>Perhaps we need a way to add invariant sections for stuff
incorporated
>from elsewhere, as a separate database field, say, one which can't be
>easily removed.
>
>But we want to be careful with this. I think it would be unfortunate
>if individual authors here started adding invariant sections to the
>stuff released to the project.
I think the present incarnation of "Talk" pages makes them
useful for legal things too: required source credits, etc.
We'll just have to make it a normal thing here to have such
legal notices at the top of the talk page and know not to
delete them. Perhaps we could choose a unique color or style
for them or something?
0
I think it would be best to first contact the author, even if we are
not strictly required to. Maybe he will say "I'm still editing these
pages, could you wait two months before you put it in Wikipedia", and
it would be very impolite to deny that request.
Generally, when adding GFDL material, we have always added a
line at the bottom saying "An earlier version of this article was
based on bla bla by bla bla" and a link back to the original material.
See for instance [[TeX]] (which has improved quite a bit since we
imported it).
Axel
Folks,
after some exam time-out, here is an HTML version of the template
currently known as "Cologne Blue".
Please have a look at
http://www.ds.fh-koeln.de/~marian/wikipedia/template.html and test it
with all browsers on earth.
I already did with Mozilla on Windows, IE 5.5 on Windows and Lynx. Will
now switch to Linux in order to test on Konqueror.
(Mozilla users, enjoy the site icon showing up in your location bar ;-))
Comments are of course welcome! (Axel, I think everything was all right
with your critique. I can cope with that :)
Marian
With "hide minor edits" turned on in preferences, a lot of recent changes show
up as dated "23:59 December 31 1969" (time = -1 in unix?)
This doesn't seem to happen with minor edits shown.
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
>Seconded. Heartily. By possibly the leftmost person on this mailing
>list. NPOV is about spreading and sharing information, and about
You make that assertion only because I've adopted the policy of not
discussing politics. ;-)
>distinguishing information from opinion. This is a Good Thing, in my own
>not-so-humble opinion: oppressors of any stripe want to control
information,
>ideas, and knowledge.
That's it in a nutshell. I actually agree with *some* of what 24
says, but find that irrelevant to whether it belong in an encyclopedia
(most of the time, it doesn't--he writes polemics, not articles). And
of course, most of the time I just think he's a kook.
kq
0
It seems to me that 24.150.61.xxx doesn't really understand
the idea of the NPOV. So far, they have wasted a considerable
amount of my time debating the "Artificial Intelligence" article (an
area in which I do have some actual expertise, having studied extensively
and actually having done a small amount of research in the area),
and it has become increasingly clear that this individual does
not understand the things they are discussing and are pushing
their own idiosyncratic line - to take a simple example of their
lack of comprehension, they speak of proving the Church-Turing thesis,
which is not a theorem and can therefore never be proved.
If it were just me, I wouldn't be so quick to judge, but it seems
like they are annoying Axel and others just as much.
I believe some of the historians (JHK?) faced a similar problem
and tried just revising the article without bothering to debate
the issues. Am I recalling correctly, and did it work?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk(a)mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all -- just wanted you to know that I might be around more on the
list than the Pedia for a bit (unless something egregious comes up and
needs editing). I'm teaching two new classes this quarter, so time's a
bit short...and frankly, I'm finding 24's rants somewhat disquieting. I
know this probably sounds dumb, but I've come to think of us as a
community of nice people -- or at least people with whom I feel safe in
revealing my name, etc. (more info is no longer on my page). 24's
comments on meta make me wish I hadn't. I don't know if it's in
earnest, or if it's just its unpleasant way of playing games, but
without trying to sound paranoid, do we have any systems in place to
discourage the frighteningly anti-social types? Anyway, maybe it's just
me being paranoid... JHK
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>===== Original Message From Florian Schnadt
<schnadfn(a)isis.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> =====
>Hi,
>
>Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
>> Alternately, perhaps there is some way to specifically exclude "Complete
list
>> of encyclopedia topics"
>> and its subpages from the link database that LonelyPages uses to find
>> orphans; this would serve the same goal. Unfortunately, I know nothing
>> about the guts of wikipedia or related scripting, so I can't offer any real
>> help on this myself.
>
>Changing the links to weblinks should be enough: [[apple]] ->
>[http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/apple apple]
Clever! Hadn't thought of that option. But if we did that, the pages would
lose some of their functionality for their intended purpose; one wouldn't be
able to browse around looking for ideas for new articles to write, since the
links would no longer indicate visually which articles existed and which
didn't (weblinks all look the same whether the article exists or not).
hi.
could someone enlighten me and tell me how the counter on the
main page ( {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} ) differs from the statistics page?
how is it calculated?
regards.
WojPob
<wojtek[at]seti23[dot]org>
what burns twice as bright, burns half
as long, and you have burnt so very,
very brightly roy.
hi all.
is it only me or is wikipedia really unreachable right now (about midnight
servertime)? www.bomis.com works fine but ross.bomis.com where the 'pedia
resides can neither be pinged nor tracerouted. hmm....
regards,
wojpob
ps. sending out this message doesn't really make a lot of sense because
nupedia.com is also unreachable
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net