Practicing Gallifreyan

I've been practicing my Gallifreyan. It's quite fun. But there are some aspects of the not-quite language - it's really more of a code - that make it difficult. For example, a lot of the "rules" are purely aesthetic. How the dots look on the letters, or how long the lines are, can vary depending on mood or your particular style of drawing. It might, however, allow for the Time Lord version of "handwriting" I guess. I also find that the hard part of making sentences (and paragraphs, etc.) is the spacing of the letters. Some groups of words just seem naturally suited to each other. Others are less so. One strategy I've been using is to make the words separately to get an idea of what they look like. Then (because the size of the words can change to make them fit together) I will sketch the rough shapes out to try to get them all to work together.

I also attempted to cut out the shapes, but since you can't really change their shape or slightly move the letters around to make them fit together, it wasn't very helpful.

I have also tried using the computer (PowerPoint, if you must know, as my Photoshop skills are nil) to make the shapes. They are much cleaner, but lack the rough, artistic look of the hand-drawn characters. This one says "Gary." I hope :)

So here are my first to basic attempts at writing full sentences in Gallifreyan. This says "Give me liberty or give me death" (more or less).

And this one says "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first, invent the universe." Also more or less.

I highly recommend learning it. The alphabet/code is an easy learn and there are lots of resources online (http://timeturners.wikidot.com/circular-gallifreyan). And it looks cool. At very least, all you Whovians should figure out how to write your name!

The Future of Wikipedia: Will It Ever Be A Reliable, Citable Source?

Yesterday, as I was working on a research paper about Ethics, I turned to my office mate and said emphatically,"I wish Wikipedia was a reliable source!"

"Actually," he said, "I have a hope that one day Wikipedia is the requirement for all internet reliable sources: in order to be a reliable source, you must have in some way contributed to the repository of all knowledge. If you are an expert on something and you don't care if the information that non-experts are reading is reliable, then you don't deserve to be called an expert." 

An interesting idea. I think to myself in my head. So what then? Everyone who is an expert on something must have written an article in Wikipedia? No, that doesn't make sense. Many different people are experts on the same thing. And the point is not necessarily to add more articles to Wikipedia, but to expand those which are already there. In addition, how do we prevent people from claiming to be experts, when they are not?

How could this work? We can't ask people to contribute to the "repository of all knowledge" without some sort accountability or association.

It could work like this:

1. Wikipedia creates a logo or a little moving image or something you can't just screenshot and take.

2. When an expert wants to validate their expertise, they contact Wikipedia and provide their credentials.

3. They offer to read, edit, or provide information on X # of articles on X topics.

4. When they have completed the work, they receive a "registration logo" which expires after a certain period of time. If I click on that logo on said expert's website, it takes me directly the page/pages that he/she is associated with.

5. Upon expiration, they must complete the process again (potentially with the same articles and information) unless they have evidence that they have continued to monitor their associated articles over that period of time.

On the other hand, this method has its drawbacks. For example: what about experts whose expertise is restricted for legal or confidential reasons? What about people who have restricted access to the internet? Or who don't have academic credentials? Academia doesn't own the truth. In addition, the individuals would need to be able to cite sources other than their own experience, which might make it difficult to motivate them to join the group. What about press releases? Those often contain a large amount of useful and reliable information, but no one who writes a press release is going to want to be forced to contribute to Wikipedia, just so that their press release can be considered a reliable source. 

It seems that there are a few possibilities, but the internet is changing and morphing rapidly everyday. Here are Wikipedia's five pillars. How do the ideas above relate or disagree with Wikipedia's values?

What do you think? What is the future for Wikipedia as a source of information?