Includipedia Blog

Microsoft BizSpark is a scheme whereby startups can access a load of Microsoft software without paying any money up front (but they’ll have to pay later, of course).

This is obviously attempting to compete with Linux-based server software (which is free as in beer as well as free as in speech). As Glyn Moody says: “If You Can’t Beat Them… bribe them”.

So what does BizSpark involve? The Program Guide (PDF link) explains the details. But I’ve read it, so you don’t have to. Read the rest of Microsoft BizSpark for startups »

I’ve recently come across this very funny video criticising Wikipedia (and by extension, Includipedia):

(from Good Day Sunshine)

Just to let people know, I’ve modified Includipedia so people can edit it without being logged in.

I’ve added articles for Britblog Roundup and Scottish Roundup to Includipedia.

I’ve also added an article on my blog, Amused Cynicism.

because Includipedia is inclusionist, unlike Wikipedia, there are few restrictions on what sort of material can be added there. So I’d like to take this opportunity to remind my readers that if you have a blog, you can create an article for it on Includipedia.

(this article also appears on Amused Cynicism)

The Encyclopedia of Life is is an open content web repository of information on all 1.8 million catalogued species. They also have a blog.

(via Memex 1.1)

Includipedia now has two mailing lists — a read-only announcements list (for announcements, obviously), and a discussion list where you can discuss the Includipedia project and any related subjects, for example Internet-based open content repositories.

Announcements list: subscribe | archives.

Discussion list: subscribe | archives.

Over at Crooked Timber, Eszter Hargittai notes that the Wikipedia article on Joe the plumber is being considered for deletion:

Can anyone help me understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to certain people (or topics) having entries on Wikipedia? Why do people get so worked up about the mere existence of certain entries? Currently, an entry for Joe the Plumber is being debated. Does it really dilute the value of Wikipedia to have entries like that? I remember when some people contested my entry (I wasn’t the one to put it up), it felt like some amateurish tenure review, except with not quite the same consequences. Would anyone care to defend the practice? I’m eager to understand the motivations better.

In fact, Wikipedia’s admins decided to keep it for now. But they may of course remove it later. So I’ve copied it over to Includipedia: Joe the plumber.

I’ve recently added a new video file to Includipedia’s download area. The video is a walkthrough of building the MultiMachine. MutliMachine is an open source machine tool, that can be built inexpensively by a semi-skilled mechanic with common hand tools, from discarded car and truck parts, using only commonly available hand tools and no electricity. Eventually they plan to design and build a CNC version.

You can get the video from the MultiMachine page, either as an http download or via BitTorrent.

Timothy Schmidt, who’s involved with both the MultiMachine and RepRap project, provided me with the video. He has also announced it on the RepRap builders blog.

507 Mechanical Movements is an old (out of copyright) book containing 507 diagrams and descriptions of simple mechanical devices. As such, it’s useful source material for RepRap users. Consequently, RepRap user Timothy Schmidt has scanned this book and the entire contents are now available online at Includipedia.

When kids fail exams, it’s Wikipedia’s fault, says the Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC):

According to the report, Eleanor Coner, the SPTC’s information officer, said: “Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching.” She noted that today’s students do the majority of their research online instead of using books or other resources that could be found at the library.

The internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, was one of the Council’s main concerns because its very nature allows it to be edited by anyone and it is not updated by verified researchers, they said.

In addition, the Council was worried that students don’t know how to research and tend to put faith in the validity of online resources. Says Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, “We need to make sure youngsters don’t take what they read online as fact.”

Wikipedia isn’t perfect, but then again nor is any other source of information, online or offline. Instead of blaming Wikipedia for the failings of the Scottish educational system, why not instead teach kids how to use Wikipedia and other internet resources effectively, like they’re doing in Australia:

In an Australian first, NSW HSC students will from next year be able to take a course in studying Wikipedia, the online collaborative encyclopedia.

Wikipedia, which ranks among the world’s top-10 most visited sites, has been listed by the NSW Board of Studies as prescribed text for an elective course in the English syllabus for 2009-2012.

The website is one of a number of “texts” - a choice that also includes a book and a movie - which students can choose to study in an elective called the Global Village, a course examining how the world’s communities communicate and interact.

Don Carter, the English inspector at the Board of Studies, said the course was intended to teach students skills of analysis to enable them to be more discerning about content they found on the web.

(via Techdirt)