User talk:Edwardtbabinski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License tagging
All images I contribute to the Wikipedia should be originals and/or modified for purpose of legal distribution and listed under
   |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. Attribution: Attribution details |
Regarding [1] - since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links on talk pages will not alter search engine results. Therefore, there is no need to remove them from talk pages unless they are dangerous or otherwise disruptive. JoshuaZ 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[level 2 spam warning removed] – Qxz 03:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks – Qxz 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[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
[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] Image:Venus fasciata.jpg
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:Venus fasciata.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Changing the background of the image does not alter the original copyright. Information on the website states clearly : "Images must not be copied for any commercial purpose or wide dissemination, including use on Web sites, leaflets or in promotional brochures. Image providers must be acknowledged against any use of their image(s). If images are copied, the name of the image provider and that it was published on the MarLIN Web site must be acknowledged." JoJan (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
