User talk:Ericbritton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Carsharing - Modest proposal

Tedernst, Jmabel. Is there anyway that I can ask the two of you to lay off on this and give me say ten days to get it straight? I think by now you should have at least the first blush of the idea that I maybe know a mite [more about our topic] than you do - nothing wrong with that, eh? We also have seen that I have a lot to learn in order to get this in full order. But it is frustrating for me when you go in and start to mess with subtle matters that require real hands-on expertise – and dear friends, I do have that. So, if for these next days you would just be so kind as NOT to make major editorial change but just give me useful hints and guidelines if I am too far off your WP path, which I promise I shall give my full attention. In the meantime, I can concentrate in the challenging task of giving you something you might end up being more than satisfied with. Something, better, denser, more useful than what you may have had in mind a couple of weeks ago when you first started on this bold venture. (I would, and do, do the same for my brightest PhD students, so maybe a bit of reciprocity might be in order?) PS. If you want to hop over to [World Carshare] you’ll see on the top menu that we have put a Wikipedia link and are drawing the attention to our world forum to this entry – warts and all. I am hopeful that useful information will continue to flow in which either they will entry themselves or pass on to me for integration into the entry during this truce period. ericbritton 16:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation - and The Commons

What is the mechanism for, I believe the exact term is disambiguation. Our problem is that our Self-Organizing Collaborative Network which is called The Commons, around and flailing at issues of sustainable development and social justice since 1973/74, has to be listed here by its full and very long name, mainly The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative. But most of the world who turns to the Wikipedia will be looking for us simply as “The Commons”. Problem if you click The Commons you will see some other kinds folks already squatting there. Now, not being all that lazy, I have turned to [[1]] , but

  1. I am unable to se my way clear to doing this without having problems
  2. I would hate to get in the way of the other good people there; and
  3. is the etiquette that I should at least be informing, if not actually asking them?

Thanks for clarifying. ericbritton 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation is for exactly this situation, where there are multiple articles with the same or similiar names. I'm involved in a naming dispute right now over critical mass and Critical mass (nuclear). Maybe you'd like to come to Talk:Critical mass (nuclear) and see the discussion and perhaphs weigh in, that would be great.
So back to your specific question. The first thing to do, which I've done already, is to add The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative to Commons (disambiguation). For the next step, you have a choice.
You can either be WP:bold and move The Commons to something like The Commons (apartments) and then edit the resulting redirect at The Commons to point to Commons (disambiguation) instead of this new page.
Your other choice, is to bring up your proposed move at Talk:The Commons and see what kind of pushback you get. If there's a consensus, or no one cares, maybe you'll save yourself the fight I'm in over critical mass (I was bold and just did the move myself without asking so now there are people working to change it back).
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more. Tedernst | talk 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Think I got it. Just went in and sweetly moved The Commons to something like The Commons (apartments), explaining to whoever that it was for Disambiguation purposes.
This leaves us with one remaining wrinkle -- namely that we are both called "The Commons" but the call to The Commons brings up the apt peopel still, instead of a Disambiguation page, this time with only two choices (for now). But I am still too green to try this.
I changed the re-direct. Tedernst | talk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
PS. I also voted for Critical Mass, a group we know and love -- even when it's hard to do so, as it sometimes is. They can be a handful, the little rascals. But democracy needs its activists, and these of many stripes). Salamaat, Shalom, Peace on Earth.ericbritton 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You voted on the wrong side, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, you're free to do that, but I don't see why the physical concept should get the page name. Same situation as yours here. You don't think the apartment complex should get the name. Of course, the apartment complex is not the source of the name so the arguments are different, but I was the one that moved the physical concept away from the name critical mass, feeling that it was more appropriate to go directly to teh disambigauation page so people could choose. Tedernst | talk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Mass

 ;-) As often happens, the problem may contain the solution. Let's stay with Critical Mass for the time being. All upper case title is the bike freaks. No doubt. Anything else should drive the good folks to Nuclear (the core concept) + the disambigauation (awful word) page up top. I am very comfortable with that and certainly ready to vote on it. (Should I got back in and state my cse?)

You can do whatever you like. You're currently voting on the winning side and I'm on the losing side. It's not in my interests for your arguments to get stronger, especially when I don't buy into their reasoning. I don't see how capitalization makes any difference at all. I hate the fact that this place is case sensitive. The rest of the internet isn't, so when I type, "critical mass", I expect that to find the same pages as "Critical Mass" and it simply doesn't work that way here. Tedernst | talk 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tedernst. Ah, capitalization and the internet. Just a hick in the UNIX past. In my work I am constantly in contact with people who have to communicate against or through all kinds of barriers and interfaces. And I see lots of people who think that they understand what someone is saying because they know word by word what is being said: but phrase and context are all. It’s there where culture takes over from letters. Let me see if I can quickly put my finer on an example: “In” “God” “we” “trust”. Word by word not problem, but look at the Martians face when you pop that phrase and you will see that what is going on in his mind has nothing to do with the meaning of the full phrase (for better or worse.. and it is a lousy example, but let’s keep on truckin’.) Thus, to these ears and eyes, ‘critical mass’ is one thing and ‘Critical Mass’ quite another. And if the coding behind all this were going backward or even standing still, we could put all that aside. But the new world of communications is upon us and the caps are part of the deal, because they are part of the deal of our common language.
But TdT I really don’t want anything to come between us You are my first friend here and I appreciate your help and above all your kind and firm hand. So please put up with my call it ‘fussiness’ and remember that I am a terrible old man ever planted in another age. Even if I sometimes give the impression of being a digital native (used my first computer on a daily basis starting in 1959.. for doing some very fancy stuff, which in fact boiled down to regression analysis. And so it goes.) ericbritton 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Commons (disambiguation again)

Now back to The Commons. Origins: For many people in the West, the word “commons” evokes a medieval village pasture which villagers did not own but where they had rights to graze their livestock. Yet, for the vast majority of humanity today, The Commons is an everyday reality which provides sustenance, security and independence. The Commons is neither private nor public: neither business firm nor state utility, neither jealously guarded private plot nor national or city park. But it is not usually open to all: the relevant local community typically decides who uses it and how. Indeed, commons regimes can be defined more through their social and cultural organization than their physical location: for example, local or group power, distinctions between members and non-members, rough parity among members, a concern with common safety rather than accumulation, and an absence of the constraints which lead to economic scarcity."
This roughly is the origin for our "The Commons". Thus what this suggests to me is that we possibly need to create a 'main gate' to The Commons from which all of the others might open in turn. That make any sense? ericbritton 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. If someone types "Commons", they get that article on the origins that you cite. The top of the page has the other uses language and points to the dab (short for disambiguation). If they type "The Commons", they go directly to the dab. Are you suggesting something else? Tedernst | talk 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am. What I am suggesting is that I cobble together the beginning of an acceptable new “master entry’ and definition on “The Commons” reflecting its deepest known origin (roughly along the lines suggested above, but better if time permits), and that once we have this everything else derives therefrom – us (the schlemiels) and the apt schmendricks. But I don’t want to take the time to do it (I am drowning in my work) if it is not going to do a useful job. ericbritton 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Tedernst, I have just had one more look at it and I see that we already have the solution to this in hand. The 'master listing' or front gate to The Commons is in fact the already existing entry Commons, which I now propose should get the main moniker -- the “The” included.

  • My vote is that the main entry is thus “The commons” (as well as “commons” as stands).
  • Then when someone is looking for our “The Commons” , they see it right there ever so unambiguously in to the disambiguation page.
  • My Talmudic soul suggests that this is the purest and more practical solution.. True “disambiguation” (which word literally cries for a better word).

ericbritton 08:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Schickele

The "some say" qualifier would be fine for any other usage (magazine, newspaper article; TV or radio spot, etc.) but this one (an encyclopedia). In any case, my feeling is that Schickele is one of the greatest 20th century American composers for his *non*-PDQ Bach works (do you know them?), but unfortunately they're not discussed in much detail in the article. BTW I think the "dill piccolo" is exactly a regular piccolo, which only plays "sour notes." The article says Schickele invented it. Badagnani 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Peter is indeed a leading American composer, and it is a bit of a pity really that his hyper-gaudy prof distracts (but who can resist him?). I have known Peter for years and back at his first concert in Carnegie Hall lent a hand to Wolfgang Zuckermann, a note harpsichord maker and my partner in a summer festival for the performing arts in Upper Black Eddy Pa (the original Sundance), to 'invent' the Hardardt - a modified harpsichord that served hot coffee and cold sandwiches through a frontal slot. (I still hate giving away the game with the USND, so cannot we zap the 'fictional' and leave it to the schmendricks to work that one out for themselves.) ericbritton 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is Doug? Badagnani 09:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am amazed at your connection to these hijinks going back close to 40 years now (?). I think leaving out "fictional" would be fine. My favorite "real" Shickele works are the Quartet for clarinet, violin, cello, and piano and the Serenade for Six (for bassoon + Trout Quintet instruments). Badagnani 09:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Carsharing Talk

[edit] Better sourcing

We need to cite sources for some of the information in this article. For example, the following sentence claims to directly quote some type of authority, but fails to identify that person(s).

  • Carshare organizers and proponents say that “if you live in a city and drive less than ten thousand kilometers a year, you should probably look into carsharing”.

I see it was taken directly from http://worldcarshare.com/ but it is unsourced there as well. Citing references would help make this a more authoritative article. --Wildcat dunny 13:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I take your point Wildcat, but what do we do in the case in which the "citation" is simply a broadly shared point of view which is often simply _said_, with of course the expected many variations? I want to respect this great group work product (which I'd like to add is very close to my heart (and work)), but what do you do in a case like this when some phrase is widely said in many ways and many places (example of choice: "The Rex Sox are the best team in organized baseball")? Has anyone invented anythiing like "almost quotation marks" for such situations.
Tell me how to handle this and I promise I'll do my best. But I'm never going to be able to source that one.
Eric--This is a tricky issue for a resource like Wikipedia in general, but I think there are ways to address it. For example, if it really is a point of view that is broadly shared by a group of people, then we should try to find a source in which one of those people expresses such a view and cite that. Even better is if we can find an authoritative source that states the view is widely held. See Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for some basic info on citing sources on Wikipedia. I tried reworking your quote a bit (and moved it down a paragraph). My goal was to still express that point of view, but in a more verifiable fashion (see the footnote/reference).
We should also try to provide references for other factual assertions made in the article. The stylistic details for citations in Wikipedia are still being worked out, but including verifiable references now will help make this a stronger article into the future. --Wildcat dunny 16:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond sourcing

Looks great Wildcat. I am getting there and the entry at the same time. As you will have spotted I am one of those who learns by doing and then when he actually does it proceeds in iterations. Couple of points that I would like to share with you quickly, if you will:.

1. I like the “Contents” and see how it works. Any problem now that you have added the (absolutely necessary, and whatever was I thinking about) Reference section, if I kick over some of the sources that do that job into that category. These are great since they serve to give a variety of perspectives – important here because of the great heterogeneity of these operations. We don’t want anyone who is genuinely curious to get the idea that there is just one set of perspectives and one basic model. Just ain’t so.
2. As to the ‘origin’ of the famous quote, I guess as authoritative a single source as we can find is just maybe me (though I prefer to cite the World Carshare Collaborate rather than myself – I always feel that only schmucks quote themselves). But after all, who knows more about it than we do? Also since WCS thus becomes the cited source, we can use exactly our wording (which incidentally has been on the opening page of http://worldcarshare.com untouched since 1999 – and believe me if it did not rhyme with the people we have coming into that program, we would have been hooted out of the ballpark a long time ago.)
3. Next and before I take this any further, I will be a good lad and get back to your “How to write a great article” entry and its extensions. (I believe the expression is “Duh”)
4. If you have a minute to have a quick look at The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at www.ecoplan.org you will see that what we try to do is create ‘knowledge and action zones” (poorly said Eric, but it’s late) which invite a very wide range of people with interests in the specific area (carsharing being just one example) to “build knowledge and consensus to support change”. Again, the basic themes are (a) better understanding technology change as it effects people in their day to day lives. And (b) the difficult struggle toward sustainable development and social justice.
5. I am now (as we used to say in Mississippi cogitatin’ on a new project that you can catch at http://www.xwork.org (New Ways to Work in an Information Society) – the specific goal of which will (may) be to create and help propel a “Self-Organizing Collaborative Network” that will look specifically and creatively at improved the supply/demand mesh of IT and SD (sustainable development). One of the main reasons for doing this is that most of the international organizations and bilateral aid programs just do not seem to be able to get anything of much use done. And I think that if we bring together a couple of hundred bright and diverse people and put them in the right learning/collaboration environment we may be able to blaze some useful new trails. The site at present is just getting underway, and certainly needs work and maybe some cutting and dicing. But the reason I bring this to you attention is that there are definitely some important object lessons to be learned from you great on-going experiment. (And who knows, you might even be interested to keep an eye out on this one as it moves along.

ericbritton 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improved organization, but . . .

I very much appreciate the more structured framework that you have now created here. It's a big improvement. But on the other hand we have some real problems with what is now being proposed on the content side. Let me take one example alone: the History section.

Sorry but this information is seriously inaccurate. The fact is that there is a great deal of mis-information that pops up cheerfully in the media and other sources on this new mobility form. However at this point since I am not a seasoned member here, I quite frankly do not know what to do next. On the one hand, I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or dampen their enthusiasm. Life is too short for that. But I would hope that there is a premium here on accuracy. Let me know and I'll get to work on it. (Incidentally this is important for us in terms of accuracy, since I have popped the reference right at the top menu of the World Carshare site, and I certainly cannot leave it there if it says in this form. I would not be able to stand the laughter.) Salamaat, Shalom, and Peace on Earth. ericbritton 16:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

“I'd still be interested to know what is inaccurate with the article.” - --Petros471 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, let’s just take that history section, by the numbers and very quickly for now:

1. “Car sharing was first developed in Europe during the early 1970s”. Wrong. Try this: International Carshare Developments and Trends: 350 BC -2006

  • • Ca. 350 – Aristotle writes "On the whole, you find wealth much in use than in ownership."
  • • 1948 – Selbstfahrergenossenshaft and the rest – 2300 years later
  • • 1960’s – The “miracle” of PRT and automatic small vehicle transport (precursors of carsharing 2005?)
  • • 1972/4 – Two great carsharing projects: ProcoTip and Witkar start . . . and stop
  • • 1980’s – Slow, spread out, start-and-stop diffusion – but it doesn’t stop there
  • • 1987+ – Carsharing starts to come of age: Pre-Mobility & StattAuto set pattern. As projects multiple around (mainly) Europe, World Carshare Consortium established
  • • Late nineties – Carsharing picks up speed and starts to establish itself in country after country (fast here, slower there. . . including France)
  • • 2005 -- More than 150 CSOs identified in World Carshare inventory
  • • 2006 -- More than 650 cities around the world where you can carshare this morning

2. . . . in response to the high cost of car ownership and the 1973 energy crisis

Wrong. That’s hindsight. Not information. Most of the start-ups in the middle Dark Ages of carsharing in the 70s/80s were driven by mainly ecological and neighborliness, with of course a good dash of potential savings.

3. The concept spread to North America in the 1990s, beginning with Communauto in Canada. The United States saw the introduction of its first car sharing organization in 1998[1].

Wrong again. Benoit Robert and CommunAuto are important landmark projects, but there were small very artesian carshares going on in the States already in the eighties. True though the real push gets underway in the mid-late nineties. You 1998 reference for the State is for the first _commercial__ CSO start-up, but Dave Brook and his team in Portland Oregon. (Today this is Flexcar.)

Let me not drive you nuts with this quibbling, but I hope the basic idea gets through. We can get this right, and in the process make a real contribution. But we need to have a firm base if we are to engage the other serious players who will be pleased to make a strong statement stronger yet. Which to my mind is what Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks are all about.

ericbritton 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing specific disputed facts, that is helpful. You'll notice that the information in the History section cited a specific source, and those statements can be easily verified within the source material. This is consistent with Wikipedia's official policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this case, it appears you are attempting to dispute that information on the grounds that the source is not a Wikipedia:Reliable_source. That is a useful argument to make, but it is important to back up your claim by explaining on the talk page why you do not consider that source to be reliable. Others can then discuss the reliability of the source and come to some type of resolution (usually this is a relatively quick process). --Wildcat dunny 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In your contribution above, you included some very specific information about the history of car sharing. It seems to me that much of this information would be useful for inclusion in the History section of the article. However, you did not cite a source for this information. (I found no reference named "International Carshare Developments and Trends: 350 BC -2006", and a quick Google search turned up nothing. A link or formal reference would be more helpful.) I understand that you are involved in a car sharing community and likely have good knowledge about the topic, but the Wikipedia:No_original_research policy requires that information in articles have a basis in published sources. Since you may be considered an expert on car sharing, the page on Wikipedia:No_original_research#The_role_of_expert_editors may be of interest. If you are an expert, you probably have knowledge of some great sources to support that content! --Wildcat dunny 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "A type of cooperative"

The lead now says that carsharing is "a type of cooperative", even if it is for-profit. I think that's just plain wrong. How is it any more a "cooperative" than, for example, a video rental store? Unless someone can make a strong case for this that currently escapes me, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, I want to take this one as sweetly as I can, but when I read canonical statements from you, Jmabel, like "it should be removed" about a topic in which the writer (in this case you) is still very early on her/his learning curve, I begin to wonder if I am in the right place here. At the very least, if you are authoritarian you should at the very least be an authority on your subject (are you?). A polite challenge between colleagues is one thing. Marginal rudeness quite another and your tone is very much the latter.
Back to CSOs as cooperatives.
(a) Historical: Most of the early schemes through the late nineties were actually established as cooperative ventures (under a variety of labels but nonetheless on inspection cooperatives indeed).
(b) Contemporary: And this is still an important pattern for small start-ups today.
(c) Behavioral: Join a carshare operation in your community - – whether non-profit or for- - and you will quickly see how the cooperative component, how strong and continuing cooperation among the members is vital.
(d) My acid test for all statements here are the members of the World Carshare cooperative, who collectively know more about this topic than anyone in the world. And thus far, none of them who have some in and had a look have squealed.
All that said, if this is not a place of measured, friendly even collegial discourse and decision making, then I am out of here. If I were looking for authoritarianism, I would move to any of the tattered vestiges of the good old soviet union.
NB. The cooperative movement in Europe, and in Latin America where it is mostly a spillover from the Spanish Civil War, has far deeper historical and political roots than the Wikipedia entry on the subject currently charts. The links to what can only be called “positive anarchy” and “Communalism” are very important parts of that ball of wax – although my available time and immediate credentials do not permit me to go into that entry and trying to push it in this important direction. I would like to think that it might be taken into account in good time. And that after all is what this cooperative venture, the Wikipedia, is all about. (Or do I have that wrong?)
I may be a relative newbie on carsharing, but I'm quite knowledgable on cooperatives (although, to the best of my recollection, I've never worked on, or even read, Wikipedia's article on the topic). Yes, historically many (perhaps most, I have no idea) carsharing operations have been cooperatives. But FlexCar, for example, is no more a cooperative than the for-profit video rental store in front of which one of its cars may be parked. Is it a good business for the community? Sure. Glad to have them here in Seattle. But in institutional terms, "cooperative" has a very specific meaning: it means member-owned on some level, whether those members are consumers or (as in a farmers' cooperative) small producers. It typically means one share per member, and always means a very limited ratio of shares per member (the [Mondragón Cooperative Corporation|Mondragón cooperatives]] historically allowed as many as six shares for highly skilled workers; I'm not sure, but I think that may now have gone higher).
Is there an element of cooperation involved in even a for-profit carsharing operation? Absolutely. But we don't call a public library "a cooperative" either: in that case, it is publicly owned, not cooperatively owned. Nor a university, unless somewhere there is a university run as a co-op (presumably, owned by its faculty). And making a library or a university succeed also involves plenty of cooperation. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Very nice. Uncle. ericbritton 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a web directory

Some of this is shaping up well, but other parts are turning into a web directory. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I've done some cleanup, but this is getting bigger than I feel like taking on, and I would appreciate if the people writing this would make an effort to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia standards. I can't go through a hundred external links to see which are likely to be useful to a reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. Since we are at the outset here in our collaboration, I think it’s important that we get on the same side without losing any more time. So let me take it one at a time, with an eye among other things to keep you from losing time with all that cross-checking:
  1. First, I want you to know how much I appreciate your English language proofing. Not that I – you may have noted that I am a bit of a word person, or at the least a real lover of careful use of language(s) – hence I look at your editorial changes with real interest, not least because they are all nicely reasoned. I had to grin when you changed my “got established” (may sound like Appalachia calling, but it is indeed proper English, if out of common usage in most places today) for your more current “become established”. In point of fact I hesitated at least three times myself before letting it start its short and happy life there. Well, bye “got”.
  2. I was sorry to see that you shipped the two gizmos that demonstrate (a) how carsharing works and (b) impact on the city to the External Links section, where I am afraid they get a bit lost. My thought is that simple as they are they help people from the outset to get a cleare visions as to what this is all about.
  3. I purposely separated carsharing/carpooling distinction para – which is universal – from the UK discussion, which is specific and need not concern most people. But hey . . .
  4. The bottom line – editorially-wise speaking (and here I quote the great Professor Peter Schickele of the University of Southern North Dakota) is that your version is a far, far better thing. . .
  5. Now the big one: Let me start with your good reminder that “Wikipedia is not a web directory” and specifically you firm reminder that it is not a “is not a repository of links”. Hmm. Yes, yes and but. Let me see if I can explain.
In collaborating with you all on this, my model for the handful of entries that I intend to make (who knows once you start?) is to follow the inspiration if not exactly the model of the famous 1911 Britannica, which has always been a great friend and mind stretcher for me since childhood. As you know it was a storehouse not only of the usual and most important crisp encyclopedic definitions, but also was intended by the editors and main collaborators as a research tool opening up both broad concepts and new specifics of their fast changing world for anyone who had the energy to look.
This gives me a variant of the classic Scylla and Charybdis navigation problem. On the one hand, I don’t want to run away from the best of your lovely concise Wikipedia presentation model and guidelines. But at the same time, we are looking here – as with my evolving contributions in terms of the New Mobility Agenda, Car Free Days, The Commons, [Kyoto World Cities Challenge] and Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks -- at rich, ground breaking and internationally quite well known concepts that are not just in hot air, research projects or someone’s next book, but which are focused, practical, articulated instruments of knowledge building and change. Now these may be new to you (and gazillions of others), but they are part of a process of sustainable development and social justice and are known (and not always appreciated) by tens of thousands of policy makers, activists and scholars in many parts of the world, rich and poor. (You can get a handle on the type of people and groups who are part of this world wide movement if you click the International Advisory Council link at the top of www.kyotocities.org, which lists approximately ten percent of those who are either closely following or actively working with pieces of this new development agenda.
Back to [carsharing] as a concrete case in point. My goal here is (a) to provide an accurate description and general introduction to the concept and its current realities for the general reader, and (b) in parallel provide a fairly comprehensive set of tools and leads that will help scholars, policy makers, public officials, and people and groups considering possibly doing something along these lines – with a strong set of references in one place, and at a level that would have made Mr. Chisholm nod his head in agreement. Modest project.
I note that our present draft is still well short of 3k words and well within the size limits set our in various places in the WikiInfo. I also note that we have come a long way since we hunkered down on this together just two short weeks ago. Admittedly we are staggering to get this right, but I would imagine that this is par for more complex and generally little known phenomena such as this., when the visiting schmendrick (that’s me) is going at this for the first time. As I look at the text, I am pleased if not by what we have here thus far but both by the general tone of the entry as well as the direction which we have now firmly engaged. As to those last sections of links and references, yes I agree that more thought and work will be needed there, and I am pleased to engage to make sure that it gets done. I hate thinking of myself as an “expert” on anything, but I guess when it comes to this particular entry that words is as good as any other. What I would like to hope is that I am not both an exert and stupid – which is a combination of which I have seen many examples in the past. And not least in the field of transport and city polities. (Which by the way explains why things are in such a mess in many places.)
The acid test: A first handful of my international colleagues ,who know this field from the inside as well as anyone, have already had a peek at what we are doing here, and they have been universally encouraging. Indeed, if you go to World Carshare at, you will see a Wikipedia link on the top menu, which takes you to an introduction page which invites them to come in and add their expertise and vision to ours. I also am inviting all of the 20+ operators world wide whom we have inventories, to come in and add nice crisp entries under their names. Thus making this a truly useful contribution to and from the Wikipedia.
Over and out on the eve of 24 Dec 2005. And if you are a Christian, let me wish you a very merry Christmas. And if you’re a Jew, well Happy Chanukah. And a Muslim, or like me an all purpose life embracing infidel: a happy and long life with those you love ericbritton 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Apologies that I'm not giving this a lengthy reply, but sections like Where it works as it currently stands are simply not Wikipedia style. When we want to aim people outside of Wikipedia like this, we do it in an external links section. Period. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Mainly housekeeping and clarification

[edit] link destination

I am not a lazy guy, and I have thrashed around but I cannot find help on the following I think, I hope rather small point: When I make a reference on any given page, I woudld almos talways like to see the linked item pop up in another window -- and not utterly smash the thing I think the visitor probably came for. Help!

I am unaware of any way to make wikilinks open in a new window, nor do I know why someone would want this. Many people are now using tabbed browsers like Firefox that allow the user to decide that links will open in background tabs, thus not interrupting the reading of the current page. You seem to be after something similar. I'd not worry about it if I were you and leave it to the reader to figure out. Tedernst | talk 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Books

On the matter of print publications with my name on them. In my case it seems to be a life pattern and not just an accident. Even at the time I has completed a rough draft for my PhD dissertation at Columbia, once I had satisfied my own curiosity on the topic - Mezzogiorno development shenanigans in the high name of economics -- and when faced between the options of schlepping back to New York to complete and then defend it doggedly in front of the usuals, as opposed to staying in Italy to work on hands-on development challenges, it was a no brainer for me. Who wants to hang around with a bunch of committees composed of old white guys with full tables and pensions while life passes one by? In the event I never had any intention of being either a prof nor in fact an economist. I got into the economics racket specifically because I wanted to understand better how that part of people's brains and decisions, and those of society collectively, tick (or ticketh not).
This pattern has carried on in all my work since, which involves problem setting and problem solving in my areas of deep concern -- and not publication. Thus whereas I have set up 'knowledge networks' that indeed actually do work in a number of areas -- carsharing being just one -- never for one moment have I thought about sticking anything on paper (which struck me a long time ago as a sideline and in the wake of all that has taken place since little more than quaint Paper, books? Sure but for Chekhov, Balzac and if you push me even Philip Roth). Rather in my short life I prefer to provide the raw materials for others, perhaps more gifted or at least more psychologically apt for the task, to do just that.
On my way out the door here, I might mention that whereas I will put any eventual 'Eric Britton' entry into the hands of the gods, I very definitely am moving to bring in quite a large number of highly talented 'change makers' (if you will) on the sustainable development and social justice scene and have indeed already started. You can see some of the schmear behind that if you go to [The Commons] at and pop the Wikipedia link up top. I am hopeful that this will be good for WP and good for the sustainability agenda as well. But as you say, I shall immediately read WP:BIO. Thank you. Over and out. ericbritton 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ("Almost an economist")
I don't have time to look it up and it may be apocryphal, but Harry S. Truman is said to have said something like:
"There is absolutely nothing in the world that you cannot accomplish, provided you do not care who gets the credit."
Dpbsmith (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

An autobiography for this was posted tonight at Eric Britton. I have started a discussion there continuing this debate about what exactly is noteworthy. See the talk. —akghetto talk 09:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)

Please read over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) before creating new biographical articles. In general, we only use additional words to differentiate people of the same name, and then we use the shortest, most NPOV word that will suit. -Will Beback 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete stub

Sustainability Advocates has little useful content. If you're going to add to it, then please do right away or the page will be taken down. Since Wikipeia is always "live", we need to avoid puting notes in the articles. Thanks, -Will Beback 05:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving of talk pages

Hi, I've noticed that you have removed some of your the content of your talk page with the edit summary cleaning up to get out old stuff and get page within indicated limits. The article Wikipedia:Talk pages includes "If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you may archive it. You may then remove comments from your talk page, but please make sure that those comments are readily accessible on another page."

Note that this is not official policy, and therefore not a requirement, however it is useful in case anyone wants to refer to old content, get an overview of your history etc. Here is a guide to archiving. Hope that helps, feel free to ask any questions on my talk page.

And as it's been a while since I last dropped by your talk page: thanks again for you continued contributions to Wikipedia! --Petros471 11:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions out of the blue

Is there anyway one can know about the number of hits any given entry is getting? And if not, would that not be useful?

No, there isn't any way. I'm sure it could be very useful for certain purposes, but I think it has been said somewhere that no-one really bothered because this site does not host or sell advertising, and therefore accurate usage figures were not required. Also the server load for individual hit counters would be significant. That's all from memory, so I could be wrong... Petros471 10:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much Petros, That's very helpful. But as to the advertising angle, I understand it but I also deeply believe there is something to the saying that man does not live by bread alone -- and I think that it is important for something as society shaping -- yes, that is indeed what I believe it to be (if we all get it right) -- as the Wikipedia we should not be making ourselves just as smart as we can. And knowing what's going on is part of this. So is there any way that this idea can be pushed up a couple of notches in the reaches of our not quite [Self-Organizing Collaborative Network]? ;-) ericbritton 10:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian/hits

You're right, I never learned Italian (aside from musical and food terms). My grandparents came from Italy so I am 3rd generation. Thus, Italiano was the "secret language" for grandparents and parents to speak about subjects they don't want the kids to understand. This is common in many ethnic communities in the U.S.

About hits on specific pages, it would be interesting and I think there is a way to tell this, but maybe only for admins or those with access to hosting stats. But I don't know more, sorry! Badagnani 15:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks

There is a bit of a discussion going on over at Articles_for_deletion/Self-Organizing_Collaborative_Networks to which I woudl be pleased to invite comments and suggestions.


[edit] New Mobility Agenda Article

A tip: You may find that the recently started campaigns wikia is a more appropriate place for that kind of article.

Also check the Anti-car campaign on campaigns wikia 82.32.60.14 12:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Paratransit2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paratransit2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have failed miserably to get this image, which comes from one of our reports for the UD Dept of Transportation, into the Paratransit entry. Help? ericbritton 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation from urbepedia

Hi, my name is Chaerani from Singapore. I volunteered helped out in the Urbepedia. It is a newly set up wiki focusing on Urban issues, and currently needing more contributors. I'd like to invite your participation in the wiki. Also need to brainstorm more on how the Urbepedia can be different yet complementing to information already existing in Wikipedia. At this stage, i'm thinking that Urbepedia would be more detailed and more technical, and also acts as repository of best urban practices from around the world, as well as repository of contact information of urban experts. Whereas wikipedia is aimed for a broader audience, the article should be easy to grasp to different kind of people, from kids to adults. In that sense, urbepedia is different from wikipedia, but of course, we can link both wikipedia and urbepedia together in the article page. We hope that you'd be interested to get involved. You can reach me by skype too, username chaerani . thanks! Chaerani 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/i/User_talk%7EEricbritton_856c.html"