import license noticesAs you'll see, I've used the boilerplate added to the bottom of imported pages (using Ontology as an example) as such:
- some content may have been adapted from the Pseudopedia article, "Ontology" under the GNU Free Documentation License
- some content may have been adapted from the Wikinfo article, "Ontology" under the GNU Free Documentation License
...I did this to reflect that the page may or may not be a verbatim copy.
A friend of mine, who has looked at Wikinfo from time to time (and is not a regular WikiEditor), said "why edit on Wikinfo, when at the bottom of the page it says 'Adapted from Wikipedia'?" The perception (and a correct one, 99.998% of the time) was that it was just a verbatim, possibly out-of-date, copy from Wikipedia, and I'd like the peception here on GetWiki to be much more flattering, while still falling in line with the GNU FDL (because our articles should not be verbatim, out-of-date copies!). We want potential editors to think, and rightly, that text here is NOT a verbatim copy of either Wikipedia or Wikinfo articles, and that they are welcome to edit here as a totally separate space from them. If you think there is a better way to accomplish this with the boilerplate, say so. If changes are needed, we can change all these notices now, before there are too many to change :) -proteus 17:26, 23 Mar 2007 (EDT)
Portions of the above article are adapted from an earlier version of thePseudopedia article, "Logical graph"weblink used under the GNU Free Documentation License.
this list to change all of them...
Some content adapted from the Wikinfo article "Ontology" under the GNU Free Documentation License.
xml errors from wikipediaThere are many XML errors in the feed from Wikipedia. I'm looking into it, but looking at the source on their site here and there reveals that garbage ("binary") characters, or non-internet-friendly language characters, are involved. This happens when people cut-n-paste from something ugly like M$ Word, and then in XML, it breaks, because XML must be well-formed (and standards are something Wikipedians seem incapable of respecting, but don't get me started). This will be most prevalent in language, mathematics, and other articles. It is not a problem with GetWiki or your browser - it's Wikipedia.
So, if you want to import a Wikipedia article and it's showing any "invalid character" error at all, simply go to Wikipedia and get the source from there directly, then paste it here, or import the Wikinfo version (which is unlikely to have the problem, since it was imported there by the same method). While you're at it, try to correct whatever character(s) is/are causing the problem from Wikipedia. Unless I discover otherwise, there is no other workaround for this, and it would have to wait until the article is updated by someone knowledgeable on Wikipedia. -proteus 11:43, 24 Mar 2007 (EDT)
for now, this:
titles of articlesOkay, let's also settle this question. I think that something like the word "Philosophy" should always be capitalized, thus, an article called "Contemporary philosophy" is just bad form, and should be "Contemporary Philosophy". Something like "Boolean domain" is maybe another question, but it still looks wrong to me (in a title of an article). Anything which is a title of a theory should also be properly capitalized, like "Systems Theory" or "Semiotic Information Theory". Again, it doesn't matter how they do it on Wikipedia (and I wonder why they didn't just continue their bad habit to "Charles pierce" and "Immanuel kant"??? See how stupid that looks??), but anyway, just think of an article here as the title of a book or journal article, where basic capitalization is observed. Is anyone going to be upset if I start moving articles and updating links?? I know it seems anal, but I'm serious about building this wiki the right way - based on my experiences with Wikinfo, I'm sick of hand-me-downs from Wikipedia ;) -proteus 11:57, 2 Apr 2007 (EDT)
JA: I'm just going by the rules that I learned in High School (high school?), and I couldn't care less (colloq. cliche) what they do in Wikiputia. A term like temporary philosophy is a common noun, unless it's the name of a book, Temporary Philosophy : Get It While It's Hot no, I don't care what APA says either or a course of study, "Temporary Philosophy 101", in which cases among others it's capitalized as a proper noun. And let's not even get into things like boolean domain and euclidean algorithm, which seem to suffer from a curious custom of honorific decapitation among mathematicians, depending in part on the degree of love inspired by the dearly departed and just how long the eponymous honoree has been dead and gone. Jon Awbrey 12:44, 4 Apr 2007 (EDT)
On this, a couple of questions:
- What about a field on the import screen allowing a change of title before saving an article for the first time?
- Are we okay with having a bunch of redirects in the database? Should they be filtered out of page counts and (Special:Allpages)?
titles/topics in text and headersJA: All those caps just don't look like contemporary English to me. My personal preference has been to use all caps for project names, book titles, etc. and to use lower case for simple topic names of the sort that would not be capitalized in normal text. Jon Awbrey 11:15, 4 Apr 2007 (EDT)
Now, I know I muddy this with my small caps headings (like on this page), but that's a style choice I try to avoid in encyclo-pages - and we can allow almost anything on non-encyclo pages or posted papers/ebooks, user pages, talk pages, etc. I would also agree that I have a tendency to captalize things just a bit more than usual, which I do out of respect for intellectual ideas, I suppose. I've been pushing this capital point so that we could come to a consensus and have all our encyclo-pages follow an attractive, non-Wikipedian form, while posted ebooks, discussions, papers, reviews, and so on could follow any form the authors want to follow. Hope all that made sense... -proteus 12:34, 4 Apr 2007 (EDT)
Addressed to an
It is examined whether the Object, Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious Mysteries and Points of Faith.
By George Berkeley
Edited by David R. Wilkins
Though I am a Stranger to your Person, yet I am not, Sir, a Stranger to the Reputation you have acquired, in that branch of Learning which hath been your peculiar Study; nor to the Authority that you therefore assume in things foreign to your Profession, nor to the Abuse that you, and too many more of the like Character, are known to make of such undue Authority, to the misleading of unwary Persons in matters of the highest Concernment, and whereof your mathematical Knowledge can by no means qualify you to be a competent Judge. Equity indeed and good Sense would incline one to disregard the Judgment of Men, in Points which they have not considered or examined. But several who make the loudest Claim to those Qualities, do, nevertheless, the very thing they would seem to despise, clothing themselves in the Livery of other Mens Opinions, and putting on a general deference for the Judgment of you, Gentlemen, who are presumed to be of all Men the greatest Masters of Reason, to be most conversant about distinct Ideas, and never to take things on trust, but always clearly to see your way, as Men whose constant Employment is the deducing Truth by the justest inference from the most evident Principles. With this bias on their Minds, they submit to your Decisions where you have no right to decide. And that this is one short way of making Infidels I am credibly informed.
Source. George Berkeley, The Analyst, David R. Wilkins (ed.).
JA: right now it's just a matter of eyestrain and saving the xcess redirs. i just really don't care all that much what other people in their own writing though. Jon Awbrey 13:50, 4 Apr 2007 (EDT)
images from wikinfoIf you're pulling images from Wikinfo, their settings still seem to be messed up, whereby their images are there in the upload directory, but their software doesn't see them (Fred suggested they reupload all their images, like that's going to happen). So, you may have to go to the image page over there (for example, weblink), click on the file link, (change the directory from "images" to "upload" in the address bar if necessary), and then download the image for uploading over here (right click or drag, etc). I suggest you go ahead and bring all the images you want over here (related to the limited-range encyclopedia pages). The ones I recently uploaded for the Philosophy pages were ones I'd "mastered" and uploaded there, for example. It may be possible for me to generate an image import script for Wikinfo/pedia - if you're like me, importing images is a real pain... -proteus 12:09, 2 Apr 2007 (EDT)
say "NO" to wikipedianismPlease clean up Wikipedianism in all imported articles. If not, they will be deleted. GetWiki is not a mirror, so look for pages that fit in and can be customized here. Make sure links are correct for this wiki, not theirs. Make sure that all text makes sense and that a page is worth saving here, based on what GetWiki is about. Many pages are not. -proteus 14:32, 28 Sep 2007 (EDT)
The notice below is now defaulted on imports, until further notice: (can't find: GetWiki:wikipedianism)
PLEASE ensure content you import is accurate, and where bias exists, put it in the proper context. Even on the pages I've edited in Philosophy, I've recently come across some "BS" content which is not welcome here. Do not mirror content here. Make GetWiki interesting by having stuff not found on the "pseudopedias"! -proteus 15:46, 11 Nov 2007 (EST)
History of Philosophy