Because I participated in a survey about semantic wikis, yours truly got Wikipedia Review.com a mention in the white paper results.



Axel Rauschmayer

Institut fur Informatik, LMU Munchen,
Oettingenstr. 67, 80538 Munchen, Germany

++++ ++++ ++++

Yehudi will be along shortly to tell us why this wasn't a productive effort for Wikipedia Review.

Why do you have to keep picking on that kid?

I skimmed through the document and wasn't able to immediately confirm if it meant RDF as in the W3C RDF specification.

Yep, that's the one -- Resource Description Framework.

Well, I think it was very nice of Gregory to mention us. Can CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and the Big Three really be so far behind?

Well, the Wikipedia Review has already graced the e- and/or pulp pages of:

• The Brooklyn Rail
• Guardian Unlimited
• The Information Week blog
• The Independent
• Fluctuat.net

That last one sounds like some BeanoTM might help the situation.

Greg

Help me out here. It seems to me that WR is an "alternative" to a wiki in a whole different sense of the word than those other sites and softwares listed. It almost seems that perhaps something was amiss in translation. Could someone explain this better to me?

The format is different from the set of rules and goals.

The format of WR is just your usual computer bulletin board. You make posts and they show up immediately, since it's lightly moderated (that is, a scurulous post would be removed or moved to the tarpit as soon as a moderator noticed it, but they might not notice for hours). Meanwhile, the thing works a lot like a Wikipedia TALK page, so long as that's all you want to do (comment on comments).

The difference is that in a Wikipedia TALK page you can also do something that you're not SUPPOSED to do, which is change other people's posts, TOO. That's what makes Wikis different. This allows collaboration on the same document, which is what a Wiki page is. Encyclopedia Dramatica, for instance, is done with Wiki software. It has very different content and policy from WP, but you see the resemblance. Once you register, you can change anything on it, including what others "say". Of course, somebody else can change it back, and there's a record of what you've done.

The other thing about Wiki software is it's usually far more hyperlink friendly. You can link to comments here on this BBS by using markup symbols, but it's harder here than on many Wikis, where a lot of stuff is done for you. Wikipedia makes links to other pages, for example, just with a [[couple of]] brackets. Here, you have to put in a lot more HTML to do that.

M.

It was just the way the question was worded in the survey, if I recall the wording was something like: "what sites do you use to accomplish your objectives when your own wiki does not meet your needs?"

Wikipedia Review.com was one of the first that popped into my head, and I thought it would be an "activist" way of getting the study authors to at least have a look-see at the site here.

Nothing more than that.

I'm not sure that's true. You can link to any WP page thus:

User:FT2

any ED page thus:

Durova

and so on. Yo can link to any other post here either by replying to it or clicking on the corner of the post where it says Post #xx to get its full URL, then pasting it in.

I was talking about the last, of course. Because posts aren't "pages" here, we can't just link then via a wiki-link as you see above. In other words, if WR were hosted as a Wiki, we could simply link stuff here from other wikis with [WR] and [/WR] tags. And we could do internal links here with just the brackets. As it is, you have to go through the URL. As you saw me do to give somebody (whatshisface with the chainjerking name) the link to my Credo, a few messages ago.

You can also use the forms:


to link to posts and topics.

See the BB Code Help Page.

The Big Disadvantage to this kind of forum is that you can't win an argument by deleting your opponent's arguments. Which is of course precisely why so many Atrociously Poor Reasoners prefer the "Strong Arm Collaboration" of the Wiki Way.

Jon

!!

I did not know this. Awesome.

Lets not have it encourage us to have big heads; big heads are for us to heel, no be. Still, it's cool to be recognize for our efforts.