| Revision as of 17:26, 31 May 2006 edit69.253.236.36 (talk) →Stories I have written← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 31 May 2006 edit undoDGX (talk | contribs)1,991 edits rvtNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * ] I merged information from separate articles in many parts of Wiki bringing them together in this article. | * ] I merged information from separate articles in many parts of Wiki bringing them together in this article. | ||
| * ] I made extensive edits to this previously confused story which was linked to a news item on the front page. In particular I rewrote most of the SunCruz section. | * ] I made extensive edits to this previously confused story which was linked to a news item on the front page. In particular I rewrote most of the SunCruz section. | ||
| Since I don't know how to e-mail you...being new to Wiki and such...I'll just edit you profile page. I was link hoping and managed to link hop to an article of Fox News. Recalling that FNC generates a lot of controversy with regard to its reporting I decided to look at the talk page to see the controversy. I read down a few lines and noticed that your name began to show up more and more in POV discussions. I clicked on your name and then followed the links to articles that you have edited. After reading the talk pages of these articles I have come to the conclusion that you are a rabid left winger (bordering on the FAR left). Every single one of your posts on non-computer related articles is EXTREMELY biased. Every other person who is on the talk pages legitimately tries to edit the article to add good and insightful information; you, on the other hand, seek only to add political propaganda to frame the article in the color you want it. The Fox News discussion about Peer reviewed journal vs. Internet Blog is a perfect example of this (as well as being laughable). If you could you would make all political discussions lean left. You need to remember that your job is to edit information, NOT to add political biases. My E-mail is dsasffgg@yahoo.com. You are welcome to E-mail me, but I don't think you will because people like you (rabid left wingers) rarely back up their suppositions. -Mark | |||
| == Stories I am editing == | == Stories I am editing == | ||
Revision as of 17:31, 31 May 2006
I have worked on Web encyclopedias since 1992 when I contributed to the Virtual Libary then being developed by Arthur Secret.
At the time my research interests were mainly focused on Web collaboration systems such as WIT. As I began to build the systems I realized that I would need a security infrastructure which is what I have worked on for the past 10 years.
Now I am starting to look at RSS and Misplaced Pages as examples of state of the art Web collaboration systems. My belief is that somewhere between Misplaced Pages and the Virtual library there is a system that can function for authoritative academic work.
Stories I have written
- Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal I merged information from separate articles in many parts of Wiki bringing them together in this article.
- Jack Abramoff I made extensive edits to this previously confused story which was linked to a news item on the front page. In particular I rewrote most of the SunCruz section.
Stories I am editing
- Able Danger is likely to become an important story but as yet there is not enough material
Categories I created
- Category:Computer security specialists Computer security is a separate speciality from cryptography. Many of the most important people in the security field do not have entries.
Categories I am thinking of creating
- Category:Computer networking specialists There should be a category for network protocol architects, essentially Internet pioneers, notable IETF people and notable people developing non IP protocols
- Category:Computer ai specialists There are a lot of people working on semantic web and there is a view that wikipedia is a part of that work
Readers
I would just caution that just because readers do not comment on Talk items, that does not mean they are not read, are not useful. It also sorta says the time and effort folks put into Talk is wasted. Actually, the historical Talk gives the sites development and the discusssions behind how text is discussed. You might consider editing that commment. Simply redirect readers to the content. And wait out the movers and shakers reaction.