User:Edwardtbabinski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sharon Mooney, webmaster for Edward T. Babinski, (Duke Library, Furman University, SC) which primarily focuses on science, history and religion.]

I have chosen to refrain from further contributions on Wikipedia, due to certain obtuse editors who lack the ability to show respect to fellow contributors. Managing several successful websites of my own, I have never had any interest in bullying legitimate contributors on Wikipedia.

In regard to the blatant refusal of a couple of editors to leave the two relevant, and useful links I placed on Favicon (based on my own experience in professional web design)

For the record, as a favicon aficionado I not only have numerous pages on Free Favicon Downloads but manage a favicon webring which anyone is welcomed to join, and manage a blog on favicons. All being royalty-free favicon downloads. My contributions here have been legitimate, but I am aware that some have no further success on the web than managing a few articles for Wikipedia, and that becomes manifest in the aggressive cyberstalking often seen in "edit wars" between contributors. I simply have no time nor interest in the anxiety which results from such infantile conduct.

In 2004-2005 I was a student in Westwood College of Technology multimedia and web design program, based in Denver, Colorado. (Achieved Dean's List on a couple occasions Link #1 and Link #2.)

I am currently pursuing an Associate Degree in Aquaculture with Brunswick Community College and upon completion of the Associates program hope to transfer to UNCW University of North Carolina at Wilmington to obtain a Bachelors of Science, Masters and eventually, a PhD in Marine Biology. My Aquaculture blog.

I participate in Wikipedia, and provide some additional footnotes of interesting information on a variety of subjects, and some of the images / photography I have created. My interests are in art and life-biological science.

See Evolution of cetaceans and Evolution of sirenians for sample of art I have created and contributed.

All images I contribute normally have condition that original credits be kept intact, and should be listed under

Creative Commons: Some Rights Reserved
BYSA		 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Attribution: Attribution details

Articles I have created, and contributed to. See:

  • Aaron_ben_Elijah (cleaned early document of A.B. Elijah)
  • Ahhotep_I (restored Sarcophagus of Queen Ah'hotep, Egypt)
  • Aaron (Aaron, high priest, Dutch Oak Carving / altered image)
  • Angelwing Created Angelwing page, added text and photography of Angelwing varieties.
  • Auger_shell Created Auger Shell page, added text and photography of Atlantic Augers.
  • Cardinal_(bird) Added Female Cardinal foraging seeds.
  • Cross barred venus Created Cross barred venus page, compiled text and photography.
  • Emil_Aarestrup (public domain image / applied filters)
  • Julius_and_Aaron (combination of two photos / historical and modern, colorized)
  • Ababdeh (based on MSN Encarta Map. Image, Color, Text and format revised)
  • Manila_hemp (Modifications and colorized, adapted from istockphoto)
  • Abacá (Modified, colorized from 1960 b/w photograph)
  • Abaco and Hope Town (Abaco Islands, Hope Town Lighthouse, cross hatched, adaptation)
  • Abacus Chinese bookkeeper (Colorized, modifications to 1950 b/w image, watercolor)
  • Abacus_(architecture) Modified from an original in World Book Encyclopedia, sections of column.
  • Atlantic calico scallop Added text and photography.
  • Common nutmeg, Creating page, text, photography.
  • Dolphin (vestigial hind limb buds) First image courtesy Thewissen Lab and second image, bottlenose dolphin modified from video clip.
  • Hermit thrush, added image of Hermit thrush, captured in Southeastern North Carolina during winter season.
  • Imperial Venus Created page and Photography.
  • Keyhole limpet Created page and Photography, and Cayenne keyhole limpet
  • Keyhole sand dollar, Created page, and contributed Photography.
  • Lettered olive Created page and photography.
  • Olive shell Photography of Lettered Olive Shell Oliva sayana, (Ravenel)
  • Rough scallop Created page added photography, text.
  • Venus_(genus) Expanded stub, addtl. text, modified photography for use on Wikipedia
  • Venus fasciata Created page, text and modified photography for Wikipedia.
  • Wentletrap Created Wentletrap page, including text and photography.

To the editor who removed the two non commercial links which were in dispute for over 12 hours of my time, without providing a single, reasonable explanation You do not seem to understand what a "commercial link" is. You have falsely labled the two links you removed as "commercial" when they certainly are not. They do not charge one dime for services. All items are free, public access. Would you consider Wikipedia's request for donations, commercial? According to your logic, Wikipedia is a commercial site. It both solicits donations and draws in millions of dollars, therefore, Wikipedia itself is commercial.

[edit] Helping editors to properly define and identify a "Commercial Link"

To better clarify this issue, websites such as the commercial cybersquatter link - http://yoursite.com/favicon.ico which is displayed right in the midst of Favicon - at the top of the page it reads "e-commerce", how much more blatant can the definition of "commercial" be? And http://www.match.com/ which charge fees for use of their services, are "commercial" links, but on numerous occasions, certain editors have either overlooked or failed to make such a simple distinction.

I've noticed many of the articles I've created, contributed to or checked over, seem to have been vandalised more than I remember occuring in the past. Admins obviously cannot keep up with the problem. One article I repaired, had escaped attention for at least three days. Since some people insist on driving away legitimate contributors, this is to be expected, and should only expect the problem to become worse in the future. This includes the growing sentiment which has been becoming more and more prevalent around the web, e.g., simply Google Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sharon Mooney Updated, 18 February 2007, 17:13 Eastern

That's nice. ¦ Reisio 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No sir, you're quite wrong. That's the truth. Do you want a link to a forum where the users refused to accept information from Wikipedia due to its growing "reputation" as an unreliable source?

Here, I will provide it to you pro bono http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3819

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius Quote: See I want to avoid Wikipedia... and the damn shame is that most of what is written about Arius or Arianism to date is from the opposite point of view so of course it will be 'heretical'. Is there any non-biased sources out there?

Another user states... Here's a collection of articles (which does include wiki)... perhaps you can at least find a proper direction within.... http://www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/who/a/arius/

Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons.

However, I have often witnessed incoming links to various articles I've researched and composed for the web and mine are regarded as having reputation as a credible source, but Wikipedia shall not have the pleasure of further contributions from myself.

Name - Amelia Fleming, PhD Location - Carlow, Ireland http://www.carlowcollegechristology.blogspot.com/

The only question remains, why have I wasted such an incredible amount of time, on such a wee tiny little troll? Posted by Sharon Mooney 18 February 2007

[edit] Wikipedia alternative aims to be "PBS of the Web"

Digital Universe Home Page http://www.digitaluniverse.net/portal/home

By Daniel Terdiman, CNET News.com Tuesday , December 20 2005 11:19 AM

By providing a service they're calling "the PBS of the Web," the Digital Universe team hopes to create a new era of free and open access to wide swaths of information on virtually any topic.

"The vision of the Digital Universe is to essentially provide an ad-free alternative to the likes of AOL and Yahoo on the Internet," said Firmage. "Instead of building it through Web robots, we're building it through a web of experts at hundreds of institutions throughout the world."

Their idea is particularly timely given recent questions about Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility. A frequently raised criticism of the constantly growing repository of information has been that the millions of articles created by a worldwide community of contributors are not verified by experts.

Of course, that has always been Wikipedia's modus operandi--that its articles are written and vetted by its community, not by an elite corps of Ph.D.s. Yet there are some who feel that while the site has a satisfying populist appeal, and may be on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to accuracy, it still suffers from a lack of true accountability.

By including articles that have been approved by experts, Digital Universe will have such reliability, its founders say.

Source: http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39299490,00.htm

  • Ask yourself what these editors accomplish, except driving legitimate contributors away to concentrate their time, energy and resources elsewhere.

[edit] Difficulty with Comprehension

I've removed the other commercial links you've noted and which I hadn't noticed before. Thanks!. Links leading to pages giving no information and doing nothing but offer services (even when they are free) or doing some form of self-promotion are also routinely removed from Wikipedia. --AlainV 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But the links I provided were not commercial, and I would appreciate those restored. I am looking into the growing disillusionment with the notable immaturity of editors on Wikipedia.

This is hilarious.

launching a more mature community under a new charter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwardtbabinski (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

An Alternative to Wikipedia From http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2006/10/20/an-alternative-to-wikipedia

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia... Since his well-publicized departure from the popular wiki project, Sanger has been one of Wikipedia's harshest critics.

I will be departing too.

It's 2:33 a.m., and your essay on European Socialism is due in a little over seven hours.

Running out of time and feeling the tinge of desperation creep up your spine like the first cruel waves of an ether binge, you surf on over to this Wikipedia people keep talking about to gather up more source material.

The heavens open with streams of online content, and the paper practically writes itself.

A week later, your professor hands the essay back to you with a giant "F" plastered across the front. Feverishly scanning the document, you come to a comment in the bibliography

"Wikipedia is not an approved information source for this class."

Shock gives way to acceptance, and despair inevitably ensues.

Does this story sound familiar? It should, because it takes place every day throughout the nation's college campuses. Many students are turning to Wikipedia for reference purposes, and finding out the hard way that academia at large refuses to acknowledge the site as a credible information resource.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, is looking to change all that.

Since his well-publicized departure from the popular wiki project, Sanger has been one of Wikipedia's harshest critics. In a press release on Tuesday, he announced a new wiki project aimed at providing the online community with a reliable, accredited reference source.

The new project is entitled the Citizen's Compendium, or Citizendium for short.

Citizendium will initially mirror Wikipedia's content, but Sanger plans to build upon that knowledge base by enlisting the services of expert editors and contributors in an effort to surpass Wikipedia in terms of accuracy and reliability of information.

Sanger comments on the endeavor, "By engaging expert editors, eliminating anonymous contribution, and launching a more mature community under a new charter, a much broader and more influential group of people and institutions will be able to improve upon Wikipedia's extremely useful, but often uneven work. The result will be not only enormous and free, but reliable."

Potentially interested contributors can sign up here. More information on testing, content and the project's scope can be found in the press release.

Tags: Citizendium, Wikipedia