References

It was the most radical computer dream of the hacker era. Ted Nelson's Xanadu project was supposed to be the universal, democratic hypertext library that would help human life evolve into an entirely new form.

by Roy Thomas Fielding Doctor of Philosophy in Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine, 2000 Professor Richard N. Taylor, Chair ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION INTRODUCTION

Pushing to interested servers.

This page describes the process, including instructions for how and why to create a request for comment (RfC), to participate in one, and to end one. RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Alternative processes include third opinion, reliable sources noticeboard, neutral point of view noticeboard, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and, for editors' behavior, the administrator's incident noticeboard and binding arbitration. What an RfC is Before starting the process Creating an RfC Formatting example Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page Publicizing RfCs How to find RfCs Responding to RfCs Ending RfCs Closing the discussion Someone lists conclusions (if any) and discourages further discussion. Some editors make a distinction between "closing" a discussion (discouraging further discussion, usually with the {{closed rfc top}} tag pair) and "summarizing" a discussion (naming outcomes). Neither "closing" nor "summarizing" are required. Duration Reasons and ways to end RfCs Closing the discussion Restarting an RfC

Wikipedia is the product of the contributions of millions of editors, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but all united by a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance and improve the content in it at any time. Adding information to Wikipedia Creating articles Mass page creation Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required Neutrality in articles of living or recently deceased persons Try to fix problems Problems that may justify removal Talking and editing Be helpful: explain Be cautious with major changes: discuss But – Wikipedia is not a discussion forum If you need help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is accepted as the best method to achieve the Five Pillars—Wikipedia's goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Achieving consensus Through editing Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work. Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute. Be bold, but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and reversions of vandalism. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert. Through discussion Consensus-building Administrative or community intervention Pitfalls and errors Determining consensus No consensus after discussion Consensus can change Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

test

Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework Authorship Provisions in Augment

At Seed Hypermedia, we're working on enhancing the user experience (UX) of embedded and transcluded content from one web page to another. A question has arisen that I believe has broader implications for hypertext systems, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. Should transcluded content be selectable, having the same behaviour as the rest of the content? Should transclusions be clickable, acting like an embedded tweet? Any design principles or historical perspectives from Xanadu and Augment you can share would be much appreciated. t

“Consider a future device …  in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.” By Vannevar Bush Keywords: Keywords This has not been a scientist's war; it has been a war in which all have had a part. The scientists, burying their old professional competition in the demand of a common cause, have shared greatly and learned much. It has been exhilarating to work in effective partnership. Now, for many, this appears to be approaching an end. What are the scientists to do next? For the biologists, and particularly for the medical scientists, there can be little indecision, for their war has hardly required them to leave the old paths. Many indeed have been able to carry on their war research in their familiar peacetime laboratories. Their objectives remain much the same. WOW It is the physicists who have been thrown most violently off stride, who have left academic pursuits for the making of strange destructive gadgets, who have had to devise new methods for their unanticipated assignments. They have done their part on the devices that made it possible to turn back the enemy, have worked in combined effort with the physicists of our allies. They have felt within themselves the stir of achievement. They have been part of a great team. Now, as peace approaches, one asks where they will find objectives worthy of their best. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8