This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Please don't delete this; we can at least fix it up and give it its own article. jj137 ( Talk) 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite that this is a poor stub, the fact that so many other third-party journals, including Wired, have covered Veropedia gives the subject enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I recommend that the article be condensed into one overview section, on account of the lack of content, and that we wait until the site gets beyond its beta incarnation before expanding its article. Thoughts? -- Mayor Coffee Bean 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be ensured that it's made clear that they're seperate, which it wasn't beforehand, otherwise it could be very misleading - Halo ( talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source for all the listed "available languages"? I think the implication is that the encyclopaedia is available in each of those languages, but I can't see any sign that that's true (or verifiable). 80.65.247.216 ( talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tidied up the lede a bit but for now I've left in promotional content elsewhere like "The Veropedia editorial community ... is highly geared to quality article writing, seeing involvement in Veropedia as a means to return to the roots of knowledge building by focussing upon articles rather than editorial difficulties." Every company in the world has a committed work force highly geared to quality; well, it does if we're going to copy its own promotional material as factual encyclopaedia content. If people feel we need to have a description of Veropedia's self-image and objectives then it needs to be neutrally included in a section devoted to that purpose (e.g. a section on the company's ethos), not included elsewhere as statements of fact. 87.254.79.38 ( talk) 10:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
At the moment the article says "As required by its use of Wikipedia material, all Veropedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.", which it cites to the Veropedia home page. The home page, however, says "Content within Yedda Widgets are available under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commerical Share-Alike 2.5 license." Now, I've no idea what a "Yedda Widget" is but that seems to contradict our article text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.79.38 ( talk) 11:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted one sentence as follows back to the original:
Rationale:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Questions:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Veropedia
interwiki link is now working. For example, [[Veropedia:Second Seminole War]]
creates
Veropedia:Second Seminole War, which links to the Veropedia copy of
Second Seminole War. --
Ned Scott 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be useful to have a template for talk pages similar to {{ onlinesource}}:
If this looks useful, we can work this up pretty quickly. Another possibility is to make this a general template to link to any of the wikis in Category:Websites which use Wikipedia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
From the second AfD, I kept forgetting to track dowm the Cyberchiefs ref. I finally found the text, it appears to be only a passing mention as one of several examples:
Other encyclopedic user-generated projects have emerged with the stated aim of improving the reliability of articles. [three examples, 1–2 sentences for each] Finally, some Wikipedians have created Veropedia, which 'freezes' quality Wikipedia articles (they cannot be edited), resulting in 'a stable version that can be trusted by students, teachers, and anyone else who is looking for top-notch, reliable information'.24
— O'Neil, Mathieu (2009). Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. p. 153.
That's the only mention, it's in the only chapter covering wikipedia. Internal ref #24 is to veropedia itself. Obviously long past caring for now, but if we wind up having to go through AfD again, that's what this one is. DMacks ( talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Veropedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Please don't delete this; we can at least fix it up and give it its own article. jj137 ( Talk) 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite that this is a poor stub, the fact that so many other third-party journals, including Wired, have covered Veropedia gives the subject enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I recommend that the article be condensed into one overview section, on account of the lack of content, and that we wait until the site gets beyond its beta incarnation before expanding its article. Thoughts? -- Mayor Coffee Bean 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be ensured that it's made clear that they're seperate, which it wasn't beforehand, otherwise it could be very misleading - Halo ( talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source for all the listed "available languages"? I think the implication is that the encyclopaedia is available in each of those languages, but I can't see any sign that that's true (or verifiable). 80.65.247.216 ( talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tidied up the lede a bit but for now I've left in promotional content elsewhere like "The Veropedia editorial community ... is highly geared to quality article writing, seeing involvement in Veropedia as a means to return to the roots of knowledge building by focussing upon articles rather than editorial difficulties." Every company in the world has a committed work force highly geared to quality; well, it does if we're going to copy its own promotional material as factual encyclopaedia content. If people feel we need to have a description of Veropedia's self-image and objectives then it needs to be neutrally included in a section devoted to that purpose (e.g. a section on the company's ethos), not included elsewhere as statements of fact. 87.254.79.38 ( talk) 10:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
At the moment the article says "As required by its use of Wikipedia material, all Veropedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.", which it cites to the Veropedia home page. The home page, however, says "Content within Yedda Widgets are available under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commerical Share-Alike 2.5 license." Now, I've no idea what a "Yedda Widget" is but that seems to contradict our article text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.79.38 ( talk) 11:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted one sentence as follows back to the original:
Rationale:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Questions:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Veropedia
interwiki link is now working. For example, [[Veropedia:Second Seminole War]]
creates
Veropedia:Second Seminole War, which links to the Veropedia copy of
Second Seminole War. --
Ned Scott 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be useful to have a template for talk pages similar to {{ onlinesource}}:
If this looks useful, we can work this up pretty quickly. Another possibility is to make this a general template to link to any of the wikis in Category:Websites which use Wikipedia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
From the second AfD, I kept forgetting to track dowm the Cyberchiefs ref. I finally found the text, it appears to be only a passing mention as one of several examples:
Other encyclopedic user-generated projects have emerged with the stated aim of improving the reliability of articles. [three examples, 1–2 sentences for each] Finally, some Wikipedians have created Veropedia, which 'freezes' quality Wikipedia articles (they cannot be edited), resulting in 'a stable version that can be trusted by students, teachers, and anyone else who is looking for top-notch, reliable information'.24
— O'Neil, Mathieu (2009). Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. p. 153.
That's the only mention, it's in the only chapter covering wikipedia. Internal ref #24 is to veropedia itself. Obviously long past caring for now, but if we wind up having to go through AfD again, that's what this one is. DMacks ( talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Veropedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)