OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Bartending/Alcohol/Cream liqueur
## Advocaat

       14-20% ABV (28-40º proof)
       Origin: Dutch
       Flavor: Egg yolk (originally avocado), brandy, and (some brands) cream.
       Appearance: Thick yellow cream

## Amarula

       17% ABV (34º proof)
       Origin: South Africa
       Flavor: Amarula fruit and cream
       Appearance: pale yellow

## Drumgray Highland Cream Liqueur

       17% ABV (34º proof)
       Origin: Scotland
       Flavor: Whiskey, scottish herbs and cream
       Appearance: cream

## Irish Cream
### Baileys Irish Cream

       17% ABV (34º proof)
       Origin: Ireland
       Flavor: whisky & cream
       Appearance: cafe latte

### Saint Brendan's

       17% ABV (34º proof)
       Origin: Northern Ireland
       Flavor: Irish whiskey 'n cream
       Appearance: caffe latte

## Mozart
### Mozart White chocolate liqueur

       15% ABV (30º proof)
       Origin: Austria
       Flavor: chocolate, vanilla, caramel and cream
       Appearance: white chocolate

### Mozart Gold chocolate liqueur

       17% ABV (34º proof)
       Origin: Austria
       Flavor: chocolate and cream
       Appearance: milk chocolate

## Ponche Caribe

       11% ABV (22º proof)
       Origin: Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles
       Flavor: rum, milk, vanilla, eggs
       Appearance: cream

## Ponche Crema

       15% ABV (30º proof)
       Origin: Venezuela
       Flavor: rum, cream and egg-yolk
       Appearance: pale yellow

## Ponche Diva

       10% ABV (20º proof)
       Origin: Bahamas
       Flavor: pistachio cream
       Appearance: pistachio

## Ponche Kuba

       9% ABV (18º proof)
       Origin: Barbados
       Flavor: spiced rum cream
       Appearance: cream
# Bartending/Alcohol/Fruit liqueur
## Aurum

Orange

## Chambord

       16.5% (33º proof)
       Origin: France
       Flavor: Raspberry
       Appearance: Deep red

## Cherry Heering

cherry

## Cloudberry Liqueur

Cloudberry

## Triple sec

For Triple sec, Cointreau, Curaçao, or Grand Marnier, please see Orange liqueurs.

## Destinee
### Destinee Sapphire

       17% ABV (34º proof}
       Origin: USA
       Flavor: Vodka, cognac and tropical fruit
       Appearance: Azure blue

### Destinee Ruby

       17% ABV (34º proof}
       Origin: USA
       Flavor: Vodka, cognac and grapefruit
       Appearance: Pink

## Framboise

Raspberry

## Hpnotiq

       17% ABV (34º proof)
       Origin: France
       Flavor: Vodka, cognac and tropical fruit
       Appearance: Azure blue

## Limoncello

       24-32% ABV (48-64º proof}
       Origin: Italy
       Flavor: Lemon
       Appearance: Lemonade

## Melon Liqueur

melon

## Midori

melon

## Parfait Amour

       25% ABV (50º proof)
       Origin: France
       Flavor: Orange, vanilla, spices, rose petals and violet.
       Appearance: Violet

## Patxaran

sloe

## Peach Liqueur

peach

## Pecher Mignon

peach]]

## Pisang Ambon

banana

## Prunelle

sloe (Blackthorn berries)

## Rum Tree

citrus

## Sloe gin

sloe (Blackthorn berries)

## Southern Comfort

peach bourbon
# Bartending/Alcohol/Crème liqueur
## Crème de Banane

banana

## Crème de Cacao

chocolate

## Crème de Cassis

blackcurrant

## Crème de Cerise

cherry

## Crème de Menthe

mint

## Crème de Myrtille

blueberry

## Crème de Noyaux

almond

## Crème de Y'vette

parma violets
# Crowdsourcing/Free content and open processes

For the crowd to improve content, it needs to be technically and legally possible for them to make changes. So crowdsourcing is impossible without at least some commitment to openness and to the rights of the end user. This section explores some factors that have made Wikimedia successful at attracting a large number of contributions, and some ways in which crowdsourcing can be ruined by too much control.
* Making soup with stone
* Intellectual property
* Network effects (the power of one)
* Summing up
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Crowdsourcing/Free content and open processes/Summing up

If the users of a resource are also expected to be contributors, then whatever makes things easier for the readers will indirectly benefit the resource by making it easier to contribute. For this reason, the hosting organisation needs to attend to the balance of power between it and the contributors. Restricting reuse of the content may well lead to there being no content, just as people are less likely to buy from a shop that has no money-back guarantee. Walls around content may keep some contributors in but they keep a larger number of potential contributors from improving it.
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Crowdsourcing/Further reading

Although aimed at biomedical projects, the rules here are abstract enough to be broadly applicable:
This article is aimed at experts who want to improve Wikipedia, but many of the points apply to lay contributors and to working with other collaborative communities:
There are several books about how to contribute to Wikipedia as an individual user. This one is more about the cultural factors that contribute to Wikipedia’s success:
In this popular book, Clay Shirky looks at crowdsourcing in more depth:
For specific ideas on how academic and cultural projects can work with Wikimedia projects, see the collaboration flowchart created as part of the Jisc/Wikimedia UK partnership.
| Previous | Index |
# Crowdsourcing/Gamification

Some computer games have an addictive quality which comes from having many “achievements”, frequently reminding players of their progress. Each new achievement gives a sense of accomplishment for the player, and since the steps are relatively minor, the next reward is just around the corner. The term “gamification” applies when a large task is broken into many relatively minor, achievable goals which are salient in the form of points or trophies. We might ask if successful crowdsourcing requires gamification; for instance, is Wikipedia gamified? The answer is actually not straightforward.
* Managing motivations
* Recognition and badging in Wikipedia
* Summing up
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Crowdsourcing/Community design/The right kind of goal

There is another sense in which Wikipedia’s goal of creating a free encyclopedia seems to occupy a “sweet spot”. Explaining this involves looking at two other Wikimedia projects.
Wikisource is a library of free-content texts, including works of literature, reference works, and historically or politically significant documents. It uses crowdsourced effort to upload scans, correct character-recognition errors and proofread. The end product is electronic text that is faithful to the original text of the document or book, organised in a way that makes it useful and findable. Slowly but steadily it has built up hundreds of thousands of documents, many coming from cultural partners such as the British Library or the US National Archives.
Where Wikipedia has to be an original literary work, Wikisource is about replicating texts that already exist. This means that there is a clear measure of progress and fewer possibilities for disagreement. The downside is that there is less scope for creative expression. Contributors do not have the same opportunity to make a personal mark as Wikipedians do when they decide the phrasing or structure for an article.
Wikiversity aims to be a space where people can “mutually cooperate in an active effort to learn”. This includes creating open educational resources, carrying out educational activities (for any educational context or level) and carrying out original research projects. Its tens of thousands of resources cover the whole spectrum of quality. A group of economists at the University of Exeter have shared a handbook of classroom economic experiments through the site, benefiting from textual improvements by the community. This is an example of the site’s very best content: there is a lot more of dubious utility, including fringe points of view.
Wikiversity’s scope is very much less constrained than Wikipedia’s; it accepts a lot of material that would be deleted outright from Wikipedia. It is harder to argue that anything should be deleted, since almost any online materials could have some use in education or research. A project similar to Wikipedia but less constrained might sound like it would attract many more contributions and become a greater success. This is the reverse of what happened. One possible reason is reputation: people are prouder of getting their material onto a platform that rejects a lot of contributions. Another is that there may simply be more demand for didactic encyclopedic text than for other types of educational resource. Another is that contributors need the confidence that their actions will improve the site, and that this requires a tightly-defined scope.
Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and Wikisource’s goals are all laudable, and the differences in their success are due to multiple factors that are technical, historical and social. However, the community’s goal plays a part, and Wikipedia’s much greater contributor base and audience result at least partly from the mix of creativity and constraint.
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Crowdsourcing/Gamification/Managing motivations

The attraction of gamifying a task is that it may take on the addictive qualities of a game, getting contributors to put more effort in by making them feel more rewarded. This reward might be a personal sense of achievement or the social value of showing off the badge.
A down-side of gamification is that it can potentially ruin motivation. A person’s motivation can be intrinsic (doing the task for its own sake) or extrinsic (based on external incentives such as pay or prizes). A well-replicated finding in psychology is that extrinsic motivation decreases intrinsic motivation. In other words, if someone is already enthusiastic to contribute, heaping them with prizes and incentives will make them less likely to contribute, or do their best work, in future. Incentives seem to draw attention to themselves rather than to the benefit created by the work. Contributors may come to see themselves as working for the incentives rather than for the good of the work itself and its outcomes.
Extrinsic motivation can also create perverse incentives: when people are rewarded for their number of contributions, or for other achievements defined by the software, the actual quality of the work may be sacrificed. This happened for the citizen science project Galaxy Zoo when it introduced a score and other gamification. When Galaxy Zoo introduced certain game-like elements, like a score, they found that the quality of results dipped.
A forum moderator of the site writes:

#### References

* ↑ Sutherland, S. (2007) Irrationality. London: Pinter & Martin. ISBN: 9781905177073, Chapter 8
* ↑ Shubber, K. (12 September 2013) How Facebook and gaming could help scientists battle disease Wired
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Crowdsourcing/Free content and open processes/Making soup with stone

In a common European folk tale, a cook is tricked into boiling a "magic" stone in water to make "stone soup". The taste is unappetising, so the cook adds some potatoes to "bring out" the flavour. Other cooks, still unsatisfied, add different herbs and vegetables in the hope of tasting stone soup at its finest. Eventually they all enjoy a delicious, nutritious soup. The stone was not magic, but it was essential to the successful outcome: it was there to create a soup that people would find inadequate and hence would want to improve.
Good articles on Wikipedia usually come from a similar process. They may have begun as a simple definition such as "Cancer is a disease of unrestricted cell growth". Some of the readers, finding that inadequate, might supply details about symptoms of cancer. Others will have found it incomplete or inaccurate in other ways, and added text and references about treatments, diagnosis, biology and so on. Thus, over thousands of edits, a short definition evolves into a detailed and comprehensive article.
This process is only possible because of Wikipedia's unconventional publication process:
* It was technically possible for users to edit the live version of the site
* Users needed no permission to edit
* No lawyers or managers had to sign off on changes
* The owners of the site were prepared to bear the risk of articles being inadequate or even unreliable, for a long time
* Each change was recorded, viewable to the public, and reversible. So the merit of each change could be discussed at any point after it was made
This illustrates the centrality of openness (in its various forms) to the success of the Wikimedia sites. In a technical sense, the wiki was built in an open way to enable public contributions. In a legal sense, Wikipedia is an open resource whose users are free to alter it. The process of development is open in that it is public and auditable.
The concept of “ready for publication” does not apply in Wikipedia or the other projects. Just as the cooks started tasting soup when it only included the stone, it is essential that articles and their flaws are on public display so that people can improve them. The distinction between “published article” and “unpublished drafts” is replaced by tags or badges to show that content has problems or alternatively that it has passed a review. This puts some burden on the reader to take notice of tags and be appropriately critical, rather than assuming that something is true because it is published.
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Crowdsourcing/Free content and open processes/Network effects

Randall Munroe’s cartoon illustrates what seems to be a common user experience of Wikipedia: its web-like structure, linking all kinds of subjects, draws casual readers in to learn about things they would not have anticipated.
Less obvious, but essential to note, is that this effect works for creation as well as consumption. Anyone who learns how to edit articles about bridges also learns how to edit articles about US Presidents, Batman, or clothing, because all articles are in one software platform. Similarly, anyone who learns how to edit articles on Wikipedia also learns how to edit travel guides on Wikivoyage, news articles in Wikinews, and so on. The immediacy of wiki editing (just press "Edit", make a change, then press "Save") means that once someone has a taste for making changes, they can keep doing it whenever they find something they can improve.
There are processes in Wikipedia that require a previously uninvolved editor to review an article and confirm that it meets certain standards, for example Good Article Review. This is usually done on a pay-it-forward basis: a contributor who wants a review of their own article is usually expected to review someone else's contribution, and so on. Hence someone who is fixated on improving one article will, at some point, have to look at other content and decide what improvements it needs.
Contributors come with different intentions. Some want to improve articles about a topic such as their locality, their hobby or a subject they've studied. Others feel best able to contribute in ways that cut across topics: articles in British English, articles with vector diagrams, or articles with embedded geographical data, for example. These different contributors benefit from different categories and navigational tools. Here, the above-mentioned queues (such as "articles with promotional text", "articles awaiting Good Article review", or "articles with broken external links") are valuable tools for helping people find where they can usefully contribute.
Users looking to improve articles of a particular kind use the same navigational tools as users who have come to find that kind of article. So anything that might be used to help readers with navigation can also be used to encourage contributions. Conversely, anything that segments and separates content will discourage some contributions. Separating the collection of articles by topic would make little difference to the topic-focused contributors but would obstruct, and get much less value from, the other kinds of contributor.
| Previous | Index | Next |
# Body Hair Removal

This book gives a beginner's introduction to shaving and trimming body hair, as well as tips and tricks for advanced shavers.

## Table of Contents

| 1. Equipment | 2. Technique | 3. Afterwards |
| safety razor, shaving brush and shaving soap | male shaving beard | shaved legs |
# Bloom's Taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy *
Benjamin Bloom created this taxonomy for categorizing levels of abstraction - thus providing a useful structure in which to describe Lesson Plan Components: Interest Approach, Discussion, Presentation, Demonstration, and Test Items. Content Goals start with an active verb. Note the 'Cues' below, which suggest active verbs that may be used when creating Lesson Plan Components. See the Example Lesson Plan.
Knowledge
    observation and recall of information
    knowledge of dates, events, places
    knowledge of major ideas
    mastery of subject matter
    Cues: list, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label, collect, examine, tabulate, quote, name, who, when, where, etc.
Comprehension
    understanding information
    grasp meaning
    translate knowledge into new context
    interpret facts, compare, contrast
    order, group, infer causes
    predict consequences
    Question Cues: summarize, describe, interpret, contrast, predict, associate, distinguish, estimate, differentiate, discuss, extend
Application
    use information
    use methods, concepts, theories in new situations
    solve problems using required skills or knowledge
    Cues: apply, demonstrate, calculate, complete, illustrate, show, solve, examine, modify, relate, change, classify, experiment, discover
Analysis
    seeing patterns
    organization of parts
    recognition of hidden meanings
    identification of components
    Cues: analyze, separate, order, explain, connect, classify, arrange, divide, compare, select, explain, infer
Synthesis
    use old ideas to create new ones
    generalize from given facts
    relate knowledge from several areas
    predict, draw conclusions
    Cues: combine, integrate, modify, rearrange, substitute, plan, create, design, invent, what if?, compose, formulate, prepare, generalize, rewrite
Evaluation
    compare and discriminate between ideas
    assess value of theories, presentations
    make choices based on reasoned argument
    verify value of evidence
    recognize subjectivity
    Cues: assess, decide, rank, grade, test, measure, recommend, convince, select, judge, explain, discriminate, support, conclude, compare, summarize
*Adapted from: Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York ; Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Note: IPSI uses Bloom's work as modified by Simpson and Kratwold to create three domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. The first, second and fourth levels of Bloom form the cognitive domeain. The third level of Bloom forms the psychomotor domain and the fifth and sixth levels of Bloom form the affective domain. Accordingly, content will be parsed into one of nine categories --- three levels of cognitive, three of psychomotor and three of affective. These nine categories are sufficiently precise so that prescriptions regarding instruction and testing can be aligned with the intent expressed in content goals.

## See also

Contemporary Educational Psychology/Chapter 9: Instructional Planning--a discussion of Bloom's taxonomy as it relates to classroom teaching.
# Body Piercing

This book is about the techniques of body piercing, the health care aspects and related material.
# Blogging/Updating

One of the most important features of blogs is currency. A blog which is out of date can rapidly become useless. However, it is important to note that a blog should only be updates when there is something useful to be added: updating just for the sake of it, when there is nothing new to be added, can simply be annoying to readers.
A blog can be regarded as an effective information tool when it succeeds in reaching the target audience and communicating the desired information.
# D'ni/Foreword

Shorah!
Welcome to the Wikibook grammar of the D'ni language. Perhaps this Wikibook is not ideal as a course for beginners, but will offer concise, complete information on the principles of D'ni language for reference.
Note that this Wikibook makes use of the 'New Transcription Standard', that means the way D'ni words are rendered with normal letters.

## The language

D'ni (more properly spelled D'nee, D'ní), In the Myst series, is the race who came to Earth from Garternay. The word is used for
* A member of this race.
* The city in a subterranean cavern below New Mexico, populated by them.
* Their language.
The language was created by Cyan employee Richard A. Watson, or RAWA during the production of the game Riven. The game provided many D'ni spoken words and inscriptions that initially puzzled the fans, and some of them remain still untranslated.
Information about the language and vocabulary, have been provided in the three Myst books. Online communities study the language, sometimes with contribution by RAWA himself, who doesn't like to give out information easily, and prefers only to clarify matters rather than give translations. RAWA has contributed to the community, not only in the linguistic matters, but anything that has to do with the world of Myst.
Years after the publication of Riven, slowly more facts and words come to our knowledge with the subsequent games. Study of D'ni is more or less like an enormous puzzle that is filled now and then, after hunting of sporadic hints and evidence. This wikibook will attempt to describe our knowledge so far, and be updated whenever new facts show up.
# D'ni/Conjunctions

There are several conjunctions used to conjoin phrases together
    rem'la tornen poant bonúec ga rísloen reprædtí 'The lizard spits acidic saliva and dissolves the rocks'
    Gen kenen renavaox Riven, rúb ril navaot 'Gehn is the master of Riven, but not our master'
    Étrus lesel Myst pam Edanna? 'Atrus wrote Myst or Edanna?'
    kotokituen rú kazíet ‘it was determined that we would detour’ (Conjunction introducing a secondary subordinate clause.)
Since D'ni writing has no commas, ga can be repeated between a series of words.
# D'ni/Derivations
## Noun to adjective

A noun with the suffix -ec becomes an adjective
* vog 'nature' > vog-ec 'natural'
* fa 'one' > faec 'first'

## Adjective to noun

An adjective with the suffix -(e)þ becomes a noun
* gica 'safe' > gica-þ 'safety'
* sógi 'stable' > sógi-þ 'stability'
Note that the name Kerath means ‘[the] Brave One’ formed by the adjective kera ‘brave’ indicating a titulary function of this suffix.

## Adjective to adverb

Similarly, -(e)š is always suffixed onto adjectives and changes them to adverbs.
* ten 'simple' > teneš 'simply'
* garo 'mighty' > garoš 'mightily'
* kera 'brave' > keraš 'bravely'

## Verb to noun

The -tav suffix is used with verbs and is understood to form common nouns.
* tégan 'to love' > re-tégan-tav 'the love'
* cav 'to live' > re-cav-tav 'the life'
The -tan suffix is used with verbs to make the actor.
* re-tégan-tan 'the lover'
The adverbs can be derived by -š suffixed to an adjective
* Kera 'brave' > Kera-š 'bravely'