Single page cheat-sheet for wikipedia editing codes.

Added a Customer Problems section to let future potential customers be aware that all is not "peaches and cream" with the setup and configuration of the Slingbox.

Also, made it clear that SlingBox is only viewable with the companies proprietary video player client - that wasn't clear to me when I bought it as I expected to be able to view my video stream from a generic web client using standard video streaming clients.

Quoted: dbpedia.org is a community effort to extract structured information from Wikipedia
and to make this information available on the Web. dbpedia allows you to ask
sophisticated queries against Wikipedia and to link other datasets on the Web
to Wikipedia data.

The Cryptography Portal on Wikipedia looks pretty interesting!

The Wikipedia "Home Page" for mathematical articles.

Good example of how Wikipedians organize themselves not only to edit individual articles, but also to organize and structure whole areas of knowledge; in this case, mathematical articles.

Here we find articles that are in need of improvement, the creation of a "Mathematics Portal" page, a Q&A section, etc.

(Also an awesome animation of a rotating tesseract on this page!).

Wikipedia discourages "conflict of interest" edits, so I couldn't put more information about Blue Dot there. But About.Us seems to have no similar restriction - and in fact encourages companies to upload information about themselves here.

Here you'll find an up-to-date entry about Blue Dot, the company. If you have something to add - go ahead - it's a publicly available wiki.

Yet another case of the "Speedy Deletion" problem at Wikipedia.

In the beginning, articles where meant to be created by all, and then spur online debate and coordination to settle into a well written, well balanced article about each subject.

Today, with Wikipedia being one of the most visited sites on the internet, it has drawn many people to create articles where their sole purpose is self-promotion, rather than public education.

In response, Wikipedia has given a large number of people (wikipedians) the authority to delete an article without debate. Contrary to online debates in the past, this "nuclear option" has stifled public discourse and turned many people off of participating in Wikipedia at all.

The battle against spammers is a tough problem. But many feel the pendulum at wikipedia has swung too far into the censorship/authoritarian direction. My biggest concern is that there is no hope to hear other voices on a debated topic, if some people have the ability to unilaterally delete an article (and all it's historical commentary) from the site.

I think a better alternative is to place articles on probation, perhaps preventing Google from indexing them or following their links; and then have a vote about when to promote the article to full public status.

We ran into the wikipedia "rules" when trying to correct a Blue Dot article as well. But we also had problems with over-zealous wikipedians (admins) who kept trying to totally delete the article using their "speedy deletion" criteria.

Wikipedia policies are, in my opinion, strangely skewed. They reject the knowledgeable and authoritative submissions of anyone they deem to have a "conflict of interest" (esp if you have an employment relationship relating to the subject matter). I understand that they are trying to avoid explicit biases creeping in to their content, but they are loosing a very valuable source of information, instead having to rely on less-informed amateurs.

redotting jacoxnet