322 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2024
    1. I don't see the relevance of @chrisaldrich's mention of how "people are slowly adding small atomic pieces of information" to Wikipedia: that is about text editing, not about text structure and purpose. People do the same with any document in Google Docs, for example!


      Perhaps Wikipedia's underlying zettelkasten nature is hiding in the more narrative nature of the ultimate pages, but it's definitely there. The "standard" web user interface view of Wikipedia pages makes it less obvious that the added pieces are atomic in nature, and that Wikipedia in fact is a group zettelkasten being built in the public/commons. However, if you've customized your own specific view of Wikipedia; are using an Atom Subscription (and yes, it's actually called this!); watching recent changes; or are using the history functionality (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zettelkasten&action=history), then you're getting closer to the sorts of views of atomic additions I was speaking of. Some of this is also the reason that there is a checkbox for "minor edits" to take account of typos and minutiae which are sub-atomic and filters out or cleans up the stream of the updates one could receive.

      Viewed from this perspective, Wikipedia is a distributed zettelkasten of the highest order. Intellectually all this traces back to the original zettelkasten of Konrad Gessner, who uncoincidentally is one of the most famous and prolific encyclopedists in history.

      One could easily take small notes made in their own zettelkasten and add them on a 1-1 corresponding basis (including the note, the references, and even a unique identifier chosen and applied by Wikipedia; here's an example with the identifier 1118181304 as a demonstration) to a variety of Wikipedia articles. For certain topics I'm interested in watching, this can be a great boon to my own zettelkasten as I can reverse this process and subscribe to/watch additions at the smallest level and not only excerpt them directly into my zettelkasten, but I can usually locate the original source and excerpt directly from it as a means of verification/fact checking. As a result this zettelkasten being built in the commons on a daily basis can be imminently more useful to me. (Sadly, I don't think that many others are using it the same way or if they are, they're not doing so at the rate/speed/facility that I am.)

      A similar example can be seen in the topically arranged group zettelkasten created for The Great Books of the Western World which was lightly edited into the book form of The Syntopicon (volumes 2 and 3 of the 54 book series). One could certainly try to argue that The Syntopicon isn't a zettelkasten because it is in edited book form, but in fact, it's just an easier published and more portable form for me to have a copy of Adler and Company's physical zettelkasten as the end product is a 1-1 version of their card index with some introductory material added for readability and direction. The sad part here is that Adler's zettelkasten has ceased updating in 1952 while Wikipedia continues apace.

      For the "fans", one might say Wikipedia is even more closely related to Luhmann's variation of a zettelkasten as the user adding a particular idea doesn't need to add explicit links to other external ideas (though they certainly could), but by placing it on a particular page in a particular paragraph, they're juxtaposing it to a specific location that closely relates it to nearby ideas which already exist in that particular page (train of though/folgezettel).

      Certainly Wikipedia has a hypertextual nature as well as a text and document editing capabilities and dozens of other interesting and useful affordances, but at it's core, it's true soul is that of a (digital) zettelkasten.

      Reply to @andy at https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/20462/#Comment_20462

    1. A module on “Good Quality Travel Sites” would lead reasonable readers to conclude that a whitelist exists for Google in the travel sector (unclear if this is exclusively for Google’s “Travel” search tab, or web search more broadly). References in several places to flags for “isCovidLocalAuthority” and “isElectionAuthority” further suggests that Google is whitelisting particular domains that are appropriate to show for highly controversial of potentially problematic queries. 

      We know they whitelist electrion sites. Would they do this with climate science

  2. Apr 2024
    1. IA’s lending serves additional transformative purposes by enabling innovativeinteractions between books and the Internet, such as cite-checking online resourceslike Wikipedia.

      Wikipedia cite-checking as transformative CDL purpose

    1. la place de la chiropraxi citons Wikipédia la Fédération Mondiale de chirropractique 00:11:12 WFC est membre de l'OMS depuis 1993 la chiropratique est reconnue comme profession de santé complémentaire par le Comité international olympique depuis 00:11:25 1992 la chiropratique est en 2009 la 3e profession de santé aux États-Unis après la médecine générale et la chirurgie dentaire en France la chyopraxie est 00:11:37 reconnue depuis la loi du 4 mars 2002 cette pratique est rattachée au code de la santé publique par l'article 75 comme profession de santé fin de citations de 00:11:48 Wikipédia
  3. Mar 2024
    1. The old man looked like an Egyptian priest, making Gordian knots for the temple of Ammon

      History on the Gordian knot “The cutting of the Gordian Knot is an Ancient Greek legend associated with Alexander the Great in Gordium in Phrygia, regarding a complex knot that tied an oxcart. Reputedly, whoever could untie it would be destined to rule all of Asia. In 333 BC Alexander was challenged to untie the knot. Instead of untangling it laboriously as expected, he dramatically cut through it with his sword, thus exercising another form of mental genius. It is thus used as a metaphor for a seemingly intractable problem which is solved by exercising brute force“

  4. Feb 2024
    1. Wikipédia, nouvelle cible des conspirationnistes | Le Dock Présenté par @lamhua | ARTE

      Résumé de la vidéo [00:20:57][^1^][1] - [00:41:12][^2^][2]:

      Cette partie de la vidéo discute de l'engagement citoyen et de la collaboration dans la contribution à Wikipédia, soulignant l'importance des sources fiables et de la neutralité dans la rédaction des articles.

      Points forts: + [00:20:57][^3^][3] Le rôle des bots * Automatisation et filtres + [00:22:12][^4^][4] Les élections européennes * Impact potentiel sur Wikipédia + [00:22:34][^5^][5] La collaboration sur Wikipédia * Processus horizontal et sans chef + [00:23:00][^6^][6] Devenir contributeur * Facilité d'intégration et d'impact + [00:26:40][^7^][7] L'influence de Wikipédia * Enquête sur les coulisses + [00:27:12][^8^][8] Les principes de Wikipédia * Rédaction neutre et vérifiable Résumé de la vidéo [00:41:14][^1^][1] - [01:02:03][^2^][2]:

      Cette vidéo explore le processus de vérification des faits sur YouTube, en se concentrant sur l'évaluation de la véracité des déclarations et l'utilisation d'extensions pour afficher les résultats du fact-checking. Elle discute également des défis liés à la neutralité de Wikipédia face à des acteurs puissants et des efforts pour maintenir l'intégrité de l'encyclopédie.

      Points saillants: + [00:41:14][^3^][3] Vérification des faits sur YouTube * Utilisation d'extensions pour le fact-checking * Évaluation de la véracité des déclarations + [00:43:08][^4^][4] Manipulation de Wikipédia * Tentatives de modification par des entreprises * Projet antipub pour contrer le contenu promotionnel + [00:53:50][^5^][5] Le rôle des patrouilleurs * Nettoyage des pages vandalisées ou modifiées * Maintien des règles et de la vérifiabilité + [01:00:38][^6^][6] Défis de neutralité pour Wikipédia * Garantir la neutralité face à des acteurs influents * Projet antipub et patrouilleurs comme solution Résumé de la vidéo [01:02:04][^1^][1] - [01:20:47][^2^][2]:

      La partie 4 de la vidéo aborde la lutte contre le vandalisme sur les plateformes collaboratives, la perception de la fiabilité de Wikipédia par les jeunes, et l'importance de la contribution collective à la vérification de l'information.

      Points forts: + [01:02:04][^3^][3] Lutte contre le vandalisme * Importance de la collaboration * Ne pas nourrir les trolls + [01:03:07][^4^][4] Perception de la fiabilité * Les jeunes doutent de la fiabilité * Impact des contributions initiales + [01:04:01][^5^][5] Importance de l'éducation * Sensibilisation des collégiens * Encouragement à la contribution + [01:05:01][^6^][6] Rôle des enseignants * Valorisation de la recherche approfondie * Promotion de la curiosité + [01:06:02][^7^][7] Wikipédia comme source * Importance de la vérification * Wikipédia parmi d'autres sources + [01:07:12][^8^][8] Qualité et admissibilité * Amélioration continue de la qualité * Critères d'admissibilité sur Wikipédia Résumé de la vidéo [01:20:49][^1^][1] - [01:41:23][^2^][2]:

      Cette partie de la vidéo discute des processus de prise de décision au sein de la communauté Wikipédia, en particulier sur les débats relatifs à l'écriture inclusive et les tentatives de manipulation de l'encyclopédie pour des fins politiques.

      Points forts: + [01:20:49][^3^][3] Choix des photos sur Wikipédia * Débats sur la pertinence des photos + [01:21:51][^4^][4] Écriture inclusive sur Wikipédia * Sondage et prise de décision communautaire * Résistance à l'écriture inclusive + [01:29:01][^5^][5] Intégrité de Wikipédia * Surveillance des modifications suspectes * Exemples de pages "ripolinées" + [01:31:03][^6^][6] Modifications politiques sur Wikipédia * Utilisation de bots pour détecter les changements * Cas d'un wikipédien influent trahissant la communauté Résumé de la vidéo [01:41:25][^1^][1] - [02:01:12][^2^][2]:

      La vidéo discute de l'utilisation de Wikipédia pour la réputation politique, la manipulation de l'information, et les défis de la patrouille de contenu. Elle souligne l'importance de la vérification des sources et la responsabilité éditoriale sur Wikipédia.

      Points forts: + [01:41:25][^3^][3] Wikipédia et la vie privée * Création de comptes pour protéger la vie privée + [01:42:00][^4^][4] L'impact politique de Wikipédia * Utilisé pour vérifier les politiciens * Modifications par des comptes anonymes + [01:43:05][^5^][5] La vérification avant les élections * Les électeurs consultent Wikipédia pour s'informer sur les candidats + [01:44:00][^6^][6] La guerre d'information avant les législatives * Modifications intensives sur les pages des députés + [01:45:02][^7^][7] Le rôle des patrouilleurs et des bots * Surveillance des modifications suspectes + [01:46:01][^8^][8] Les défis de la détection des manipulations subtiles * Nécessité d'améliorer les outils de détection + [01:49:01][^9^][9] Les modifications depuis les lieux de pouvoir * Surveillance des modifications provenant des institutions gouvernementales + [01:57:01][^10^][10] Le cas d'Ecosia sur Wikipédia * Exemple de détournement de sources et de contenu promotionnel Résumé de la vidéo [02:01:14][^1^][1] - [02:23:56][^2^][2] :

      Cette vidéo explore les complexités et les risques associés à la contribution à Wikipédia, en particulier dans les régimes autoritaires. Elle met en lumière les cas de contributeurs persécutés pour leurs activités sur l'encyclopédie en ligne et discute de la censure et de la manipulation de l'information.

      Points forts : + [02:01:14][^3^][3] Risques pour les contributeurs * Dangers de l'édition de Wikipédia sous des régimes autoritaires + [02:03:00][^4^][4] Censure et résistance * Blocage de Wikipédia dans certains pays et amendes imposées pour désinformation + [02:07:03][^5^][5] Sécurité des contributeurs * Manque de protection pour les éditeurs face aux menaces et pressions politiques + [02:10:26][^6^][6] Contributions malgré les risques * Cas de Mark Bernstein, éditeur emprisonné mais toujours actif sur Wikipédia + [02:17:23][^7^][7] Manipulation de l'information * Tentatives de modification de contenu sensible sur Wikipédia par des entités politiques + [02:20:55][^8^][8] L'impact du football * Modifications fréquentes liées au football par des fans et des fonctionnaires européens Résumé de la vidéo 02:23:58 - 02:43:55 :

      La vidéo discute de l'utilisation de Wikipédia et de l'intelligence artificielle (IA) dans le contexte de l'éducation et de la vérification de l'information. Elle aborde les défis et les opportunités liés à l'IA, notamment dans la rédaction et la contribution à Wikipédia.

      Points forts : + [02:24:00][^1^][1] Utilisation de Wikipédia * Curiosité sur l'utilisation éducative * Complexité et jargon présents + [02:26:07][^2^][2] Intelligence artificielle * Discussion sur le machine learning et ChatGPT * Impact sur la rédaction et la synthèse d'informations + [02:29:00][^3^][3] IA générative * Préoccupations sur les illustrations générées par IA * Importance de la vérification de l'information + [02:31:10][^4^][4] Enquête et patrouille * Utilisation de l'IA dans la patrouille de Wikipédia * Importance de la source et de la véracité du contenu Résumé de la vidéo 02:43:57 - 02:51:43 :

      La partie 9 de la vidéo aborde la création collaborative d'une page Wikipédia fictive, les défis de l'admissibilité et les implications juridiques de la suppression de contenu.

      Points forts : + [02:44:19][^1^][1] Contribution satirique * Texte par intelligence artificielle + [02:45:02][^2^][2] Vandalisme sur Wikipédia * Suppression rapide + [02:46:03][^3^][3] Notoriété et admissibilité * Mention dans plusieurs articles + [02:47:37][^4^][4] Cas juridiques récents * Suppression de pages controversées + [02:49:00][^5^][5] Processus de rédaction * Utilisation de brouillons + [02:50:27][^6^][6] Prochain sujet de stream * Résurrection d'espèces disparues

    1. Résumé de la vidéo de [00:00:00][^1^][1] à [00:34:00][^2^][2]:

      Cette vidéo est la quatrième partie d'une série documentaire sur Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie collaborative en ligne. La journaliste Julie Morel enquête sur les coulisses de Wikipédia, ses règles, ses contributeurs, ses failles et ses enjeux. Elle est accompagnée par plus d'un millier de citoyens européens qui participent à la rédaction collaborative et au fact-checking des articles. Ensemble, ils vont découvrir comment Wikipédia fait face aux tentatives de manipulation, de censure et de publicité de la part de personnalités, d'entreprises ou d'États.

      Points forts: + [00:00:00][^3^][3] Wikipédia, nouvelle cible des conspirationnistes * Julie Morel présente le sujet de l'enquête et les principes de Wikipédia * Elle propose une interview à Idriss Aberkan, un polémiste qui accuse Wikipédia de ne pas être neutre * Elle fait appel à Capucine, une bénévole de Wikipédia, pour apprendre à contribuer à l'encyclopédie + [00:08:08][^4^][4] Les coulisses de Wikipédia * Julie Morel rencontre des patrouilleurs, des bénévoles qui traquent les vandalismes et les contenus promotionnels sur Wikipédia * Elle découvre le projet anti-pub, qui vise à dépublier les articles trop vendeurs ou publicitaires * Elle révèle le scandale d'Avisa Partners, une agence de communication qui a manipulé Wikipédia pour le compte de grandes entreprises + [00:20:10][^5^][5] La guerre d'influence sur Wikipédia * Julie Morel s'intéresse aux pages de personnalités politiques, souvent modifiées pour supprimer des informations dérangeantes * Elle suit le travail de Tom Scott, un wikipédien anglais qui a créé un robot pour rendre publiques les modifications Wikipédia émanant des bureaux du Parlement * Elle teste le bot Parliament edits, qui permet de faire la même chose pour le Parlement français + [00:33:17][^6^][6] Conclusion * Julie Morel fait le bilan de son enquête et remercie les citoyens qui ont participé à la rédaction collaborative * Elle n'obtient pas de réponse d'Idriss Aberkan, dont les affirmations ont été en grande partie réfutées ou invérifiables * Elle souligne l'importance de Wikipédia comme source d'information et de partage de connaissance

  5. Dec 2023
  6. Nov 2023
    1. 基於變換器的雙向編碼器表示技術(英語:Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers,BERT)是用於自然語言處理(NLP)的預訓練技術,由Google提出。[1][2]2018年,雅各布·德夫林和同事建立並發布了BERT。Google正在利用BERT來更好地理解使用者搜尋語句的語意。[3] 2020年的一項文獻調查得出結論:「在一年多一點的時間裡,BERT已經成為NLP實驗中無處不在的基線」,算上分析和改進模型的研究出版物超過150篇。[4] 最初的英語BERT發布時提供兩種類型的預訓練模型[1]:(1)BERTBASE模型,一個12層,768維,12個自注意頭(self attention head),110M參數的神經網路結構;(2)BERTLARGE模型,一個24層,1024維,16個自注意頭,340M參數的神經網路結構。兩者的訓練語料都是BooksCorpus[5]以及英語維基百科語料,單詞量分別是8億以及25億。



    1. Cannot get it either to be honest. I want to use the antinet method for 2 main topics: Management and Personal growthIn management, for sure needs to add notion of leadership for example: how to approach the coding identification? I’ve assigned 2000 to management: shall I assign 2500 to all cards related to leadership? This is just an example, it’s a bit unclear for me so far.

      reply to u/marco89lcdm at https://www.reddit.com/r/antinet/comments/17m7ggz/comment/k839k22/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      The way you're currently thinking is a top down approach in which you already know everything and you're attempting to organize it to make it easier for others who know nothing about the ideas to find them. The Luhmann model supposes you know nothing about anything to begin with and you're attempting to create order from the bottom up, solely by putting related ideas you're building on close to each other and giving them numbers so that you might find them again when you need them.

      If your only use is for those two topics and closely related subtopics and nothing else, then consider not using a Luhmann-artig model? Leave off the numbers and create two tabbed cards with those headings (and possibly related subheadings) and then sort your related cards behind them. (This is closer to the commonplace book tradition maintained on index cards and used by those like Mortimer J. Adler et al., Robert Greene, Ryan Holiday and Billy Oppenheimer. Example: https://billyoppenheimer.com/notecard-system/)

      Otherwise the mistake you may be making is mentally associating the top level numbers with the topics. Break this habit! The numbers are only there so you can index ideas against them to be able to find them again! These numbers aren't like the Dewey Decimal system where 510.### will always mean something to do with math. You'll specifically want to intermingle disparate topics, so the only purpose the numbers provide is the ability to find what you're looking for by using the index which will give you a neighborhood in which you'll find the ideas you know are going to be hiding there or very near by.

      Cards that are near to each other (using the numbers as an idea of ordering and re-finding) create a neighborhood of related ideas, even if they're disparate in topics. This might allow you to intermingle two related ideas, one which is in anthropology and another from mathematics for example, but which would otherwise potentially be thousands of cards away from each other if done in a Dewey-like system.

      Or to take your example, what do you do with an idea that relates to both management AND personal growth? If it's closer to an idea on management you might place it near a related idea on that branch rather than in the personal growth section where it may be potentially less useful in the future. (You can always cross index them if need be, but place it where it creates the closest link and thus likely the greatest value for building on top of your previous ideas.)

      For more on this, try: https://boffosocko.com/2022/10/27/thoughts-on-zettelkasten-numbering-systems/

      I suspect that Scheper suggests using the Academic Outline of Disciplines as a numbering structure because it's an early choice he made for himself and it provides a perch to give people a concrete place to start. Sadly this does a disservice because it's closer to the older commonplace topical method rather than to the spirit of the ordering that Luhmann was doing. It's especially difficult for beginners who have a natural tendency to want to do this sort of top-down approach.

  7. Oct 2023
    1. Like (Rap)Genius but for the internet.

      Example: Hypothesis Plug In.

    2. Wikipedia is inherently hierarchical and therefore subject to the biases of higher ranking editors, independent of their merits.

      True, but it should never be taken as the authoritative voice and there are ways to annotate on the internet :)

    1. Federated SPARQL Query, incorporating data from both DBpedia & Wikidata

      ```sparql PREFIX wd: http://www.wikidata.org/entity/ PREFIX wdt: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/ PREFIX wikibase: http://wikiba.se/ontology# PREFIX p: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/ PREFIX ps: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/statement/ PREFIX pq: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/qualifier/ PREFIX bd: http://www.bigdata.com/rdf# PREFIX owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# PREFIX rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# PREFIX foaf: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ PREFIX dct: http://purl.org/dc/terms/SELECT DISTINCT ?dbpediaID AS ?href xsd:string(?label) AS ?name ?description ?subjectText ?item AS ?wikidataID ?dbpediaID ?image ?picture WHERE { SERVICE http://query.wikidata.org/sparql { SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?numero ( SAMPLE(?pic) AS ?picture ) WHERE { ?item p:P528 ?catalogStatement . ?catalogStatement ps:P528 ?numero . ?catalogStatement pq:P972 wd:Q14530 . OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P18 ?pic } . SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } } GROUP BY ?item ?itemLabel ?numero ORDER BY ?numero }

      SERVICE <http://dbpedia.org/sparql>
          SELECT ?item
          FROM  <http://dbpedia.org> 
              ?dbpediaID  owl:sameAs      ?item ; 
                          rdfs:label      ?label ; 
                          foaf:depiction  ?image ;
                          rdfs:comment    ?description ;
                            [ rdfs:label  ?subjectText ] .
              FILTER ( LANG(?label) = "en" ) 
              FILTER ( LANG(?description) = "en" ) 

      } ```

  8. Aug 2023
  9. Jun 2023
    1. so far as generalaccuracy of content is concerned, Wikipedia is comparable to conventionally compiledencyclopedias, including Britannica.

      This information definitely changed my opinions and views of Wikipedia. I feel like all throughout high school I was taught that Wikipedia was not a scholarly source so I always avoided looking on there because I didn't think it was accurate but reading the results of this study and the article attached about this study has changed my views of Wikipedia.

    1. There are now about 22,000 contributorsto the site, which charges between $1 and $5 per basic image

      This reminds me of the article "Wikipedia and the Death of an Expert" how there are also so many volunteers running the wikipedia page. I inserted an article that mentions how many active editors there are on wikipedia so we can really compare the similarities in contributors.

  10. May 2023
    1. Extended numbering and why use Outline of Disciplines at all? .t3_13eyg8p._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postBodyLink-VisitedLinkColor: #989898; } Several things:Why are there different listings for the Academic Outline of Disciplines? Some starts the top level with Humanities and other start with Arts which changes the numbering?I am createing an Antinet for all things. Some of the levels of the AOOD has more then 9 items so Scott's 4 digit system would not work. For some levels I would have to use two digits. Thoughts?Why even use said system? Why is it a bad reason to just start with #1 that indicates the first subject sequence, #2 for a different subject etc..?

      reply to u/drogers8 at https://www.reddit.com/r/antinet/comments/13eyg8p/extended_numbering_and_why_use_outline_of/

      Based on my research, Scott Scheper was the one of the original source for people adopting the Academic Outline of Disciplines. I've heard him say before that he recommends it only as a potential starting place for people who are new to the space and need it as a crutch to get going. It's an odd suggestion as almost all of the rest of his system is so Luhmann-based. I suspect it's a quirk of how he personally started and once moving it was easier than starting over. He also used his own ZK for showing others, and it's hard to say one thing in a teaching video when showing people something else. Ultimately it's hard to mess up on numbering choices unless you're insistent on using only whole numbers or natural numbers. I generally wouldn't suggest complex numbers either, but you might find some interesting things within your system if you did. More detail: https://boffosocko.com/2022/10/27/thoughts-on-zettelkasten-numbering-systems/ The only reason to have any standardized base or standardized numbers would be if you were attempting to have a large shared ZK with others. If this is your intent, then perhaps look at the Universal Decimal Classification, though a variety of things might also work including Dewey Decimal.

  11. Apr 2023
  12. Mar 2023
    1. Scott Scheper has popularized a numbering scheme based on Wikipedia's Outline of Academic Disciplines.

      It's not just me who's noticed this.

      Interesting that for someone propounding Luhmann's zettelkasten system that Scheper has done this. Was it because he did it himself and then didn't want to change (likely) or because he spent time seeing others' problems with Luhmann's numbering system and designed a better way (less likely)?

  13. Feb 2023
  14. Jan 2023
    1. Research has shown that limiting the width of longform text leads to a more comfortable reading experience, and better retention of the content itself.
  15. Dec 2022
  16. Nov 2022
    1. An independent initiative made by Owen Cornec who has also made many other beautiful data visualizations. Wikiverse vividly captures the fact that Wikipedia is a an awe-inspiring universe to explore.

    1. Contents 1 Overview 2 Reasons for failure 2.1 Overconfidence and complacency 2.1.1 Natural tendency 2.1.2 The illusion of control 2.1.3 Anchoring 2.1.4 Competitor neglect 2.1.5 Organisational pressure 2.1.6 Machiavelli factor 2.2 Dogma, ritual and specialisation 2.2.1 Frames become blinders 2.2.2 Processes become routines 2.2.3 Resources become millstones 2.2.4 Relationships become shackles 2.2.5 Values becomes dogmas 3 The paradox of information systems 3.1 The irrationality of rationality 3.2 How computers can be destructive 3.3 Recommendations for practice 4 Case studies 4.1 Fresh & Easy 4.2 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company 4.3 Laura Ashley 4.4 Xerox 5 See also 6 References

      Wiki table of contents of the Icarus paradox

  17. Oct 2022
    1. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as Reflinks (documentation), reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation)

      I clicked the link for reFill and thought it looked interesting. Would like to look into this further.

  18. Aug 2022
    1. On the Internet there are many collective projects where users interact only by modifying local parts of their shared virtual environment. Wikipedia is an example of this.[17][18] The massive structure of information available in a wiki,[19] or an open source software project such as the FreeBSD kernel[19] could be compared to a termite nest; one initial user leaves a seed of an idea (a mudball) which attracts other users who then build upon and modify this initial concept, eventually constructing an elaborate structure of connected thoughts.[20][21]

      Just as eusocial creatures like termites create pheromone infused mudballs which evolve into pillars, arches, chambers, etc., a single individual can maintain a collection of notes (a commonplace book, a zettelkasten) which contains memetic seeds of ideas (highly interesting to at least themselves). Working with this collection over time and continuing to add to it, modify it, link to it, and expand it will create a complex living community of thoughts and ideas.

      Over time this complexity involves to create new ideas, new structures, new insights.

      Allowing this pattern to move from a single person and note collection to multiple people and multiple collections will tend to compound this effect and accelerate it, particularly with digital tools and modern high speed communication methods.

      (Naturally the key is to prevent outside selfish interests from co-opting this behavior, eg. corporate social media.)

    1. These are the key parameters.


      rvsection = 0 specifies to only return the lead section.

    1. The academic research that was footnoted in the Wikipedia articles was found to be cited more often in subsequent academic publications, as well.

      Academic research used in Wikipedia articles drives more citations

  19. Jul 2022
    1. “Vandalism or other negative behavior can happen from time to time on Wikipedia, as is expected with any open, online platform that is available for everyone to contribute to. With that said, this specific type of behavior on Wikipedia is not common,” they added. 
  20. Jun 2022
    1. wikipedia ist fluide könnte man sagen es ist insofern fluide als es permanent am wachsen ist
    2. frei deutet darauf hin dass es hier mit partizipation zu tun hat und partizipation ist natürlich ein ganz stark aktivistische praktisch handlungsfähiges moment
    1. im idealfall ich sag nur medial voll da 00:08:39 ist nicht alles perfekt handelt es sich dabei also um ein demokratisches unterfangen

      Siehe Böhmermanns investigative Recherche zur Missbrauchsanfälligkeit von Wikipedia - also nur für ein Beispiel der Abweichung vom Idealfall

    2. wikipedia und das ist in meinen augen ein paradigma für die erkenntnistheorie die app is technologie der digitalität

      Wikipedia als Paradigma für die Erkenntnistheorie des Internets

  21. May 2022
  22. Apr 2022
    1. (6) ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “@MichaelPaulEdw1 @islaut1 @ToddHorowitz3 @richarddmorey @MaartenvSmeden and not just misguided (as too simplistic) but part of the problem....” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1356528429211021319

    1. wik2dict is a tool written in Python that converts MediaWiki SQL dumps into the DICT format. The script is available under the GNU General Public License. It is also capable of downloading Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikinews and Wikibooks SQL dumps.
  23. Mar 2022
    1. You probably know by now that if you cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source, the wrath of your professor shall be visited upon you. Why is it that even the most informative Wikipedia articles are still often considered illegitimate? And what are good sources to use? The table below summarizes types of secondary sources in four tiers. All sources have their legitimate uses, but the top-tier ones are preferable for citation.

      Even though Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia worldwide, I still should not believe everything I read on the Internet.

    1. Wikipedia has an excellent page on metacognition, which notes that “metacognition is classified into three components”:



    1. So my idea was to create a machine-tag format based on Wikipedia topics, allowing any content creator to tag content with any topic in Wikipedia. By using Wikipedia as an index, this format provides very specific identification of content across a vast knowledge domain. Call it the Dewey Decimal System for the web: “The Wiki Decimal System.” In general, the problem with machine tags is how to make them easy to add for regular folks. Although the format itself is simple, the tags are typically lengthy and require you to know the data ID for what you want to tag. Enter my hack: A web page that takes your text and builds the list of Wikipedia machine tags automatically.
  24. Feb 2022
  25. Jan 2022
  26. Dec 2021
    1. This code creates a simple web site that queries Wikipedia to get the edit history of a page and renders it as a "history flow" in SVG.
      <figure> </figure>
    1. Removing the navigational toolbar


      For example, here is an archived post discussing the id_ identity flag. This is a normal link to the Wayback Machine, which renders with the navigational toolbar:

      Here is the same archived page, with the i<var>d_</var> identity flag added to the link. This does not include the toolbar, but now the page renders poorly because of the broken references:

      Finally, here is the same archived page, with the <var>if_</var> iframe flag instead. This renders perfectly, without the toolbar:

      Since this is the most faithful reproduction of the original web page, please use the <var>if_</var> iframe flag for links to specific archive copies!

    2. Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that each citation is created or updated. New URLs added to Wikipedia articles (but not other pages) are usually automatically archived by a bot.


      In short, this is the code that needs to be added to an existing {{cite web}} or similar template:

      <ref>{{cite ... <!--EXISTING REFERENCE--> |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/<date>/http://www.originalurl.com |archive-date=<date> |url-status=dead}}</ref>
  27. Nov 2021
    1. Though firmly rooted in Renaissance culture, Knight's carefully calibrated arguments also push forward to the digital present—engaging with the modern library archives where these works were rebound and remade, and showing how the custodianship of literary artifacts shapes our canons, chronologies, and contemporary interpretative practices.

      This passage reminds me of a conversation on 2021-11-16 at Liquid Margins with Will T. Monroe (@willtmonroe) about using Sönke Ahrens' book Smart Notes and Hypothes.is as a structure for getting groups of people (compared to Ahrens' focus on a single person) to do collection, curation, and creation of open education resources (OER).

      Here Jeffrey Todd Knight sounds like he's looking at it from the perspective of one (or maybe two) creators in conjunction (curator and binder/publisher) while I'm thinking about expanding behond

      This sort of pattern can also be seen in Mortimer J. Adler's group zettelkasten used to create The Great Books of the Western World series as well in larger wiki-based efforts like Wikipedia, so it's not new, but the question is how a teacher (or other leader) can help to better organize a community of creators around making larger works from smaller pieces. Robin DeRosa's example of using OER in the classroom is another example, but there, the process sounded much more difficult and manual.

      This is the sort of piece that Vannevar Bush completely missed as a mode of creation and research in his conceptualization of the Memex. Perhaps we need the "Inventiex" as a mode of larger group means of "inventio" using these methods in a digital setting?