On Friday 20 September 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
> I would be very careful about using any words beginning with "pedia-" or
> anything similar. The Greek root for this relates to children, and even
> the slightest inadvertant suggestion that the name could have anything
> at all to do with kiddy-porn may bring a whole lot of unwanted traffic.
>
> Ec
I thought the root was ped from the Latin pedis which means foot. I'm not
sure where "pedophila" came from. "Ped" is the root of many other words.
Shall we not use those either? Boy I thought I was paranoid about ultra minor
things. I vote for PediaWiki because it has a certain ring to it -- this
would just be the name of the software and any ref to it will be a couple
levels in from the main page.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/
It seems Britannica has licensed its free content to Yahoo.
This makes it all the more important that we set up a review mechanism for
Wikipedia. If we could boast 25,000 peer reviewed *complete* articles,
Yahoo would very likely use our content for free rather than pay for
Britannica's. (Or, at least, they would list both--and we'd get loads of
traffic.)
Larry
>Wikipedia can be the perfect environment for the growth of a memorial
>to the victims, which will strengthen and grow the general Wikipedia
>effort at the same time.
A Wiki of some kind certainly is ideal for this purpose, but frankly,
I'm not sure Wikipedia is it. Certainly there should be extensive
coverage of the event, taking advantage of the fact that Wiki lets us
update the descriptions of the events as more news comes out, leaving
us with an historical record of unique accuracy. I certainly think a
list of victims is not out of place either. But I'm really not sure
that a "memorial" per se is an appropriate thing to put in an
encyclopedia. Encyclopedias describe people, they don't eulogize
them. Sure, we should have an article on, say, David Angell, and it
should list the shows he produced and mention how he died, but it
shouldn't be just ABOUT how he died, and it shouldn't be different
from a page on any other television producer--neutral and factual,
not reverent.
A memorial should also allow friends and family to say anything, and
have those comments left intact. See, for example, the memorial to a
friend I put on my own site at http://www.piclab.com/sasha/. It is
not at all neutral reportage, because it's not meant to be.
[Tried sending this Tuesday, but "it was in the queue too long,"
according to the daemon. Tried searching on "poker" today with same
result. - Tim]
At http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Encyclopedia there's a link to
C|Net's encyclopedia metasearch page. I tried it on a few entries and
kept getting no results from Wikipedia. Perhaps something is broken?
<>< Tim
__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Woo-hoo, OK folks, get ready! ''The New York Times'' article on Wikipedia
''should'' be coming out tomorrow. (We're not absolutely sure of this,
but that's what we were told.) Hopefully, we'll get huge amounts of
traffic and all hell's will break loose--moreover, this is actually pretty
likely. So, please, if you can spare the time, be on hand to help guide
the new folks into the process!
Larry
Hello to the list. I've known about Wikipedia for a while, but started
contributing after the Slashdot article reminded me of the site.
If you haven't noticed, I've been helping to build the September 11, 2001
Terrorist Attack entry. Many other Wikipedians have put in immense effort
(just look at
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=history&id=September_11,_2001_Terr…
for one page of edits). My initial
effort, and my continuing focus, is on the thousands of victims of
this tragedy--as exemplified by
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memori…
Wikipedia can be the perfect environment for the growth of a memorial
to the victims, which will strengthen and grow the general Wikipedia
effort at the same time.
As I discuss in
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_commentary/Please_help_build_911_At…
this will take a mass effort. While continuing to edit specific pages,
I've been trying to spend my time on figuring out how to make it
more likely that lots of people will contribute--which is why I'm writing
this.
Can we get each Wikipedian to choose a casualty or missing person
and create their entry?
How can we get more people to help?
Have I been doing the right things?
Thanks again to all that have contributed and shared in this effort.
The people of New York need the support and caring of the entire world
if they are to be able to continue on.
--
The Cunctator
cunctator(a)kband.com www.kband.comwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam
I downloaded several PD word lists from the web and had them unified and
converted into 26 (A-Z) files, containing a total of 304.946 words in more
than 5 MB. The words are already formatted in [[Wiki style]].
Even though wikipedia will never be finished, basically this list should be
our ultimate goal, right? So, I'd like to know
- Is there a list of all (or many) words already somewhere on wikipedia? I
couldn't find one.
- Should I upload these files to, say, [[List of all words/A]] to [[List of
all words/Z]]? Or is it just a waste of memory?
Magnus
I have a couple of purely cosmetic suggestions for the general layout of Wikipedia:
* The red alert text after the search box should be removed; there should be a second search box at the top of every page.
Often, if you have the wrong page, you are not going to scroll all the way down through the uninteresting text, to find
the search box.
* While the "receive an article a day" feature is nice, I don't think it deserves a link on every page of Wikipedia. It is an extremely
rare action to take: everybody goes to that page only once. Link on home page and on announcements should be sufficient.
The less links, the less overwhelming the initial experience.
* The home page should be titled "Wikipedia - free, collaborative encyclopedia" or similar, and not "HomePage". The first
two words on the home page are "HomePage", and this word is information free, and worse, looks like a typo to most people.
A web site that calls its home page "HomePage"?? People must think we are idiots.
* "RecentChanges" should be "Recent Changes"
* At the bottom of every page, all links having to do with editing and viewing previous versions should be visually separated
from those relevant to surfers. The search box should be in the same line as RecentChanges. Two links for "edit this text"
is overkill and confusing: everybody has to try out whether they do the same thing.
* The problems identified on Wikipedia commentary/Search Engine should be fixed before next Thursday.
Cheers,
Axel