Are there statistics about users' preferences on Wikimedia sites?
For example, a statistic that would say things like how many users use every
skin and how many users have "Show preview before edit box" disabled.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but the defaults for new users never seem to change
(except
On 01/11/2010 06:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 00:02, David Goodman wrote:
>> But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
>> manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
>> specify--and almost none specified in the past.
>
> Inform
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, wrote:
> Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant
> details so why not pollute this class of article too?
>
> Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a
> number of research results are saying that X i
--- On Mon, 1/11/10, Risker wrote:
> > You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to
> be changing the
> > subject. Peer review decides what is to be published,
> based on quality
> > and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold
> views as to what
> > that is at any particular time
mill...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, wrote:
> > Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant
> > details so why not pollute this class of article too?
> >
> > Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a
> > number of
On 01/11/10 08:47, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> Are there statistics about users' preferences on Wikimedia sites?
>
> For example, a statistic that would say things like how many users use every
> skin and how many users have "Show preview before edit box" disabled.
>
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but the
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 14:26, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
>
> On 01/11/10 08:47, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> > Are there statistics about users' preferences on Wikimedia sites?
> >
> > For example, a statistic that would say things like how many users use every
> > skin and how many users have "Show previe
In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > risker...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pa
This organization reviews health news. I'm looking at this CNN article on
POM:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/27/health.pom.drink.labels/index.html
and their review:
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review.html?review_id=3286
This issue has been in the news and our articles on pomegranate jui
Amir E. Aharoni writes:
> Are there statistics about users' preferences on Wikimedia sites?
>
> For example, a statistic that would say things like how many users use every
> skin and how many users have "Show preview before edit box" disabled.
>
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but the defaults for
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jay...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > risker...@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >> My poin
In a message dated 11/1/2010 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > jay...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > > > In a mes
Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture
funded research
> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
> basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture
> funde
On 01/11/2010 18:40, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
>> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
>> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
>> basically how it was, I think. It
> On 01/11/2010 18:40, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
>>> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6
>>> of
>>> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
>>> basically how it was, I
It is actually becoming somewhat difficult to search for books on
obscure subjects on Amazon or Alibris without being completely spammed
with matches for "robo-books" automatically generated from Wikipedia
articles. Recently, I was doing research for a Wikipedia article on a
rather obscure type
I've just pushed live a new Wikimedia Foundation blog post that provides
an update on where we are with the Public Policy Initiative, the pilot
program to bring Wikipedia editing into university classrooms. Please
check it out if you're interested, especially if you know a professor
who would be a
Well while Ryan and Fred look having a valid concern, on this particular issue
I have no idea what you guys discuss.
The article seems to be a full translation of Japanese Wikipedia
article which seem to be based on three Japanese books (see
"references" in the jawiki article) all in paper, not ro
The issue is that this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6131076278/
is a direct copy of the English Wikipedia article.
There are many more books like this made by the same company.
2010/11/1 KIZU Naoko :
> Well while Ryan and Fred look having a valid concern, on this particular issu
As has been rightfully pointed out to me, if these robo-book publishers
are following the terms of the CC-by-sa licensing (which is doubtful),
there isn't really anything we can do about it. I just wonder what will
happen to the online book market once wikipedia robo-books become 50% or
more of
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> As has been rightfully pointed out to me, if these robo-book publishers
> are following the terms of the CC-by-sa licensing (which is doubtful),
> there isn't really anything we can do about it. I just wonder what will
> happen to the online b
> Well while Ryan and Fred look having a valid concern, on this particular
> issue
> I have no idea what you guys discuss.
>
> The article seems to be a full translation of Japanese Wikipedia
> article which seem to be based on three Japanese books (see
> "references" in the jawiki article) all in
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Ryan Kaldari
> wrote:
>> As has been rightfully pointed out to me, if these robo-book publishers
>> are following the terms of the CC-by-sa licensing (which is doubtful),
>> there isn't really anything we can do about it. I just wonder what will
>> happen to the
I see, thanks Mike. Personally I'm not for this kind of attempt, I'd
rather agree with Ryan: if and only if they complies with CC-BY-SA
deeds, is there any room for us to prevent them legally to spread it
even in a surprisingly overestimated price? Thought?
2010/11/2 M. Williamson :
> The issue is
On 01/11/2010 21:24, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Ryan Kaldari
>> wrote:
>>> As has been rightfully pointed out to me, if these robo-book publishers
>>> are following the terms of the CC-by-sa licensing (which is doubtful),
>>> there isn't really anything we can do about i
My thought was for the Foundation to approach Amazon regarding carrying
listings of such books which seriously represent their content. as this
one does. Such a book approaches fraud.
Fred Bauder
> I see, thanks Mike. Personally I'm not for this kind of attempt, I'd
> rather agree with Ryan: if a
On 11/01/2010 04:08 PM, wrote:
> How is this a problem the articles are licensed CC-BY-SA the book is
> advertised on Amazon as being a collection of WIKIPEDIA articles. That
> someone knowingly spends $50 on it is surely there own fault.
>
>
> Attribution: To re-distribute a text pag
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM, wrote:
>..
> There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were not paid for, by
> anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the drug's market outlook.
> Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the conversation.
The point I was making is that ther
On 1 November 2010 21:04, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> As has been rightfully pointed out to me, if these robo-book publishers
> are following the terms of the CC-by-sa licensing (which is doubtful),
Actually due to the unfortunate terms of use Erik Möller managed to
wedge in when we switched over to CC
2010/11/1 KIZU Naoko :
> I see, thanks Mike. Personally I'm not for this kind of attempt, I'd
> rather agree with Ryan: if and only if they complies with CC-BY-SA
> deeds, is there any room for us to prevent them legally to spread it
> even in a surprisingly overestimated price? Thought?
Sure. F
News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim
counsel, museum conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-01/News_and_notes
In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the
strategy project, logic over rhetoric
http://en.wikip
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:57:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
> Sure. Find an article with a french author and bring moral rights into
> play.>>
>
That isn't enough, because *you* would have no standing.
You'd be thrown out, and the WMF isn't likely to want to be th
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
> studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific reviews.
> Also, they do not dissect the data based on the reputability of th
Дана Tuesday 02 November 2010 02:57:10 geni написа:
> 2010/11/1 KIZU Naoko :
> > I see, thanks Mike. Personally I'm not for this kind of attempt, I'd
> > rather agree with Ryan: if and only if they complies with CC-BY-SA
> > deeds, is there any room for us to prevent them legally to spread it
> > e
Дана Tuesday 02 November 2010 00:48:06 Robert S. Horning написа:
> The problem here is that the publisher is being deceptive as to the
> origin of the content and how it was put together. Since I haven't seen
> the book itself and can only react to what is on the amazon.com. I
> guess this is a "
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Tuesday 02 November 2010 00:48:06 Robert S. Horning написа:
>> The problem here is that the publisher is being deceptive as to the
>> origin of the content and how it was put together. Since I haven't seen
>> the book itself and can o
On 2 November 2010 03:53, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Tuesday 02 November 2010 02:57:10 geni написа:
>> 2010/11/1 KIZU Naoko :
>> > I see, thanks Mike. Personally I'm not for this kind of attempt, I'd
>> > rather agree with Ryan: if and only if they complies with CC-BY-SA
>> > deeds, is there a
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> My thought was for the Foundation to approach Amazon regarding carrying
> listings of such books which seriously represent their content. as this
> one does. Such a book approaches fraud.
>
Agreed. There is no *obligation* for Amazon to distri
39 matches
Mail list logo
