This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Electronic literature | ||||
|
I offer an external link to the article on electronic publishing -- my new website, readersandwritersblog.com. It is a nonprofit site intended to give writers a place to publish their work -- nonfiction, fiction or poetry of any length, published or unpublished -- and to give readers a chance to read that work and, if they choose, to comment on it. Sid Leavitt 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Sid Leavitt
An editor added a spam warning to the external link list. But if Wikipedia is to have an article on electronic publishing (as I think it should), then surely some links to electronic publishers make sense as exemplars and sources of further information. This is, in fact, the most conventional use of external links in articles about industry sectors. The list as it stands seems reasonable, if incomplete. MarkBernstein 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Further, all four vendor links connect to wikipedia pages about the vendors. "Wikipedia spam consists of external links. The external links section is haphazard but not wikipedia spam. MarkBernstein ( talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
MarkBernstein, the Electronic books table while very helpful contains some misleading information and is missing some information. Acrobat is an open source foundation at the engineering level that according to Adobe R&D is not their concern. We are most of us aware that Acrobat is running well on many OS platforms, while Adobe is falling back under a deluge of security issues (No Creative Cloud R&D for two years due to mounting security threats and incidents). Yet under Reading Software, "Adobe Acrobat" is listed: this should be corrected to just "Acrobat". Under Editing, Word is missing. For the last four years, since Word 2010 (released 2009), word saves nicely into PDF format. In Windows 8.1, the saved PDF then automatically opens in the Windows Acrobat reader. With recent Acrobat full versions, full version will open rather than reader, so forget single-line reader edits in rough typeface, full version Acrobat will now touch up your Acrobat documents with full access to required typeface. Create with Word's unrestricted layouts: minor publication edits with Acrobat (in reader interface). Word is easily stepped as source editor for all PDF publications. Can't remember when I published PDF any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codestoned ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I deleted a proposed section comparing electronic to conventional publishing, finding the proposed text read as advocacy (or advertising?) rather than adding to the reader's knowledge. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That's odd, to say the least. five years ago, I deleted a section for the reasons described above. I don't remember the details, but there seems to have been no support for that section then, or in the intervening sixty months. For my own opinions on the economy of new media, see my essay on Designing A New Media Economy in the journal Genre; you may find them less far from your own than you expect. I can't imagine why you feel this 2013 edit suddenly offends your health excellence initiative,
MarkBernstein (
talk) 04:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This Wiki should mention this distinction, under a comparison of electronic and conventional publishing, so that readers can draw their own conclusions about the presence of 'personal creativity' in electronic publishing.
Ummmmm….. OK. There's a good deal of WP:OR original research here, a bit of a conspiracy theory, and a dollop of WP:FRINGE pseudoscience. But, of course, questions of preservation and societal impact are worth considering -- assuming, of course, that they will be treated in an encyclopedic and neutral manner, scrupulously tied to the best and most reliable sources. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Can some sharp eyes tell if the page number for the term of Aspartame is a bold type or not in the following...???
-- 222.64.211.100 ( talk) 07:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, have a look at my comment at
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
and
the search results of
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
See how many website of international cities in China are of genuine dual-language publishing-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
By looking at the above government pages, I'm not sure whether all the foreign journalists travelling to china are capable of comprehension of Chinese-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You see the function of English version is not equivalent to the one of Chinese which is of search capabilities
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You can see from the following how may journalism courses offer SEO training
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, all the search engine producers needs to be aware of the above results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh Lord, he's back! andy ( talk) 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose adding online video media (youtube and the like) to the list of new media examples Kcalmond ( talk) 15:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I would suggest adding this information regarding Hybridity of publishing for into the main Electronic Publishing entry. This information comes from a peer reviewed source.
According to a study by Brown et. al. there are three different forms of “hybrid publication” (publication that is produced simultaneously in print and digital form):
(Redacted) An example of hybrid form publication would be an electronic version of a book containing elements that remind us of a parallel printed version. This is not solely through page facsimiles but through the use of tools provided by the print version. For instance, a table of contents where instead of providing page numbers, it would provide hyperlinks directing the reader to specific page locations within the electronic version of the book. [1]
Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Typography#"Digital typography" that may interest editors. The present redirect target of Digital typography is being debated. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Electronic literature | ||||
|
I offer an external link to the article on electronic publishing -- my new website, readersandwritersblog.com. It is a nonprofit site intended to give writers a place to publish their work -- nonfiction, fiction or poetry of any length, published or unpublished -- and to give readers a chance to read that work and, if they choose, to comment on it. Sid Leavitt 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Sid Leavitt
An editor added a spam warning to the external link list. But if Wikipedia is to have an article on electronic publishing (as I think it should), then surely some links to electronic publishers make sense as exemplars and sources of further information. This is, in fact, the most conventional use of external links in articles about industry sectors. The list as it stands seems reasonable, if incomplete. MarkBernstein 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Further, all four vendor links connect to wikipedia pages about the vendors. "Wikipedia spam consists of external links. The external links section is haphazard but not wikipedia spam. MarkBernstein ( talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
MarkBernstein, the Electronic books table while very helpful contains some misleading information and is missing some information. Acrobat is an open source foundation at the engineering level that according to Adobe R&D is not their concern. We are most of us aware that Acrobat is running well on many OS platforms, while Adobe is falling back under a deluge of security issues (No Creative Cloud R&D for two years due to mounting security threats and incidents). Yet under Reading Software, "Adobe Acrobat" is listed: this should be corrected to just "Acrobat". Under Editing, Word is missing. For the last four years, since Word 2010 (released 2009), word saves nicely into PDF format. In Windows 8.1, the saved PDF then automatically opens in the Windows Acrobat reader. With recent Acrobat full versions, full version will open rather than reader, so forget single-line reader edits in rough typeface, full version Acrobat will now touch up your Acrobat documents with full access to required typeface. Create with Word's unrestricted layouts: minor publication edits with Acrobat (in reader interface). Word is easily stepped as source editor for all PDF publications. Can't remember when I published PDF any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codestoned ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I deleted a proposed section comparing electronic to conventional publishing, finding the proposed text read as advocacy (or advertising?) rather than adding to the reader's knowledge. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That's odd, to say the least. five years ago, I deleted a section for the reasons described above. I don't remember the details, but there seems to have been no support for that section then, or in the intervening sixty months. For my own opinions on the economy of new media, see my essay on Designing A New Media Economy in the journal Genre; you may find them less far from your own than you expect. I can't imagine why you feel this 2013 edit suddenly offends your health excellence initiative,
MarkBernstein (
talk) 04:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This Wiki should mention this distinction, under a comparison of electronic and conventional publishing, so that readers can draw their own conclusions about the presence of 'personal creativity' in electronic publishing.
Ummmmm….. OK. There's a good deal of WP:OR original research here, a bit of a conspiracy theory, and a dollop of WP:FRINGE pseudoscience. But, of course, questions of preservation and societal impact are worth considering -- assuming, of course, that they will be treated in an encyclopedic and neutral manner, scrupulously tied to the best and most reliable sources. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Can some sharp eyes tell if the page number for the term of Aspartame is a bold type or not in the following...???
-- 222.64.211.100 ( talk) 07:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, have a look at my comment at
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
and
the search results of
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
See how many website of international cities in China are of genuine dual-language publishing-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
By looking at the above government pages, I'm not sure whether all the foreign journalists travelling to china are capable of comprehension of Chinese-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You see the function of English version is not equivalent to the one of Chinese which is of search capabilities
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You can see from the following how may journalism courses offer SEO training
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, all the search engine producers needs to be aware of the above results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.29.88 ( talk) 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh Lord, he's back! andy ( talk) 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose adding online video media (youtube and the like) to the list of new media examples Kcalmond ( talk) 15:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I would suggest adding this information regarding Hybridity of publishing for into the main Electronic Publishing entry. This information comes from a peer reviewed source.
According to a study by Brown et. al. there are three different forms of “hybrid publication” (publication that is produced simultaneously in print and digital form):
(Redacted) An example of hybrid form publication would be an electronic version of a book containing elements that remind us of a parallel printed version. This is not solely through page facsimiles but through the use of tools provided by the print version. For instance, a table of contents where instead of providing page numbers, it would provide hyperlinks directing the reader to specific page locations within the electronic version of the book. [1]
Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 23:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Typography#"Digital typography" that may interest editors. The present redirect target of Digital typography is being debated. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)