DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Wikipedia Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using Wikipedia Contents Using Wikipedia Contents 1 Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset 1 1.1 Core principles .............................................. 1 1.2 Writing high-quality articles ....................................... 2 1.3 Getting along with other editors ..................................... 2 1.4 Working efficiently together ....................................... 3 1.5 More information ............................................. 3 1.6 See also .................................................. 3 2 Help:Editing 4 2.1 Editing ................................................... 4 2.1.1 Talk (discussion) pages ...................................... 5 2.1.2 Minor edits ............................................ 5 2.1.3 Major edits ............................................ 5 2.1.4 “View source” – protected pages ................................. 5 2.1.5 Adding references ......................................... 5 2.2 Wiki markup ............................................... 6 2.3 More information on editing wiki pages .................................. 6 2.3.1 Getting started .......................................... 6 2.3.2 Policies and conventions ..................................... 6 2.3.3 Helpful tips ............................................ 6 2.3.4 Naming and moving ....................................... 6 2.3.5 Style and layout .......................................... 6 2.3.6 Tools ............................................... 6 2.3.7 See also .............................................. 6 3 Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing 7 3.1 Edit summary ............................................... 7 3.2 Show preview ............................................... 7 3.3 Save the page ............................................... 8 3.4 Further information ............................................ 8 i ii CONTENTS 3.5 Alternative method of editing ....................................... 8 3.6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses ............................ 9 3.6.1 Text ................................................ 9 3.6.2 Images .............................................. 12 3.6.3 Content license .......................................... 12 Chapter 1 Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset Various shortcuts redirect here. You may be looking for 1.1 Core principles Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, Wikipedia:Soft redirect, or Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. While theoretically anything can be changed, the commu- nity up to this point has been built on certain principles. Wikipedia is a free, volunteer-created encyclopedia, con- Much thought has been put into them, and they are unlikely sisting of articles written in a particular style. Wikipedia is to change in the future. They've worked for us so far, so a continuous process with no end. If you write something give them a fair shake before attempting radical reform or good, it could be around for centuries and read all over the leaving the project. world. It might also be improved or incorporated into new revisions by other editors. Part of the fun and challenge of 1. Five pillars: The foundations of the Wikipedia com- editing here is watching what happens to your contributions munity are summarized in 5 simple ideas: Wikipedia over time. is an online encyclopedia; it has a neutral point of view; it is free content that anyone can edit and distribute; all The Wikipedia community continues to evolve as well. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil Over time, policies and customs have developed which re- manner; and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. flect the experience of thousands of editors who are con- stantly learning and refining how to create balanced, well- 2. Founding principles: The Wikimedia Foundation, sourced, informative articles, and how to work with others the global organization that oversees Wikipedia and and resolve conflict when it arises. While there are rules or other projects like it, is based on important common guidelines that cover almost any situation, a few are really ideas as well: Neutrality is mandatory; anyone can edit important. If you learn about our policies and practices, (most) articles without registration; we make decisions you will likely be treated with kindness and respect. through the “wiki process” of discussion; we want to A great place to start learning is with Wikipedia’s approach work in a welcoming and collaborative environment; to sources. Wikipedia does not have its own views, or de- our content is freely licensed; and we leave room for termine what is “correct”. Instead, editors try to summarize particularly difficult problems to be resolved by an au- what good sources have said about ideas and information. thority. On English Wikipedia the Arbitration Com- Differing views are presented objectively and without bias mittee (ArbCom) has power to make certain binding, as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a final decisions. reputation for being accurate. Good sources are the base of 3. Copyright: Wikipedia uses opensource licensing un- the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically der a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike li- check whether contributions can be backed up by one. This cense and the GNU Free Documentation License. is generally done by citing where you found information. Content on Wikipedia can be used and re-used freely, With reliable sources at the center of what we do, editors’ as long as attribution is given; it can even be modified original ideas, interpretations, and research are not appro- and used for profit, as long as all future re-users can priate here. do the same. Everything editors contribute must be Don't worry too much if you don't understand everything at compatible with Wikipedia’s licenses and cannot vi- first. And don't hesitate to ask questions. As time goes on, olate others’ copyrights, except under very particular you'll learn how to be a great contributor to Wikipedia! circumstances. 4. Ignore all rules (IAR): Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter 1 2 CHAPTER 1. WIKIPEDIA:SIMPLIFIED RULESET of the rule. The common purpose of building an en- 2. Assume good faith: Do please try to consider the per- cyclopedia trumps both. This means that any rule can son on the other end of the discussion as a thinking, be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps rational being who is trying to positively contribute to to improve the encyclopedia. It doesn't mean that any- Wikipedia. Even if you're convinced that they're an thing can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discus- [insert insult of your choice], still pretend that they're sion is not necessary to explain one’s decision. acting in good faith. Ninety percent of the time you'll find that they actually are acting in good faith (and the other ten percent of the time a negative attitude won't 1.2 Writing high-quality articles help anyway). Be gracious. Be liberal in what you ac- cept, be conservative in what you do. Try to accommo- date other people’s quirks as best you can, while trying Main page: Wikipedia:The perfect article to be as polite and straightforward as possible. 1. Neutral point of view: Write from a neutral point of 3. Discuss contentious changes on the talk page: Mu- view. Make a fair representation of the world as re- tual respect is the guiding behavioral principle of liable sources describe it. All articles should be bal- Wikipedia. Although everyone knows that their con- anced to convey an impression of the various points of tributions may be edited by others, it is easier to accept view on a subject. Some views may get more attention changes when you understand the reasons for them. than others, depending on the attention they receive Discussing changes on the article’s talk page before in reliable sources. Wikipedia has no “opinion” of its you make them can help reach consensus even faster, own; it just accurately summarizes reliable sources. especially on controversial subjects. We have all the time in the world, so always make an effort to explain 2. Verifiability: Articles should contain only material changes to other editors, and feel free to ask them to that has been published by reliable sources. These are do the same. sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accu- racy, like newspapers, academic journals, and books. 4. Undo others’ edits with care: Undoing someone’s Even if something is true our standards require it be work is a powerful tool, hence the three-revert rule that published in a reliable source before it can be included. an editor should never undo the same content more Editors should cite reliable sources for any material than three times in twenty-four hours (ideally, even that is controversial or challenged, otherwise it may less). Try not to revert changes which are not obvious be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide vandalism. If you really can't stand something, revert a reliable source is on whoever wants to include mate- once, with an edit summary like “I disagree, I'll explain rial. why on Talk”, and immediately take it to the accom- 3. No original research: Articles may not contain previ- panying talk page to discuss. If someone reverts your ously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, or theo- edits, do not just add them back without attempting ries, nor any new analysis or synthesis of them if it discussion. advances a position. In other words, you can't make a point that hasn't already been directly made some- 5. Try to understand why your article or edit was where else
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wikipedia and Intermediary Immunity: Supporting Sturdy Crowd Systems for Producing Reliable Information Jacob Rogers Abstract
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM O CTOBER 9 , 2017 Wikipedia and Intermediary Immunity: Supporting Sturdy Crowd Systems for Producing Reliable Information Jacob Rogers abstract. The problem of fake news impacts a massive online ecosystem of individuals and organizations creating, sharing, and disseminating content around the world. One effective ap- proach to addressing false information lies in monitoring such information through an active, engaged volunteer community. Wikipedia, as one of the largest online volunteer contributor communities, presents one example of this approach. This Essay argues that the existing legal framework protecting intermediary companies in the United States empowers the Wikipedia community to ensure that information is accurate and well-sourced. The Essay further argues that current legal efforts to weaken these protections, in response to the “fake news” problem, are likely to create perverse incentives that will harm volunteer engagement and confuse the public. Finally, the Essay offers suggestions for other intermediaries beyond Wikipedia to help monitor their content through user community engagement. introduction Wikipedia is well-known as a free online encyclopedia that covers nearly any topic, including both the popular and the incredibly obscure. It is also an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, an example of one of the largest crowd- sourced, user-generated content websites in the world. This user-generated model is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, which relies on the robust intermediary liability immunity framework of U.S. law to allow the volunteer editor community to work independently. Volunteer engagement on Wikipedia provides an effective framework for combating fake news and false infor- mation. 358 wikipedia and intermediary immunity: supporting sturdy crowd systems for producing reliable information It is perhaps surprising that a project open to public editing could be highly reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia Ahead
    Caution: Wikipedia not might be what you think it is… What is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is written, updated, rewritten, and edited by registered site users around the world known as “Wikipedians”. The concept of a freely accessible online “work in progress” is known as a “wiki” (Lin, 2004). While it is possible to view the user profile of individual contributors, one of the prime features of a wiki is that the information is collectively owned, shared, and changed by Internet users who have access to that wiki. Wikipedia is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. Why Wikipedia? The main philosophy behind Wikipedia is that the sum total of the ideas of Internet users are as credible and valid as the published views of experts who have advanced degrees and extensive experience in their field. Like any wiki, Wikipedians do not “own” or assume intellectual property of the ideas and text, as the information is shared or altered by any/all contributors. I’m not sure what you mean…. An example may be most helpful. Consider Wikipedia’s article on global warming. This text has been continually written, edited, and rewritten by hundreds of Internet users around the world over the past few years. When you open and read Wikipedia’s global warming article, you are reading a text that: • is the sum of all the contributions to this article until that moment. Explanation: The information in the article, in terms of both the content and language, will likely change in the next few hours, days, or months as Wikipedias continue to contribute to/modify the article.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance
    Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance Andrea Forte1, Vanessa Larco2 and Amy Bruckman1 1GVU Center, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology {aforte, asb}@cc.gatech.edu 2Microsoft [email protected] This is a preprint version of the journal article: Forte, Andrea, Vanessa Larco and Amy Bruckman. (2009) Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance. Journal of Management Information Systems. 26(1) pp 49-72. Publisher: M.E. Sharp www.mesharpe.com/journals.asp Abstract How does “self-governance” happen in Wikipedia? Through in-depth interviews with twenty individuals who have held a variety of responsibilities in the English-language Wikipedia, we obtained rich descriptions of how various forces produce and regulate social structures on the site. Our analysis describes Wikipedia as an organization with highly refined policies, norms, and a technological architecture that supports organizational ideals of consensus building and discussion. We describe how governance on the site is becoming increasingly decentralized as the community grows and how this is predicted by theories of commons-based governance developed in offline contexts. We also briefly examine local governance structures called WikiProjects through the example of WikiProject Military History, one of the oldest and most prolific projects on the site. 1. The Mechanisms of Self-Organization Should a picture of a big, hairy tarantula appear in an encyclopedia article about arachnophobia? Does it illustrate the point, or just frighten potential readers? Reasonable people might disagree on this question. In a freely editable site like Wikipedia, anyone can add the photo, and someone else can remove it. And someone can add it back, and the process continues.
    [Show full text]
  • A Topic-Aligned Multilingual Corpus of Wikipedia Articles for Studying Information Asymmetry in Low Resource Languages
    Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pages 2373–2380 Marseille, 11–16 May 2020 c European Language Resources Association (ELRA), licensed under CC-BY-NC A Topic-Aligned Multilingual Corpus of Wikipedia Articles for Studying Information Asymmetry in Low Resource Languages Dwaipayan Roy, Sumit Bhatia, Prateek Jain GESIS - Cologne, IBM Research - Delhi, IIIT - Delhi [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Wikipedia is the largest web-based open encyclopedia covering more than three hundred languages. However, different language editions of Wikipedia differ significantly in terms of their information coverage. We present a systematic comparison of information coverage in English Wikipedia (most exhaustive) and Wikipedias in eight other widely spoken languages (Arabic, German, Hindi, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish). We analyze the content present in the respective Wikipedias in terms of the coverage of topics as well as the depth of coverage of topics included in these Wikipedias. Our analysis quantifies and provides useful insights about the information gap that exists between different language editions of Wikipedia and offers a roadmap for the Information Retrieval (IR) community to bridge this gap. Keywords: Wikipedia, Knowledge base, Information gap 1. Introduction other with respect to the coverage of topics as well as Wikipedia is the largest web-based encyclopedia covering the amount of information about overlapping topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnipedia: Bridging the Wikipedia Language
    Omnipedia: Bridging the Wikipedia Language Gap Patti Bao*†, Brent Hecht†, Samuel Carton†, Mahmood Quaderi†, Michael Horn†§, Darren Gergle*† *Communication Studies, †Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, §Learning Sciences Northwestern University {patti,brent,sam.carton,quaderi}@u.northwestern.edu, {michael-horn,dgergle}@northwestern.edu ABSTRACT language edition contains its own cultural viewpoints on a We present Omnipedia, a system that allows Wikipedia large number of topics [7, 14, 15, 27]. On the other hand, readers to gain insight from up to 25 language editions of the language barrier serves to silo knowledge [2, 4, 33], Wikipedia simultaneously. Omnipedia highlights the slowing the transfer of less culturally imbued information similarities and differences that exist among Wikipedia between language editions and preventing Wikipedia’s 422 language editions, and makes salient information that is million monthly visitors [12] from accessing most of the unique to each language as well as that which is shared information on the site. more widely. We detail solutions to numerous front-end and algorithmic challenges inherent to providing users with In this paper, we present Omnipedia, a system that attempts a multilingual Wikipedia experience. These include to remedy this situation at a large scale. It reduces the silo visualizing content in a language-neutral way and aligning effect by providing users with structured access in their data in the face of diverse information organization native language to over 7.5 million concepts from up to 25 strategies. We present a study of Omnipedia that language editions of Wikipedia. At the same time, it characterizes how people interact with information using a highlights similarities and differences between each of the multilingual lens.
    [Show full text]
  • Stoic Enlightenments
    Copyright © 2011 Margaret Felice Wald All rights reserved STOIC ENLIGHTENMENTS By MARGARET FELICE WALD A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in English written under the direction of Michael McKeon and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey October 2011 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Stoic Enlightenments By MARGARET FELICE WALD Dissertation Director: Michael McKeon Stoic ideals infused seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thought, not only in the figure of the ascetic sage who grins and bears all, but also in a myriad of other constructions, shaping the way the period imagined ethical, political, linguistic, epistemological, and social reform. My dissertation examines the literary manifestation of Stoicism’s legacy, in particular regarding the institution and danger of autonomy, the foundation and limitation of virtue, the nature of the passions, the difference between good and evil, and the referentiality of language. Alongside the standard satirical responses to the ancient creed’s rigor and rationalism, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century poetry, drama, and prose developed Stoic formulations that made the most demanding of philosophical ideals tenable within the framework of common experience. Instead of serving as hallmarks for hypocrisy, the literary stoics I investigate uphold a brand of stoicism fit for the post-regicidal, post- Protestant Reformation, post-scientific revolutionary world. My project reveals how writers used Stoicism to determine the viability of philosophical precept and establish ways of compensating for human fallibility. The ambivalent status of the Stoic sage, staged and restaged in countless texts, exemplified the period’s anxiety about measuring up to its ideals, its efforts to discover the plenitude of ii natural laws and to live by them.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Derby, Flamingo Stakes, Florida Derby, Blue Grass Stakes, Preakness, Queen’S Plate 3RD Belmont Stakes
    Northern Dancer 90th May 2, 1964 THE WINNER’S PEDIGREE AND CAREER HIGHLIGHTS Pharos Nearco Nogara Nearctic *Lady Angela Hyperion NORTHERN DANCER Sister Sarah Polynesian Bay Colt Native Dancer Geisha Natalma Almahmoud *Mahmoud Arbitrator YEAR AGE STS. 1ST 2ND 3RD EARNINGS 1963 2 9 7 2 0 $ 90,635 1964 3 9 7 0 2 $490,012 TOTALS 18 14 2 2 $580,647 At 2 Years WON Summer Stakes, Coronation Futurity, Carleton Stakes, Remsen Stakes 2ND Vandal Stakes, Cup and Saucer Stakes At 3 Years WON Kentucky Derby, Flamingo Stakes, Florida Derby, Blue Grass Stakes, Preakness, Queen’s Plate 3RD Belmont Stakes Horse Eq. Wt. PP 1/4 1/2 3/4 MILE STR. FIN. Jockey Owner Odds To $1 Northern Dancer b 126 7 7 2-1/2 6 hd 6 2 1 hd 1 2 1 nk W. Hartack Windfields Farm 3.40 Hill Rise 126 11 6 1-1/2 7 2-1/2 8 hd 4 hd 2 1-1/2 2 3-1/4 W. Shoemaker El Peco Ranch 1.40 The Scoundrel b 126 6 3 1/2 4 hd 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 no M. Ycaza R. C. Ellsworth 6.00 Roman Brother 126 12 9 2 9 1/2 9 2 6 2 4 1/2 4 nk W. Chambers Harbor View Farm 30.60 Quadrangle b 126 2 5 1 5 1-1/2 4 hd 5 1-1/2 5 1 5 3 R. Ussery Rokeby Stables 5.30 Mr. Brick 126 1 2 3 1 1/2 1 1/2 3 1 6 3 6 3/4 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of Wikipedia
    Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia Good Faith Collaboration The Culture of Wikipedia Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. Foreword by Lawrence Lessig The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Web edition, Copyright © 2011 by Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. CC-NC-SA 3.0 Purchase at Amazon.com | Barnes and Noble | IndieBound | MIT Press Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been lauded, lambasted, and satirized. Despite unease over its implications for the character (and quality) of knowledge, Wikipedia has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the centuries-old Author Bio & Research Blog pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a rich ethnographic portrayal of Wikipedia's historical roots, collaborative culture, and much debated legacy. Foreword Preface to the Web Edition Praise for Good Faith Collaboration Preface Extended Table of Contents "Reagle offers a compelling case that Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative culture that underpins it: brawling, self-reflexive, funny, serious, and full-tilt committed to the 1. Nazis and Norms project, even if it means setting aside personal differences. Reagle's position as a scholar and a member of the community 2. The Pursuit of the Universal makes him uniquely situated to describe this culture." —Cory Doctorow , Boing Boing Encyclopedia "Reagle provides ample data regarding the everyday practices and cultural norms of the community which collaborates to 3. Good Faith Collaboration produce Wikipedia. His rich research and nuanced appreciation of the complexities of cultural digital media research are 4. The Puzzle of Openness well presented.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Contributions to Wikipedia from Tor
    Are anonymity-seekers just like everybody else? An analysis of contributions to Wikipedia from Tor Chau Tran Kaylea Champion Andrea Forte Department of Computer Science & Engineering Department of Communication College of Computing & Informatics New York University University of Washington Drexel University New York, USA Seatle, USA Philadelphia, USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Benjamin Mako Hill Rachel Greenstadt Department of Communication Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington New York University Seatle, USA New York, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—User-generated content sites routinely block contri- butions from users of privacy-enhancing proxies like Tor because of a perception that proxies are a source of vandalism, spam, and abuse. Although these blocks might be effective, collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from anonymity seekers is invisible. One of the largest and most important user-generated content sites, Wikipedia, has attempted to block contributions from Tor users since as early as 2005. We demonstrate that these blocks have been imperfect and that thousands of attempts to edit on Wikipedia through Tor have been successful. We draw upon several data sources and analytical techniques to measure and describe the history of Tor editing on Wikipedia over time and to compare contributions from Tor users to those from other groups of Wikipedia users. Fig. 1. Screenshot of the page a user is shown when they attempt to edit the Our analysis suggests that although Tor users who slip through Wikipedia article on “Privacy” while using Tor. Wikipedia’s ban contribute content that is more likely to be reverted and to revert others, their contributions are otherwise similar in quality to those from other unregistered participants and to the initial contributions of registered users.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia
    Building a Visual Editor for Wikipedia Trevor Parscal and Roan Kattouw Wikimania D.C. 2012 Trevor Parscal Roan Kattouw Rob Moen Lead Designer and Engineer Data Model Engineer User Interface Engineer Wikimedia Wikimedia Wikimedia Inez Korczynski Christian Williams James Forrester Edit Surface Engineer Edit Surface Engineer Product Analyst Wikia Wikia Wikimedia The People Wikimania D.C. 2012 Parsoid Team Gabriel Wicke Subbu Sastry Lead Parser Engineer Parser Engineer Wikimedia Wikimedia The People Wikimania D.C. 2012 The Complexity Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Active Editors 20k 0 2001 2007 Today Growth Stagnation The Complexity Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 just messing around Testing testing 123... The Complexity Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 The Review Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Balancing the ecosystem Difficulty Editing Reviewing The Review Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Balancing the ecosystem Difficulty Editing Reviewing The Review Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Balancing the ecosystem Difficulty Editing Reviewing The Review Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Balancing the ecosystem Difficulty Editing Reviewing The Review Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Wikitext enthusiasts CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Usfa-heston.gif The Expert Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 Exit strategy 100% Preference for Wikitext Capabilities of visual tools 0% The Expert Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 To what extent? CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TriMet_MAX_Green_Line_Train_on_Portland_Transit_Mall.jpg The Expert Problem Wikimania D.C. 2012 To what extent? CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TriMet_MAX_Green_Line_Train_on_Portland_Transit_Mall.jpgCC-BY-SA-3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TriMet_1990_Gillig_bus_carrying_bike.jpg The Expert Problem Wikimania D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Logiciel Wiki Utilisé Par Wikipédia
    WIKIWIKI Un outil informatique créé par WardWard CunninghamCunningham en 1995, Wiki-wiki : aller vite en hawaïen, Outil collaboratif, Mediawiki : le logiciel wiki utilisé par wikipédia. Ville de Nevers 10/05/2017 PetitePetite histoirehistoire Jimmy Wales (Jimbo) financier ayant fait fortune envisage la création d'une encyclopédie en ligne (Nupédia) Engage Larry Sanger qui propose en 2001 d'utiliser wiki pour faire participer les lecteurs aux articles (qui seraient ensuite mis dans Nupedia...) Ville de Nevers 10/05/2017 DeDe NupediaNupedia àà WikipediaWikipedia (1/2)(1/2) Nupedia (2000) – Fondateurs : Jimmy Wales et Larry Sanger (Portail Bomis) – Objectif : 1ère encyclopédie libre sur internet, à disposition du plus grand nombre (prédécesseurs : Universalis, Encarta, le Quid, Britannica…) – Modèle éditorial calqué sur l'édition traditionnelle : ➔ Recrutement des auteurs conditionné par la possession d'un doctorat ➔ Processus de validation basé sur 7 étapes Assignment -- Finding a lead reviewer -- Lead review -- Open review -- Lead copyediting -- Open copyediting -- Final approval and markup – Résultats : ➔ En 2 ans...24 articles validés et 74 autres en développement ➔ Fermeture définitive en sept. 2003 (après un an d'inactivité) Ville de Nevers 10/05/2017 DeDe NupediaNupedia àà WikipediaWikipedia (2/2)(2/2) Wikipedia (janvier 2001) : – En parallèle, idée d'expérimenter un mode de fonctionnement plus ouvert, facilitant la production collaborative et décentralisée des articles – Au départ, pas de règles précises, pas de position idéologique .., plutôt une « anarchie » bon enfant, et un consensus implicite, autour d'un noyau dur de 200 personnes en provenance de Nupedia – Premières règles qui deviendront les pivots inamovibles du projet : Principes fondateurs 1. Wikipédia est une encyclopédie 2.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Lionel Richardson, 1959
    1959 1 9 5 9 GOLD MEDAL DAFFODILS GOLD MEDAL DAFFODILS . : • . .. • :: •: . : •• , • - .4 } :,. :; . ::: .: ..,.. • :{ . : .: .. : {: : : { . • ..i .' : . : : :;} : • , : • • . ; : . : . .. • : - .': • % . ' :: ;' '.. • . • v . • • . • •: . • : . 4 ...:: #i'4 - -* :...... , .4 :•{. f 4gi { . • '.: f..,.: u., •':::. ; 'p ,: :;;: ?, s..-1 ...;'.: .. .. : ,n. :*.. • :E , ) .:.: :••, ., ' ,..::: ..: . : ,1d4 #:.• 'Z ... : , .4:':. .; :'. :•{ M. •-? •••• :.'.:-., . ::•: :.: • ••••: .1. •.••••...; : : • : : • : " • i . C? ;•• : :• v •• • ;.E. %"•. ••••• • • :. • . :i• • " . : •:• • :• • 4 : • Narcissus, " Northern Light " (See page 7) Narcissus, ” re cello 23 (See page JO) LIONEItA IRECHAIRDSON IONEE MICHARD IPROSIPIRVT NOUSI 9 WAS' EIERIFORID, Ireland TEDIROMPILCT vrIERIPDIR 11D9 Ireland Printed and Made in Gt. Britain ALL VARIETIES OFFERED IN THIS CATALOGUE REVISED SYSTEM for the ARE GROWN AT PROSPECT HOUSE, WATERFORD CLASSIFICATION OF DAFFODILS IN USE SINCE JANUARY I, 1950. DIVISION I. Bulbs will only be bought in for re-sale at the TRUMPET NARCISSI special request of the customer. of Garden Origin. Distinguishing characters: One flower to a stem; Trumpet or Corona as long or longer than the Perianth segments. (a) Perianth coloured ; Corona coloured, not paler than the Perianth. TERMS (b) Perianth white; Corona coloured. All Bulbs are offered subject to a satisfactory crop and being unsold (c) Perianth white ; on receipt of order, Corona white, not paler than the Perianth. Orders should be sent in as early as possible, as some stocks are (d) Any colour combination not falling into (a), (ID) or (c). small and cannot be replaced. DIVISION II. All orders will be executed in strict rotation. LARGE-CUPPED NARCISSI All prices are for Nett Cash within three months from date of of Garden Origin. invoice, unless by special arrangement. One-half per cent per month Distinguishing characters : One flower to a stem; Cup or Corona charged on overdue accounts.
    [Show full text]