edition and *may not* be in the online
edition (they tend not to put up the entire Media section).
A reader had written in saying they'd read about Wikipedia's
unreliability and asked if Wikipedia was any good; and she also wanted
to know if it was good for office workers at their desks. I said we
weren't as good as Britannica as yet, but we were better than anything
else on the web, so the more media we get saying how bad we are the
more readers we get ... and office workers don't have the Britannica
on their desk but they *do* have Wikipedia. For usefulness, I pointed
out that as an IT contractor, I use Wikipedia as a reference work
daily. It's fabulous for computer and technical stuff, to quickly get
yourself up to speed on what a piece of jargon is in 60 seconds. And
Nature measured us as equal to Britannica in science. And we were
no.12 in the world on Alexa yesterday, and we've been no.1 reference
site for months now.
So the main message was: we're not Britannica, but we're better than
*anything* else readily available on the web. "We make the Web not
suck." And we're actually good and useful as a reference work *right
now*.
- d.
>You aren't trying to imply that these silly widgets make people look
>silly, are you? Golly, gosh.
You aren't try to put (silly) words in my (silly) mouth, are you? You must
be trying to be silly.
>Registering an account is incredibly easy. What's to stop you
>registering a new one, with a different username?
I do appreciate that you are trying to re-welcome a potential wikipedian
with loaded questions and rhetorical questions, and that you're telling me
that I need to be a better person.
On 8 Mar 2006 at 15:06, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> I was wondering, there is an organisation called the Wikimedia
> Foundation that might be interested in hosting a free encyclopaedia,
> they seem to host quite a lot of them, and just the one non free
> one.
...and the way to make it free is to impose tighter restrictions on
what people can put in it. Freedom is Slavery, and all that...
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
This morning I went into BBC Television Centre and did a remote radio
interview for BBC Radio Wales 'Mousemat', which is to be run in this
Sunday's programme - 5pm Sunday, repeated 6pm Wednesday. If you're not
in Wales, you can pick it up on Sky TV channel 0117, or on the website
for a week after broadcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/radiowales/shows/mousemat.shtml
I covered how Wikipedia works, how we keep it from turning to rubbish,
how good it is ("it's not perfect, and we're painfully aware of its
problems, but it's *pretty good*"), the millionth article (how you can
get so much good detail out of an unremarkable suburban railway
station) and I did a *big* push for Welsh speakers to get in on the
ground floor of cy.wikipedia - en. has 1,000,000 articles, but cy. has
4,000 and there's endless room to work on a really *good* Welsh
encyclopedia. The Welsh language is undergoing bit of a revival -
everyone there speaks English, but learn Welsh first, it's popular
with its ethnicity, it's something people feel they *should* know if
they're Welsh and of course kids learn it so their parents won't
understand them, and the parents learn to keep up with them ;-)
They recorded about 15 minutes, of which they'll probably use 5 or 6.
And I'm apparently to receive a small payment for my trouble. :-O Just
as well since I'm presently not on a contract. (Gi's a job!)
- d.
Sean Barrett wrote:
>The Cunctator stated for the record:
>
>
>>On 3/7/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 3/7/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's much like a parent telling their rebellious teenager:
>>>>
>>>>"You think drugs and rock and roll are punk? What would be REALLY punk
>>>>would be to eat vegetables and do your homework and go to Sunday
>>>>School! That's how to REALLY break expectations!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[[Straight edge]]
>>>
>>>
>>Right. Straight edge is about self-empowerment -- being that way not
>>because of your parents, but because of self-determination.
>>
>>It's not so much the message, as the messenger.
>>
>>
>That's the Cunctator approach in a single sentence. Anything said by
>anyone with any positive reputation, or, God forbid, actual authority,
>is prima facia wrong, regardless of content. If it were said by someone
>else, it might not be, but if Jimbo says it, it is to be dismissed out
>of hand.
>
>
The solution is actually quite simple. The Cunctator needs to start
advocating a serious and stuffy fake hoax for April Fool's Day. Then
people will fall in line on Jimbo's say-so, but they'll get the joke
because The Cunctator is fronting it.
Now the only thing left to really complete this picture is for the whole
userbox fiasco to go away for a day, at least. Shock the world by having
peace, love, and unity break out on Wikipedia for April 1st!
--Michael Snow
On 5 Mar 2006 at 21:59, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> The site is experiencing technical difficulties, apparently. Seems to
> be titsup.com.
Given that it's published by a noncommercial organization, it really
should be titsup.org, shouldn't it?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Hi all,
Second new topic today! Wow...
Anyway, so I've stumbled into a POV war. Basically a topic that has
apparently recently attracted a small number of very determined
individuals with different points of view on the liquidation of a
student organisation. At least one of the editing parties was a major
player in the actual events, and possibly others. A general lack of
knowledge, or respect for, Wikipedia conventions and editing policies
is present.
I'd really like to get a neutral, heavily sourced, informative article
out of all this. However, there is a lot of destabilising reverts,
deletions, additions of unsourced material, personal attacks etc going
on.
Does anyone have any advice to offer? How do you tell people that they
can't suddenly wade into a Wikipedia article and use it to rewrite
history? How do you tell people that removing a merge-to tag isn't a
question of rights, it's a question of good faith? What do you do when
someone removes carefully added material, without descending into an
edit war?
Basically, where do I go to send these people to Wikipedia 101?
(I'm deliberately not mentioning the name of the article, but if
anyone's that curious, you'll find it quickly).
Steve
Almost immediately after creating account for what would be my first time
editing wikipedia an admin blocked me indefinitely.
username : Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia
IP : 69.60.118.148
Reason given "stoner..." by
"*Freakofnurture<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture>"
*
This admin describes himself as pissed off and also proudly displays a
widget that says he does not do any drugs. I had the impression, perhaps
wrongly so, that wikipedia was supposed to be more of an open atmosphere
where there isn't such a heavy hand with admin powers. In other words, a
place where someone's first visit isn't met with an insult (stoner) by
someone claiming to be angry, pissed off and a judeofacist (whatever that
is, but it doesn't sound too nice). I really do not see what the problem
with my username is. It is silly, perhaps, but not offensive.
Thank you