User_talk:Sterlingda > Archive > 2003

Preface

I began using Wikipedia in Nov. 2003. I had quite a learning curve in terms of my idea of what Wikipedia should/could be and what it actually is. I respect their mission, and I've subsequently embarked on developing a similar resource but with a different mission.

ARCHIVE 2003

[edit]

A very warm welcome. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes (~~~~~). If you have any other questions about the project, check out Wikipedia:Help, add a question to the Village pump

encyclopedia: Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not

Hi, the Free Energy Wikipedia Control Panel seems a good idea. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Free Energy Wikipedia Control Panel that the page be moved to a title which conforms with other WikiProjects, which as far as I can tell is what this is. With regards to your other problem, you may want to see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies and it's accompanying case studies. Angela . 10:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From Viajero's Talk Page

"Encyclopedic"

[edit]

Hi Dysprosia and Muriel, (Cc Viajero)

Thanks for your encouragement and patience with me.

Perhaps I am in for a bit of a paradigm shift here.

Bear in mind that before I came to Wikimedia last night and logged in for the first time, I had put a lot of thought into what my team's encyclopedia would be.

For those that might be reading this without a context, let me refer you to a project I am founding called PureEnergySystems. It is an open sourcing of technology related to alternative energy, and would include an encyclopedia to reflect the latest and best thinking on any topic related to alternative energy (specifically free energy).

What I had in mind for my own encyclopedia was to be both comprehensive and concise.

All entries would be stored for retrieval, but the editorial process would present the main contents in a clean fashion, and with preference.

That way, discards of info someone thought to be irrelevant or wrong, which were in fact very relevant and very right, would still be accessible to the diligent searcher needing just the right clue to take his/her next step in their research and development.

My encyclopedia idea was built with the idea of fostering the advancement of technology while also reporting on its advancements.

Mine wasn't a free-for-all (anyone able to make changes instantaneously), but would be an editor-screened submission process.

All submissions would go into a pool for retrieval by anyone, but only the editor-approved submissions would become a part of the featured listing.

After working with Wikipedia for a day, I can see advantages to allowing anyone to do just about anything by way of submission and review. I can also see disadvantages. I'm guessing that overall it is a better model.

Is there any way I could have audience with the founder of Wikipedia and discuss together some of the basic concepts and tactics?

I don't see any appeal process built into Wikipedia. There should be a "hold" before delete. There should be an appeal allowed when someone is blocked from editing a page (e.g. I cannot edit the fire extinguisher page)

It seems the idea of top notch conciseness and quality could be paired with the idea of comprehensiveness.

Why not have the encyclopedia list every person alive on the planet? Are we not all equal in God's sight?

What makes Monica Lewinsky "better" than me? In my opinion, my listing is of value and benefit to mankind. She played her role in our nations country, and it deserves an entry; and so have I, and so do I.

No, I've not been published; but not because my work is not of value. Rather, because it is so far-reaching, most won't touch it.

I have a quote on my website: "He who is one step ahead is a genius. He who is two steps ahead is a crack pot." There is a lot of "rough around the edges" when you are a pioneer out in front breaking new ground.

Call me an egomaniac, but I have lived more than a dozen years as an activist for causes in which I believe; and though I might get the Media's attention, I am making a big difference.

Who was Monica Lewinsky before she was noticed? Monica Lewinsky.

Who was she afterward? Monica Lewinsky -- but with some fame upon which she could ride, illicit as it was.

Who is to judge what person deserves and entry and who does not?

Think of the great artists and composers who died in poverty and broken hearted, only to have their music or art become classics beloved by the world.

They were not hardly worth a footnote in their day -- or so those around them thought.

I should probably get to bed. I only had three hours of sleep last night I was so excited to get up in the morning and explore the power of Wikipedia.

I guess the question I ask at this point is, Will Wikipedia consider a change of focus -- if only for the Free Energy portion of its site -- complete with disclaimer if it prefers -- and allow a combination of comprehensiveness and conciseness? Or do I need to start looking at maybe discussing the use of your source code so we can save some time in the creation of our own system?

Let me mention that I know of several free energy technologies that are about to break out (they have working models but are preparing a more refined edition for release to the world), and the reason I created www.pureenergysystems.com was to provide a home for an open sourcing site; and along with that came the idea of the encyclopedia and academy and library and PAC, etc. When those break out, it will change the way the world looks at energy. No longer will it be scarcity. It will be abundance.

By the way, where do I go to edit my personal profile for review?

Sterling Sterlingda 10:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Angela, the Free Energy project is a great idea. I look forward to reading about the topics it suggests. "Will Wikipedia consider a change of focus -- if only for the Free Energy portion of its site" -- highly unlikely. You and your team are welcome to add content to wikipedia. But the principles of NPOV and peer review will never change for any portion of Wikipedia. As for your own biography: please read the links recommended to you above. Tarquin 10:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just read your comment and, like Tarquin, am looking forward to further contributions. Muriel Victoria 10:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Sterling, I've attempted to answer your questions below. Let me know on my talk page if you need any more help. Angela . 10:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All entries would be stored for retrieval...

All entries are kept already. Just click "page history" and you can see them.

'Mine wasn't a free-for-all (anyone able to make changes instantaneously), but would be an editor-screened submission process. '

Wikipedia might not be the best place then as here anyone can edit without any prior screening. There have been calls for this to change, and you may wish to comment at the Wikipedia needs editors page.

Is there any way I could have audience with the founder of Wikipedia and discuss together some of the basic concepts and tactics?

Yes, you can e-mail him directly through the address on his user page, or through the mailing lists (Wikien-l for matters relating to the English Wikipedia, or Wikipedia-l for wider project and policy issues).

I don't see any appeal process built into Wikipedia. There should be a "hold" before delete.

There is. See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

There should be an appeal allowed when someone is blocked from editing a page (e.g. I cannot edit the fire extinguisher page)

That page isn't blocked. The Anome chose to remove your edits from the page. You might want to discuss it at Talk:fire extinguisher. If a page is blocked, then you can appeal at Wikipedia talk:Protected page

I guess the question I ask at this point is, Will Wikipedia consider a change of focus -- if only for the Free energy portion of its site -- complete with disclaimer if it prefers -- and allow a combination of comprehensiveness and conciseness? Or do I need to start looking at maybe discussing the use of your source code so we can save some time in the creation of our own system?

The source code is open source, so you are welcome to do that. See http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/. Angela . 10:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page (probably a lot in common with what Angela just said) Dysprosia 10:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, pages like Wikipedia:Destiny Completely Thorough Encyclopedia should be at Meta as it talking about Wikipedia, rather than being an encyclopedia article in its own right. I have moved the content there. The current page will probably be deleted in a week, so if you wish to work on it further I suggest you go to m:Destiny Completely Thorough Encyclopedia. Angela . 22:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Sterlingda, i removed my comment from VfD page. I am realy looking forward to your contributions but i didnt specify that i was looking forward the project. I also find abusive to see general comments i made to you translated (or trying to pass as) votes in VfD. Therefore, i will never again comment on your work nor write in this page. I wish you all the best, Muriel Victoria 09:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Continuing our discussion here rather than on the VfD page. Let me explain myself. When I said I was familiar with your work, I meant I was familiar with what you have contributed on Wikipedia. It's easy to track down everything someone has worked on, and see what they've contributed to and how.

My objections to your project were two-fold. First was that yes, I consider the majority of fringe science to be bunk, and I don't want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of things most people don't accept. But of greater concern was your behavior, and what it suggested that you'd do with your WikiProject.

Self-promotion is not encouraged here (research the controversy around Daniel C. Boyer for an example of someone who's been accused of this.) You have made some useful contributions, but seveal things you've done are bad form, to wit:

linking back to your own websites in articles. You've done this repeatedly.
creating pages about yourself.
manipulating others' comments to serve your purposes.
promoting a change in the fundamental structure of Wikipedia to suit your purposes, after having been here for less than a week.

The goal of Wikipedia is to create a refence work. Your WikiProject seemed to have the goal of promoting your website, your ideas, and yourself.

If you want to contribute to Wiki articles on various alternative energy topics, that's great. I've looked at your website, and you do seem to be pretty good about providing a balanced perspective. There could be a valid project along the lines that you're proposing (although I would suggest the name Alternative Energy Sources, as it would attract you less hostility and more contributors.) I can't speak for others, but I would personally support having such a project, once I'm convinced that it won't be misused. Go write. A contributor's record speaks for itself. If you do good work, don't appear self-promoting, and keep your writing NPOV, you will gain respect. Isomorphic 21:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MY REPLY TO ISOMORPHIC, POSTED ON HIS TALK PAGE:

Hi Isomorphi,

Thanks for your remarks on my talk page.

I think Wikipedia folks need to take it easy on newcomers who create profile pages on the main directory. Gently inform them that the info belongs on the uers provile, not on the encyclopedic directory.

Also, I ask you for some slack on me. How many people join Wikipedia having condemplated founding an encyclopedia themselves?

Okay, so I'm a bit ambitious. Just work with me, but don't shun me for exuberance alone.

I sense that now that you've had a chance to review my site you can see that I am capable of objective reporting.

Here is the latest press release I've composed, as another sample of what I can do with the subject of alternative energy:

Genesis World Energy Under Investigation for Fraud - NJ Attorney General's office engaged in full investigation into likely securities fraud. Eyewitnesses say one of the bench-top model used by GWE for proof of concept demos is nothing more than a slight modification of a fuel cell device sold at Hammacher Schlemmer.

Would you now consider going into the vote:delete page and reversing your position?

Thanks

Sterlingda 07:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikipedia community should value its newcomers, and I appreciate your enthusiasm. "Vanity pages" annoy me, but it seems to be a relatively common thing for some new people to do, and it doesn't harm anything in the long run.

I think I should clarify a couple things. First, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Energy is going to be deleted. Even if I changed my vote, it's not going to matter. Other than your own, there are no actual votes in favor of keeping it. Your 6:4 number was based on including comments you moved from your talk page - they weren't intended as votes by the writers, so they won't be counted as such. So I wouldn't suggest getting an emotional attachment.

On the other hand, this is only a vote on that page. It is not a referendum on whether you should stay, or on whether you should keep contributing, or even on which articles you should contribute to. It's not that big a deal. You can store that content indefinitely on your user page if you wish, and if it becomes appropriate in the future, it can be used.

A WikiProject page exists to only to facilitate cooperation among users on specific projects. There's nothing to prevent you, as an editor, from starting to work on the project even without having a coordination page for now. If others see that this work is beneficial, then no one will have a problem with a WikiProject to support it.

You misunderstood my last comment somewhat. I'm not, myself, interested in spending much time on your website (although I did look around some.) What I would like to see is a record of useful contributions to Wikipedia. Spend some time writing and editing, and try to stick to stuff that's not too far off the beaten path. Topics related to Solar energy or fuel cells might be good.

Put in a couple weeks work here. Follow the community standards, including Wikiquette. Then, when you've already produced a good volume of useful content, try restarting the WikiProject. I promise that I at least will support you if I'm around, if you've shown a pattern of useful contributions, and if you've generally behaved in a way that suggests you would be a good project leader. My endorsement won't mean much by itself, of course, but there will be others who think like I do. Isomorphic 11:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Sterling, regarding using the MediaWiki software, have a look at m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Installation for installation instructions. You could also ask on the mailing lists (mediawiki-l or wikitech-l). There are many other sites that do this. See Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki. Hope that helps. Angela . 00:05, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please reread my comments above. Stop petitioning. Just Write. You're missing the point of Wikipedia. The focus here is not on WikiProject pages, user pages, meta pages, and other accessories, it's on encyclopedia articles. Your time and energy are being wasted on a side issue. Quit worrying so much about one page.

Feel free to message me for help writing articles, for suggestions on what to write about, to ask me to copy-edit your work, or for anything else directly related to the encyclopedia. I'll ignore any further messages about your WikiProject, because I've fully explained my opinions already, and they are all still here for you to read. Isomorphic 20:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bandwidth is donated by Bomis (Jimbo Wales's company), which has so much extra unused bandwidth that it doesn't cost them anything to donate it to us. All but one piece of equipment was donated by Bomis, too; except the new $5,000 anonymous donation that helped pay for the new server. I don't know the other details, sorry. --Uncle Ed 14:06, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sterling, to see the current bandwidth usage of Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/stats/ for a detailed breakdown. Future bandwidth is expected to continue to rise exponentially as time goes on. -- The Anome 20:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Saw your question on Jimbo's page.

[edit]

I don't know how much money Jimbo spends on bandwidth (we have asked several times and he either says not to worry about it or that it is not a significant amount compared to regular Bomis traffic - some of us think, however, that he is being modest) but I do know that the Wikimedia Foundation owns all the computer equipment that runs the Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedia). We have two websevers and one large database server (all three machines are rackmount size). Last time I heard, our webservers both have dual Athlon processors and 2 GB of RAM each and our database server is a brand new dual Opteron (64 bit processor from AMD) with 3 GB of RAM. Each webserver should cost between US$2000-3000 new and the database server cost us just over US$9000. This is all from memory, however. If you need specifics ask user:Brion VIBBER (our main developer). See also: Wikipedia:Servers. --mav 00:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One webserver is a dual Athlon, the other is a single Pentium III. (There are faster processors for it, but they are not presently installed because there were some problems.) Both have 2 gigs of RAM. The database server (the dual Opteron) has 4 gigs RAM. Bandwidth usage for all wikis together is something on the order of 600 gigabytes/month (2 megabits/sec average); Bomis donates the bandwidth and I don't know what they pay for it or what portion of their overall bandwidth it would be. --Brion 09:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Archived by Sterlingda 05:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)