Syntax Highlighting usually consists of two phases. Tokens are assigned to source code, and then they are targeted by a theme, assigned colors, and voilà, your source code is rendered with colors. It is the one feature that turns a text editor into a code editor.
dima 2 map download for cs source
I had to make some changes to the source code in order to compare apples with apples, such as ensuring the exact same grammars are used in both VS Code versions, turning off rich language features in both versions, or lifting the 100 stack depth limitation in VS Code 1.8 which no longer exists in VS Code 1.9, etc. I also had to split bootstrap.min.css into multiple lines to get each line under 20k chars.
Second, for clinical or research settings where administration time needs to be reduced, yet no resources are available for CAT, Rasch item diagnostics can be used to develop a short form of the scale by carefully selecting best fitting items that maintain the scale properties within optimal parameters. Therefore, to improve this measure, this study aimed to perform comprehensive Rasch analyses of the SAHL-D to (1) calibrate items for CAT and (2) subsequently develop a short form.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Wikipedia has been praised for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage, unique structure, culture, and reduced degree of commercial bias. It has been criticized for exhibiting systemic bias, particularly gender bias against women and alleged ideological bias.[12][13] The reliability of Wikipedia was frequently criticized in the 2000s, but has improved over time, as Wikipedia has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.[3][12][14]The website's coverage of controversial topics such as American politics and major events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has received substantial media attention.[15][16][17] It has been censored by world governments, ranging from specific pages to the entire site.[18][19] On 3 April 2018, Facebook and YouTube announced that they would help users detect fake news by suggesting fact-checking links to related Wikipedia articles.[20][21] Articles on breaking news are often accessed as a source of frequently updated information about those events.[22][23]
Wikipedians often have disputes regarding content, which may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit warring".[108][109] It is widely seen as a resource-consuming scenario where no useful knowledge is added,[110] and criticized as creating a competitive[111] and conflict-based editing culture associated with traditional masculine gender roles.[112][113]
According to the rules on the English Wikipedia community, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.[122] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability", which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject.[123] Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[124] It must not present original research.[125] A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source, as do all quotations.[122] Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.[126] This can at times lead to the removal of information that, though valid, is not properly sourced.[127] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[128]
A 2007 study by researchers from Dartmouth College found that "anonymous and infrequent contributors to Wikipedia ... are as reliable a source of knowledge as those contributors who register with the site".[153] Jimmy Wales stated in 2009 that "[I]t turns out over 50% of all the edits are done by just 0.7% of the users ... 524 people ... And in fact, the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done 73.4% of all the edits."[147] However, Business Insider editor and journalist Henry Blodget showed in 2009 that in a random sample of articles, most Wikipedia content (measured by the amount of contributed text that survives to the latest sampled edit) is created by "outsiders", while most editing and formatting is done by "insiders".[147]
Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black alleged (in 2010 and 2011 respectively) that articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.[179][183] A 2008 article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is subject to manipulation and spin.[184]
Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable.[202] Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear.[203] Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.[204] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has claimed that Wikipedia has largely avoided the problem of "fake news" because the Wikipedia community regularly debates the quality of sources in articles.[205]
Legal Research in a Nutshell (2011), cites Wikipedia as a "general source" that "can be a real boon" in "coming up to speed in the law governing a situation" and, "while not authoritative, can provide basic facts as well as leads to more in-depth resources".[214]
Some university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[215] some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations.[216][217] Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate to use as citable sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.[218] Wales once (2006 or earlier) said he receives about ten emails weekly from students saying they got failing grades on papers because they cited Wikipedia; he told the students they got what they deserved. "For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia", he said.[219][220]
Wikipedia has a ".mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target.vanchor-textbackground-color:#b1d2ffVolunteer Response Team" that uses Znuny, a free and open-source software fork of OTRS[261] to handle queries without having to reveal the identities of the involved parties. This is used, for example, in confirming the permission for using individual images and other media in the project.[262]
The operation of Wikipedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database system.[284] The software incorporates programming features such as a macro language, variables, a transclusion system for templates, and URL redirection.[285] MediaWiki is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and it is used by all Wikimedia projects, as well as many other wiki projects.[284][286] Originally, Wikipedia ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later.[287] Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Wikipedia began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Wikipedia by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Wikipedia shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker.
Thousands of "mirror sites" exist that republish content from Wikipedia; two prominent ones that also include content from other reference sources are Reference.com and Answers.com.[343][344] Another example is Wapedia, which began to display Wikipedia content in a mobile-device-friendly format before Wikipedia itself did.[345] Some web search engines make special use of Wikipedia content when displaying search results: examples include Microsoft Bing (via technology gained from Powerset)[346] and DuckDuckGo.
Bloomberg Businessweek reported in July 2014 that Google's Android mobile apps have dominated the largest share of global smartphone shipments for 2013, with 78.6% of market share over their next closest competitor in iOS with 15.2% of the market.[363] At the time of the appointment of new Wikimedia Foundation executive Lila Tretikov, Wikimedia representatives made a technical announcement concerning the number of mobile access systems in the market seeking access to Wikipedia. Soon after, the representatives stated that Wikimedia would be applying an all-inclusive approach to accommodate as many mobile access systems as possible in its efforts for expanding general mobile access, including BlackBerry and the Windows Phone system, making market share a secondary issue.[278] The Android app for Wikipedia was released on July 23, 2014, to over 500,000 installs and generally positive reviews, scoring over four of a possible five in a poll of approximately 200,000 users downloading from Google.[364][365] The version for iOS was released on April 3, 2013, to similar reviews.[366]
One of the first times Wikipedia was involved in a governmental affair was on September 28, 2007, when Italian politician Franco Grillini raised a parliamentary question with the minister of cultural resources and activities about the necessity of freedom of panorama. He said that the lack of such freedom forced Wikipedia, "the seventh most consulted website", to forbid all images of modern Italian buildings and art, and claimed this was hugely damaging to tourist revenues.[410] 2ff7e9595c
Comments