Re: Attribution with Wikipedia (Was: LAO LETTER FO SUNG... wikipedia

From: Marion Gunn (
Date: Thu Oct 27 2005 - 10:33:14 CST

  • Next message: Gregg Reynolds: "Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677"

    Scríobh Mark Davis:
    > For my mind, the most useful ability would be a mode where all the pages
    > I would see on the site would be the last pages touched by a "reputable
    > authority". As a rule of thumb, I would assume that that person has
    > looked over the rest of the article and didn't have any severe qualms
    > about it.

    By which you clearly (prima facie) assume (that is, if I understand your
    native US idioms correctly, Mark) way, way too much, as even a cursory
    examination of the Wikipedia website would indicate the reverse to be true.

    > The tricky part about it then is who constitutes a reputable authority,
    > and on which topics... But there are mechanisms for doing that.

    What mechanisms, if you please to explain? (None such being evident on
    the Wikipedia site, AFAICS.)

    The Wikipedia site material appears (subject to other proof) to be
    compiled by people mostly not experts in any field, but, rather largely,
    in terms of numbers, mostly un(der)employed).

    Please do not assume anything by this msg other than the obvious (that
    contributors to the Wikipedia regard it as anything more than passing
    time, rather than professionalism).

    I say this only as one who has consistently refused to contribute to
    Wikipedia because of its twin lacks (of either proven professionalism or
    expertise), while applauding it as an effort by amateurs to mutually
    educate one another.

    I hope this may help us to mutually understand each other.:-)

    Scríohh Stephane Bortzmeyer:
    > >On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 09:52:13AM +0100,
    > > Andrew West <> wrote
    > > a message of 14 lines which said:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>>AFAIK, you have to read the entire history of an article to see who
    > >>>wrote what. It does not seem there is a function like the excellent
    > >>>"annotate" with CVS (or "praise" with Subversion) which displays each
    > >>>line together with its last author and revision number.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>Just click on the "history" (or "historique") tab at the top of every
    > >>page, and it provides a convenient list of revisions including date,
    > >>author and summary of change.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >Exactly what I said (I know "history", thanks). Now, how do you find
    > >*who* wrote a given sentence in the article? (Short of, as I wrote
    > >"read the entire history of an article".) Specially if the summary is
    > >not clear (most aren't) or misleading.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
    27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an 
    Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
    * * *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 27 2005 - 11:23:30 CST