PDA

View Full Version : Losing Faith in Wikipedia



RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Reasons why are found in the following article here:
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,476.new.html#new

KiwiNZ
May 28th, 2007, 01:40 AM
Wikipedia is opinon not fact

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Wikipedia is opinon not fact
Good point KiwiNZ, and I Thank you for reminding me of this.

starcraft.man
May 28th, 2007, 01:48 AM
Reasons why are found in the following article here:
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,476.new.html#new

While I find that mildly disturbing... what can I say? There are zealots, ignorant folk and just plain stupid people everywhere. Some don't like to be told their wrong, some just don't like to admit the truth and live in a lie cuz its comfortable. It'll blow over though, come back in a month and have someone make a new oz linux article.

I don't see this as a strike against Wikipedia as a whole though. This is one instance of poor conduct, and while I've seen my own share of it on that site, thats what you take when you have thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) editing articles. It is everywhere though, you can't get away from people like that (they are the same ones that troll forums, post inflammatory comments (like the death threat against the female blogger just a few months ago) and hack sites just to defame them (like the hacker who cracked Steam's mobile service and got user info). There will always be people who wish to randomly rewrite wiki articles, or make stupid references and do such damaging things. You can't sacrificed the whole though because of the few, if that was the case there would be no Web 2.0 which is largely based on responsible user generated content.

In addition, I find that Wikipedia has only become a better resource for info in general, in a recent study (I forget link, google it should be on net), random major articles were selected from the Britanica and Wikipedia and I recall that they had a roughly equal amount of errors in general. Not to mention that I myself have gone out of my way to fact check articles I read, and 9/10 I can firmly say the article was right and verified (even if not directly cited on the wiki, I sometimes had to google).

Anyway, I will still use it, I will also edit when I think its right to. Hopefully this will be remedied in a while when cooler heads prevail.

Edit: Love the avvy Rav, "Live long, and prosper" :D.

Edit2: Link to one of the studies. (http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html) I'm sure there have been more, and more recent ones to boot. The bottom line is, overall, there really isn't that significant a difference. >.>.

milton1
May 28th, 2007, 01:49 AM
Wikipedia must always be taken with a grain of salt. The very nature of the system allows for publication of incorrect information. I myself have to constantly remaind my students that it is not a legitimate reference. It is, however, often a good starting point it can give us ideas and start us thinking about a research topic and what aspects of it we may want to investigate in more depth. Wikipedia can be a great tool, if it is used carefully.

Hex_Mandos
May 28th, 2007, 01:51 AM
I think most people don't understand Wikipedia. It's a lot like an unstable release. There's breakage. There will always be. It's not a source you can depend on, but it's often the best place to start your research. It's also a terrible place to finish your research.

KiwiNZ
May 28th, 2007, 01:52 AM
I think most people don't understand Wikipedia. It's a lot like an unstable release. There's breakage. There will always be. It's not a source you can depend on, but it's often the best place to start your research. It's also a terrible place to finish your research.

Agreed

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 02:07 AM
While I find that mildly disturbing... what can I say? There are zealots, ignorant folk and just plain stupid people everywhere. Some don't like to be told their wrong, some just don't like to admit the truth and live in a lie cuz its comfortable. It'll blow over though, come back in a month and have someone make a new oz linux article.

I don't see this as a strike against Wikipedia as a whole though. This is one instance of poor conduct, and while I've seen my own share of it on that site, thats what you take when you have thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) editing articles. It is everywhere though, you can't get away from people like that (they are the same ones that troll forums, post inflammatory comments (like the death threat against the female blogger just a few months ago) and hack sites just to defame them (like the hacker who cracked Steam's mobile service and got user info). There will always be people who wish to randomly rewrite wiki articles, or make stupid references and do such damaging things. You can't sacrificed the whole though because of the few, if that was the case there would be no Web 2.0 which is largely based on responsible user generated content.

In addition, I find that Wikipedia has only become a better resource for info in general, in a recent study (I forget link, google it should be on net), random major articles were selected from the Britanica and Wikipedia and I recall that they had a roughly equal amount of errors in general. Not to mention that I myself have gone out of my way to fact check articles I read, and 9/10 I can firmly say the article was right and verified (even if not directly cited on the wiki, I sometimes had to google).

Anyway, I will still use it, I will also edit when I think its right to. Hopefully this will be remedied in a while when cooler heads prevail.

Edit: Love the avvy Rav, "Live long, and prosper" :D.

starcraft.man Thanks for the input. I still enjoy the Wikipedia, and I don't take offense to the deletion of the article, I realize it is the nature of the beast.

I do enjoy the online experience over all, the beauty of Linux is an interactive experience of this online experience.

I trust that others here can connect with this, the beauty of being able to download our favorite Linux ditro release , then change our interactive experience with our computer with our freshly burned distro.

This is a wonderful place to be and a wonderful time to be. I still love ubuntuforums.org just as much as I still love wikipedia.

Thank You again for reminding me that beyond the inherent flaws, overall things are beautiful.

EDIT: and thanks also for my new sig I have added the qoute you mentioned: "Live long, and prosper"

DJ Wings
May 28th, 2007, 02:16 AM
Wikipedia is actually pretty factual in my experience. Citations are what hold it together, and the "Citation Missing" tag warns you to get some salt out...
For your opinions, there's always Uncyclopedia. (http://www.uncyclopedia.org)

starcraft.man
May 28th, 2007, 02:26 AM
starcraft.man Thanks for the input. I still enjoy the Wikipedia, and I don't take offense to the deletion of the article, I realize it is the nature of the beast.

I do enjoy the online experience over all, the beauty of Linux is an interactive experience of this online experience.

I trust that others here can connect with this, the beauty of being able to download our favorite Linux ditro release , then change our interactive experience with our computer with our freshly burned distro.

This is a wonderful place to be and a wonderful time to be. I still love ubuntuforums.org just as much as I still love wikipedia.

Thank You again for reminding me that beyond the inherent flaws, overall things are beautiful.

EDIT: and thanks also for my new sig I have added the quote you mentioned: "Live long, and prosper"

Hehe, hey no problem. I always try to be a stable voice of reason (still haven't got mad yet on these forums) and to always make sure all the facts get voiced. It's important to always have someone play devil's advocate, even if something seems one sided (my philosophy teacher taught me that, bless her soul, she was always arguing with me to death, even on obscure nothings :p). I know how frustrating it gets though sometimes when you try to do good for a whole bunch of people and then some silly people who know little about what ya doing try and ruin it or annoy you (been there, done that >.>)

Anyway, your welcome, don't worry, in the great scheme of things it shall work out. Oh and your welcome for the sig, I would have thought you'd have already had someone cite it to ya in a pm or post before me :p.

ButteBlues
May 28th, 2007, 02:47 AM
To be candid, I'm sure there's more to the story than was presented.

There are always two sides to the story.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Oh and your welcome for the sig, I would have thought you'd have already had someone cite it to ya in a pm or post before me :p.

Nope your the first one to cite it, Thanks.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 03:37 AM
To be candid, I'm sure there's more to the story than was presented.

There are always two sides to the story.Take a look for yourself, here is one of the last saved codes for the article that I have saved, not the final edited version of the article but pretty much the essence of what was:


{{Infobox_OS
| name = Oz Linux
| logo = [[Image:Oz_logo.png|250px]]
| screenshot = [[Image:Oz_Linux%28KDE%29.png|300px]]
| caption = Oz Linux (KDE)desktop.
| website = [http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php#6 CafeLiunx.org Labs]
| developer = [[CafeLinux.org Labs]] / [[Oz Linux Developers]]
| family = [[Linux]]
| source_model = [[Free and Open Source Software]]
| latest_release_version= 0.0.2-1-1(x86), 0.0.3-1-1_64(x86_64), 0.0.1-4-1([[Xen]]) <!-- If you update this, don't forget to update [[Comparison of Linux distributions]]-->
| latest_release_date = [[March 31]] [[2007]]
| language = multilingual
| kernel_type = [[Monolithic kernel]], [[Linux_kernel|Linux]]
| ui = [[GNOME]] , [[KDE]]
| working_state = Current
| Forum = http://www.cafelinux.org/forum/
| supported_platforms = [[IA-32|i386]], [[x86-64|AMD64]], [[IA-64]]
| updatemodel = [[rPathApplianceAgent]]
| package_manager = [[Conary (package manager)|Conary]]
| license = [[GNU General Public License|GPL]]
}}

'''Oz Linux''' is a advanced [[Usability|user-friendly]] [[Linux distribution]] ([[Unix-like]] [[operating system]]) of [[academic]] and [[scientific]] endeavors. It allows the user to choose between a [[GNOME]] or [[KDE]] [[desktop environment]] install (or enable both and switch between the two by restarting the [[X Window System]]).

<p>Oz Linux is named in honour of two [[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[physicist]]: [[Leonard Salomon Ornstein]] & [[Frits Zernike|Frederik Zernike]], who developed the [[statistical mechanics]] [[Ornstein-Zernike equation]], or OZ-equation.
<center>
<math> h(r_{12})=c(r_{12}) + \rho \int d \mathbf{r}_{3} c(r_{13})h(r_{23}) \, </math>
</center>
The OZ-equation is an [[integral equation]] for defining the [[correlation function (statistical mechanics)|direct correlation function]]. It basically describes how the [[correlation]] between two [[molecules]] can be calculated. [[Ornstein-Zernike equation|OZ]] applications can be found in use in correlation with the [[grand canonical ensemble]], [[canonical ensemble]], fluid theory, and many other [[physics]] applications. </p>

<p>Oz Linux utilizes the [[Conary (package manager)|Conary]] software system which combines [[Package management system|package management]] and [[Software configuration management|Software Configuration Management]], which replaces the need for programs like [[apt-get]] and [[Yellow dog Updater, Modified|yum]]. [[Conary (package manager)|Conary]] accomplishes this with such features such as rollbacks, changeset (incremental) updates, and a distributed development model.</p>

== Install ==
Oz Linux uses the [[Anaconda (installer)|Anaconda]] installer which enables a simple installation method which gives the user four different options for an trouble-free effective install.

*Minimal Install
*[[GNOME]] Install
*[[KDE]] Install
*Install everything (which installs both [[GNOME]] and [[KDE]])

== Latest releases ==
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.2-1-1(x86 Dual CD issue)
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.2-1-1(x86 DVD Install)
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.3-1-1_64(x86_64 Install CDs)
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.3-1-1_64(x86_64 DVD Install)
*Oz Linux([[Xen]] Virtual Appliance)Version 0.0.1-4-1(Dual CD issue)
*Oz Linux([[Xen]] Virtual Appliance)Version 0.0.1-4-1(DVD issue)

== See also ==
*[[List of Linux distributions]]
*[[Comparison of Linux distributions]]
*[[Conary (package manager)|Conary]]
*[[Xen]]
*[[rPath]]
*[[Leonard Salomon Ornstein]]
*[[Frits Zernike|Frederik Zernike]]
*[[Ornstein-Zernike equation]] (OZ-equation), a statistical mechanical integral equation
*[[Grand canonical ensemble]]
*[[Canonical ensemble]]
*[[Physics]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.rpath.org/rbuilder/project/oz/releases Oz Linux latest release downloads]
*[http://www.rpath.org/rbuilder/project/oz/ Oz Linux rBuilder Homepage]
*[http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/board,35.0.html Official Oz Linux Forum]
*[http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,184.0.html Oz Linux Screenshots]
*[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=401852 Oz Linux review posted at ubuntuforums.org]
*[http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/Conary Conary page on the rPath Wiki]
*[http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/Conary:Concepts rPath's Conary:Concepts page]
*[http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/rPathApplianceAgent:Forums rPathApplianceAgent:Forums]
*[http://cbp.tnw.utwente.nl/PolymeerDictaat/node15.html The Ornstein-Zernike equation and integral equations]
*[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ctk/PAPERS/OZwavelet4.pdf Multilevel wavelet solver for the Ornstein-Zernike equation Abstract]
*[http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/lLP4nnFLwybFbk9aWg47cQ/article/0953-8984/12/38/101/c038l1.pdf Analytical solution of the Ornstein-Zernike equation for a multicomponent fluid]
*[http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5075/54/4/475/6545.html The Ornstein-Zernike equation in the canonical ensemble]


[[Category:Linux distributions]]

[[de:Oz Linux]]
[[it:Oz Linux]]

you can see an archived history of the article here:
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,213.0.html

Mateo
May 28th, 2007, 03:39 AM
just now? that place is a bureaucratic nightmare. and I consider mediawiki to be a bloated CMS. I write regular HTML.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 03:43 AM
just now? that place is a bureaucratic nightmare. and I consider mediawiki to be a bloated CMS. I write regular HTML.

Makes me want to start my own online Encyclopedia honestly.

ThinkBuntu
May 28th, 2007, 03:47 AM
I edited down a couple parts of your article per NPOV a while back, but a proposal for removal seems pretty busy-body. I would vote keep. I'll see what I can do to resurrect your article Tuesday.

User page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomasmallen) | Talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomasmallen)

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 04:07 AM
I edited down a couple parts of your article per NPOV a while back, but a proposal for removal seems pretty busy-body. I would vote keep. I'll see what I can do to resurrect your article Tuesday.

User page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomasmallen) | Talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomasmallen)

Thanks I would greatly appreciate it, I admit it did need editing and I greatly appreciated your and other community members editing of the article.

I wish I had saved the most recent edited version because it was pretty awesomely tweaked.

Edit: heres my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravtux

(beware of user boxes)

ButteBlues
May 28th, 2007, 05:06 AM
Take a look for yourself, here is one of the last saved codes for the article that I have saved, not the final edited version of the article but pretty much the essence of what was:


{{Infobox_OS
| name = Oz Linux
| logo = [[Image:Oz_logo.png|250px]]
| screenshot = [[Image:Oz_Linux%28KDE%29.png|300px]]
| caption = Oz Linux (KDE)desktop.
| website = [http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php#6 CafeLiunx.org Labs]
| developer = [[CafeLinux.org Labs]] / [[Oz Linux Developers]]
| family = [[Linux]]
| source_model = [[Free and Open Source Software]]
| latest_release_version= 0.0.2-1-1(x86), 0.0.3-1-1_64(x86_64), 0.0.1-4-1([[Xen]]) <!-- If you update this, don't forget to update [[Comparison of Linux distributions]]-->
| latest_release_date = [[March 31]] [[2007]]
| language = multilingual
| kernel_type = [[Monolithic kernel]], [[Linux_kernel|Linux]]
| ui = [[GNOME]] , [[KDE]]
| working_state = Current
| Forum = http://www.cafelinux.org/forum/
| supported_platforms = [[IA-32|i386]], [[x86-64|AMD64]], [[IA-64]]
| updatemodel = [[rPathApplianceAgent]]
| package_manager = [[Conary (package manager)|Conary]]
| license = [[GNU General Public License|GPL]]
}}

'''Oz Linux''' is a advanced [[Usability|user-friendly]] [[Linux distribution]] ([[Unix-like]] [[operating system]]) of [[academic]] and [[scientific]] endeavors. It allows the user to choose between a [[GNOME]] or [[KDE]] [[desktop environment]] install (or enable both and switch between the two by restarting the [[X Window System]]).

<p>Oz Linux is named in honour of two [[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[physicist]]: [[Leonard Salomon Ornstein]] & [[Frits Zernike|Frederik Zernike]], who developed the [[statistical mechanics]] [[Ornstein-Zernike equation]], or OZ-equation.
<center>
<math> h(r_{12})=c(r_{12}) + \rho \int d \mathbf{r}_{3} c(r_{13})h(r_{23}) \, </math>
</center>
The OZ-equation is an [[integral equation]] for defining the [[correlation function (statistical mechanics)|direct correlation function]]. It basically describes how the [[correlation]] between two [[molecules]] can be calculated. [[Ornstein-Zernike equation|OZ]] applications can be found in use in correlation with the [[grand canonical ensemble]], [[canonical ensemble]], fluid theory, and many other [[physics]] applications. </p>

<p>Oz Linux utilizes the [[Conary (package manager)|Conary]] software system which combines [[Package management system|package management]] and [[Software configuration management|Software Configuration Management]], which replaces the need for programs like [[apt-get]] and [[Yellow dog Updater, Modified|yum]]. [[Conary (package manager)|Conary]] accomplishes this with such features such as rollbacks, changeset (incremental) updates, and a distributed development model.</p>

== Install ==
Oz Linux uses the [[Anaconda (installer)|Anaconda]] installer which enables a simple installation method which gives the user four different options for an trouble-free effective install.

*Minimal Install
*[[GNOME]] Install
*[[KDE]] Install
*Install everything (which installs both [[GNOME]] and [[KDE]])

== Latest releases ==
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.2-1-1(x86 Dual CD issue)
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.2-1-1(x86 DVD Install)
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.3-1-1_64(x86_64 Install CDs)
*Oz Linux Version 0.0.3-1-1_64(x86_64 DVD Install)
*Oz Linux([[Xen]] Virtual Appliance)Version 0.0.1-4-1(Dual CD issue)
*Oz Linux([[Xen]] Virtual Appliance)Version 0.0.1-4-1(DVD issue)

== See also ==
*[[List of Linux distributions]]
*[[Comparison of Linux distributions]]
*[[Conary (package manager)|Conary]]
*[[Xen]]
*[[rPath]]
*[[Leonard Salomon Ornstein]]
*[[Frits Zernike|Frederik Zernike]]
*[[Ornstein-Zernike equation]] (OZ-equation), a statistical mechanical integral equation
*[[Grand canonical ensemble]]
*[[Canonical ensemble]]
*[[Physics]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.rpath.org/rbuilder/project/oz/releases Oz Linux latest release downloads]
*[http://www.rpath.org/rbuilder/project/oz/ Oz Linux rBuilder Homepage]
*[http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/board,35.0.html Official Oz Linux Forum]
*[http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,184.0.html Oz Linux Screenshots]
*[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=401852 Oz Linux review posted at ubuntuforums.org]
*[http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/Conary Conary page on the rPath Wiki]
*[http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/Conary:Concepts rPath's Conary:Concepts page]
*[http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/rPathApplianceAgent:Forums rPathApplianceAgent:Forums]
*[http://cbp.tnw.utwente.nl/PolymeerDictaat/node15.html The Ornstein-Zernike equation and integral equations]
*[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ctk/PAPERS/OZwavelet4.pdf Multilevel wavelet solver for the Ornstein-Zernike equation Abstract]
*[http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/lLP4nnFLwybFbk9aWg47cQ/article/0953-8984/12/38/101/c038l1.pdf Analytical solution of the Ornstein-Zernike equation for a multicomponent fluid]
*[http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5075/54/4/475/6545.html The Ornstein-Zernike equation in the canonical ensemble]


[[Category:Linux distributions]]

[[de:Oz Linux]]
[[it:Oz Linux]]

you can see an archived history of the article here:
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,213.0.html
I'm not saying the article didn't exist and wasn't deleted, but that there are two sides to every story and I won't make any statements until I've heard both.

ThinkBuntu
May 28th, 2007, 05:36 AM
Thanks I would greatly appreciate it, I admit it did need editing and I greatly appreciated your and other community members editing of the article.

I wish I had saved the most recent edited version because it was pretty awesomely tweaked.

Edit: heres my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravtux

(beware of user boxes)

Your total edits scarcely outnumber your userboxes!

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 05:47 AM
I'm not saying the article didn't exist and wasn't deleted, but that there are two sides to every story and I won't make any statements until I've heard both.

Fair enough, but I think the reason officially given was lack of notability, which technically speaking would mean under their diffinition would mean quite a few Linux distros articles would be wiped.

Admittedly I have already given reasons why I think it happened, but lets hope I could be wrong and it was an honest mistake.


Your total edits scarcely outnumber your userboxes!

;) (I hope that not a bad thing?)

karellen
May 28th, 2007, 07:07 AM
I relly like this project, even it is at his very beginning
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
the encylopedia that NOT everyone can edit...;)

brim4brim
May 28th, 2007, 09:43 AM
Well I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

The problem is a difference of opinion. The changes back maybe should not have occurred but should have warned that people saw it as inaccurate and so the statement probably required revising.

The most accurate way would be something, nobody could disagree with which is stating that ubuntu is based on Debian and then these other distro's are based on Ubuntu which leads people to the factual conclusion that they are based on Ubuntu which is in turn based on Debian.

I don't think it is giving the whole picture to say that they are based on Ubuntu or to say that they are based on Debian. Its important to point out that they are building on Ubuntu as I don't believe that can lead to a stable release. They inherit the problems of Debian, Ubuntu and whatever new ones they introduce themselves.

23meg
May 28th, 2007, 12:10 PM
I'm not saying the article didn't exist and wasn't deleted, but that there are two sides to every story and I won't make any statements until I've heard both.

Here's the other side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oz_Linux

Notability guidelines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Here's the other side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oz_Linux

Notability guidelines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NThank for posting that 23meg, It is always good to know that such things are preserved.

ButteBlues
May 28th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Looking at the notability guidelines, and the comments on the deletion request, it does seem that Oz Linux does not fall under the notability requirements yet.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Looking at the notability guidelines, and the comments on the deletion request, it does seem that Oz Linux does not fall under the notability requirements yet.
Yes and about a half dozen other Linux distros don't meet "notability", for example take a look at the Foresight article, less developed then Oz Linux and lack of notability, I can list other Linux distro articles if needed. The point is that the Oz Linux article existed in Peace until I did the edit and post in The List of Linux Distributions page.

It does seem that the post by "Enlightenment now" did prove notability by pointing out a third party review posted here at ubuntuforums.org also.

ButteBlues
May 28th, 2007, 04:45 PM
Yes and about a half dozen other Linux distros don't meet "notability", for example take a look at the Foresight article, less developed then Oz Linux and lack of notability, I can list other Linux distro articles if needed.

Notability, in most respects, is in regards to terms other than the actual article posted. And even now, some distributions' articles need deletion for not meeting requirements.


The point is that the Oz Linux article existed in Peace until I did the edit and post in The List of Linux Distributions page.

And under notability guidelines it ought to have been addressed sooner.


It does seem that the post by "Enlightenment now" did prove notability by pointing out a third party review posted here at ubuntuforums.org also.


A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1
* "Sources"2 should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.3
* "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.4
* "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5

Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article.

Hex_Mandos
May 28th, 2007, 05:00 PM
I relly like this project, even it is at his very beginning
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page
the encylopedia that NOT everyone can edit...;)

Citizendium seems pointless to me. After all, if "experts" are going to correct what I contribute, they might as well write their own encyclopedia. A better way to get a reliable encyclopedia would be expert-reviewed freezes of Wikipedia, sold on physical media. That way, you can be cheap and rely on Wikipedia, or you can buy the "stable version" (which would still be free as in freedom, as Wikipedia is GFDLed). It would probably be a good business model, too. I'd pay for a "verified wikipedia".

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Citizendium seems pointless to me. After all, if "experts" are going to correct what I contribute, they might as well write their own encyclopedia. A better way to get a reliable encyclopedia would be expert-reviewed freezes of Wikipedia, sold on physical media. That way, you can be cheap and rely on Wikipedia, or you can buy the "stable version" (which would still be free as in freedom, as Wikipedia is GFDLed). It would probably be a good business model, too. I'd pay for a "verified wikipedia".

good points, but I would not pay for it, I can just search for legitmate articles.

Wikipedia seems to cater to the pop culture and it severly lacks in the Sciences. My wife is a Chemistry major and the Wikipedia is useless for academic and scientific knowledge of any kind.

ticopelp
May 28th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Frankly the blatant overuse of Wikipedia as a promotional tool is part of what's ruining it, IMHO.

Luggy
May 28th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Wikipedia does try and have some standards... they aren't going to allow some rinky dink software project to get a page because then everyone who wrote a few lines of code is going to want one.

If the project is important enough then it can get a page.

As for why Ubuntu couldn't get labeled as it's own distrubution, well, technically it is still based off Debian.

Hex_Mandos
May 28th, 2007, 06:32 PM
good points, but I would not pay for it, I can just search for legitmate articles.


That's ok. But for people who NEED an encyclopedia they can rely on, it'd probably be better than MS Encarta and similar software.



Wikipedia seems to cater to the pop culture and it severly lacks in the Sciences. My wife is a Chemistry major and the Wikipedia is useless for academic and scientific knowledge of any kind.

The solution would be contributing more scientific articles. I'd contribute articles on legal questions, but I decided that a better project would be starting my own wki specifically about argentinian law.

23meg
May 28th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Wikipedia is useless for academic and scientific knowledge of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Polygon
May 28th, 2007, 09:07 PM
thats not true rav. Ive done research on wikipedia and then double checked it with other sources and usually its correct

and wikipedia is a really good source on technical articles about computer science and stuff like that.

thats what all my teachers say about wikipedia anyway, its fine to use it as long as you double check the info you get from it with another source (aka check where they cited the source)

and about your article with oz linux, take it up with a wikipedia admin. They have the FINAL say in matters, not just some random user, and unlike regular users, they actually have the power to ban people who start reverting stuff after the admin has stated that it should be there.

im not sure how to do this, but i know its possible. research it.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 09:27 PM
thats not true rav. Ive done research on wikipedia and then double checked it with other sources and usually its correct

and wikipedia is a really good source on technical articles about computer science and stuff like that.

thats what all my teachers say about wikipedia anyway, its fine to use it as long as you double check the info you get from it with another source (aka check where they cited the source)

and about your article with oz linux, take it up with a wikipedia admin. They have the FINAL say in matters, not just some random user, and unlike regular users, they actually have the power to ban people who start reverting stuff after the admin has stated that it should be there.

im not sure how to do this, but i know its possible. research it.

My point is my Wife is completing her undergraduate in Chemistry, and she was very rarely ever able to use Wikipedia as a reference source, except for the most simple of concepts.

Wikipedia is not a source for scientific research, it simply isn't there. Thus for anykind of deep intensive knowledge it is useless.

This basically is a known given, any encyclopedia is only supposed to give brief knowledge on any subject matter.

Polygon thanks for the 411, I have already contacted the Admin. if you read the original post, linked you would see that.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 09:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalizationAgain basic concepts are there but beyond that it is useless.

RAV TUX
May 28th, 2007, 09:30 PM
As for why Ubuntu couldn't get labeled as it's own distrubution, well, technically it is still based off Debian.

Thats exactely why I edited as such, I am glad you agree with me.

Sceptical
June 1st, 2007, 09:16 AM
Wikipedia is opinon not fact

And that statement is an opinion, not a fact.

Yes, there is unsubstiantiated opinion and POV on Wikipedia, of course: there is mis-information, too: there is a lack of citation often: but (biography and politics aside), a sizeable majority of the articles are factual (in that the majority of their content consists of facts).

As to the point that Wikipedia's entries on the sciences are not up to undergraduate research standards, nor are the articles in most general encyclopedias. Most university students (at least here in the UK) do their research from learned papers, journals, set texts, and standard works not from a general encyclopedia.

I think this thread arises from disatisfaction with Wikipedia's treatment of Linux. That is not a fair or impartial basis on which to judge the whole project.

23meg
June 1st, 2007, 09:49 AM
Most university students (at least here in the UK) do their research from learned papers, journals, set texts, and standard works not from a general encyclopedia.

Right; little beyond high school termwork has any chance of standing on its feet by citing a general purpose encyclopedia.


I think this thread arises from disatisfaction with Wikipedia's treatment of Linux.

It arises from one person's dissatisfaction with the treatment of one Linux distribution, which happens to be their own project.

KiwiNZ
June 2nd, 2007, 11:47 AM
This thread is closed at the request of the OP per private message