The system of charging readers for distribution of scientific information is
fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia demonstrates that it is cheap to host data.
Reviewers don't get paid. Companies pay plenty to advertise in journals. Why
do I have to pay $50 to read someone's research?
> Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has
> a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether
> or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
Most close requests are for projects that would not have been created
under the current str
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 22:03, geni wrote:
> I don't know much about the situation in the humanities though.
>
There's a nice little undercurrent of paper exchange - some legitimate
(asking the author for copies, getting PDFs from author websites,
getting stuff from university pre-print draft rep
Some of these actually already have Wikipedias:
Meadow Mari
Yakut (aka Sakha)
Lak
Balkar (aka Karachay-Balkar)
Yiddish, Eastern (= "standard" Yiddish, "Western Yiddish" is the one we are
missing but it has much fewer speakers; according to Ethnologue there are
only 5,400 around the world)
In addi
On 26 June 2011 21:12, David Gerard wrote:
> http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/
>
> People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the
> damn science.
>
> This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access
> message.
While back cha
http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/
People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the
damn science.
This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access
message. You cannot do science in a system with these effects.
- d.
_
On 26 June 2011 17:46, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
> can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
> encyclopedia.
>
> In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
> can hardly be justified
> Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
> can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
> encyclopedia.
>
> In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
> can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.
Are
Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.
In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.
Fred
> What lov
I had put a notice on [[meta:Wikimedia Forum]] and a notice on the
[[Proposals for closing projects]] page. Several users supported the policy
proposal, and some gave feedback so we could improve the text.
Apart from the meeting report, I think we didn't send a separate e-mail to
foundation-l about
What lovely abuse of statistics!
By showing them indexed to the same scale, it makes it impossible to
draw the conclusion they try and draw. You need to know the *absolute*
increase in facebook usage and the *absolute* increase or decline in
total internet usage. If their numbers are correct, then
Hi all;
Can you imagine a day when Wikipedia is added to this list?[1]
WikiTeam have developed a script[2] to download all the Wikipedia dumps (and
her sister projects) from dumps.wikimedia.org. It sorts in folders and
checks md5sum. It only works on Linux (it uses wget).
You will need about 100
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 16:03, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The web itself is passé
> http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6
> Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago.
That is funny, I like statistics. Like, how can you compare a
virtual
13 matches
Mail list logo
