I would like to see this as a separate namespace for the reasons given by
the proponents, but I share the concern about the disruption in switching
over. I suspect it would be a lot of work, even with a lot of bot help. I
suggest more analysis about how exactly the conversion would be done might
help.
Larry Pieniazek
Work mail: lpieniaz at us.ibm.com
Hobby mail: lar at miltontrainworks.com
I know we're all a fan of Googlecounting results. But this is weird:
When I search for a term in Firefox's Google box, the result count is
exactly 200% what it should be.
1. Search for "Wikipedia is great" in the FireFox search box.
2. Mostly (but not always), Google reports 29,600 matches.
3. Repeat the search just by pressing Google's "Search" button.
4. Google reports 14,800 matches.
Strangely, the difference in count seems to correspond to a difference
in layout. The 14,800 count groups related matches by indenting. (The
second match is [[All your base are belong to us]], indented under
[[WIkipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great]].) The 29,600 match shows no
indenting.
FYI, here's the URL I'm using.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22wikipedia+is+great%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-…
Constantly pasting that into FireFox, sometimes I get 29,600,
sometimes I get 14,800. Pasting into IE7 I always get 14,800. Anyone
have an explanation?
Steve
Hi all,
I wanted to try and implement this myself, but haven't found the
time. So here's my amazing idea:
At the top of a page with a disambig link, you get some text like:
''For other uses, see [[He Said, She Said (disambiguation).]]''.
I think it would be possible, and very desirable, to make that
expandable with some javascript:
''For other uses, see [[He Said, She Said (disambiguation).]]'' [show].
Clicking [show] would replace the template by the actual contents of
the disambiguation page:
--
He Said, She Said may refer to:
* He Said She Said (song), a single by Ashley Tisdale.
* He Said, She Said, a 1991 romantic comedy starring Kevin Bacon
and Elizabeth Perkins.
* He Said, She Said (game show), an American game show hosted by
former baseball great Joe Garagiola.
For the general concept of differing unsubstantiated accounts of an
event, see logical argument.
--
(and the rest of the page [[He Said, She Said]] would appear here).
Since ambiguous titles are so common now with nearly 2 million
articles, navigating to the correct article is taking longer and
longer. I think this would speed that process up. Any takers?
Steve
Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>On the other side, his message isn't really just about admins, but
>editors in general. People who edit articles simply are not valued on
>this project anymore. Tha'ts a big problem, since it's people who edit
>articles that got us to this point.
They aren't? Unless you're equating being valued with being an administrator, I see no evidence of that.
-Amarkov
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
always stay connected to friends.
On 9 Feb 2007 at 11:48, "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Search for "Wikipedia is great" in the FireFox search box.
> 2. Mostly (but not always), Google reports 29,600 matches.
> 3. Repeat the search just by pressing Google's "Search" button.
> 4. Google reports 14,800 matches.
Meanwhile, "Wikipedia sucks" yields 1,250,000 results.
--
== 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/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Legal_disclaimer#Edit_Request_.…
This request is specifically motivated by the "reference desk," although I
> am sure there are other categories of WP content that do not constitute
> formal "articles" and are nonetheless subject to the standard disclaimer(s).
> Perhaps an appropriate change would be to replace the first instance of
> "articles" with "articles and resources" and then change all subsequent
> references to "resources." In any event, it seems appropriate to make a
> minor rewording to indicate that WP consists of more than just "articles,"
> and that the appropriate disclaimers apply throughout all WP content.
> dr.ef.tymac <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreftymac> 16:15, 6
> February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a pretty reasonable request, myself and J.smith have agreed.
Neither of us is too sure about editing the legal disclaimer, though --
obviously we should be careful about editing, if we edit it at all, but are
there any additional policies or concerns which should be considered,
beforehand?
-Luna
On 08/02/07, Larry Pieniazek <lar(a)miltontrainworks.com> wrote:
> I'm an OTRS Newbie but I agree with Stephen that this approach is sound, and
> that keeping a single point of contact for legal concerns is likely to be
> the best approach, and that the OTRS gang does a generally good job of
> binning things correctly...
Yeah. My main question for OTRS was, will "Legal concern" in the
subject line get it the proper attention (i.e. someone looks over the
content and drops it in the "legal" bin)?
- d.
I'm an OTRS Newbie but I agree with Stephen that this approach is sound, and
that keeping a single point of contact for legal concerns is likely to be
the best approach, and that the OTRS gang does a generally good job of
binning things correctly...
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:51:53 +0000
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] If you don't object to this, you're consenting
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> "Wikimedia
> Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140702080751k3103bde8xf4f4647defe959da(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_er
ror_%28from_enterprise%29
>
> I posted about this to both these lists and have had no
> replies or comment whatsoever so far.
>
> So unless someone comes up with really convincing reasons not
> to push this as the place to send companies with article
> concerns - and I mean as in, sending out a press release -
> then that's precisely what's going to happen.
>
> In particular, are there any OTRS volunteers who can tell me
> if that's the best way to raise a substantial legal concern
> about something on en:wp?
>
>
> - d.
> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 03:47:59 +1100
> From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] If you don't object to this, you're consenting
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f30e42de0702080847waed0fa0u76ede54b58fb92ad(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/9/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In particular, are there any OTRS volunteers who can tell
> me if that's
> > the best way to raise a substantial legal concern about
> something on
> > en:wp?
>
> Yes, it should (generally) go to OTRS. Volunteers there know
> how to put matters before the right people if necessary, or
> deal with it themselves if it's just some junk in the article.
>
> You might like to also mention pages such as
> [[foundation:designated agent]] where the Foundation contact
> page is mentioned.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
Larry Pieniazek
Work mail: lpieniaz at us.ibm.com
Hobby mail: lar at miltontrainworks.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_e…
I posted about this to both these lists and have had no replies or
comment whatsoever so far.
So unless someone comes up with really convincing reasons not to push
this as the place to send companies with article concerns - and I mean
as in, sending out a press release - then that's precisely what's
going to happen.
In particular, are there any OTRS volunteers who can tell me if that's
the best way to raise a substantial legal concern about something on
en:wp?
- d.