Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 12/21/10 4:17 PM, Carcharoth wrote: Has anyone ever suggested a way for people to highlight a mistake and click to bring it to someone else's attention? But without logging any IP address. I suppose that sort of system would get overwhelmed by trolls very quickly. Maybe an off-wiki system to allow people using Wikipedia to generate a note for themselves on corrections to make later on? That seems more complex than fixing a simple typo. If I can go in and make a simple spelling correction it's done very quickly. On the other hand if I need to explain what needs fixing and where it is in a site it's just not worth my while. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 12/23/10 12:41 AM, David Gerard wrote: On 23 December 2010 02:37, Tony Sidawaytonysida...@gmail.com wrote: I have to disagree strongly with the calls for WYSIWYG editing, not that it's likely to materialize anytime soon. Wikipedia needs to encourage people to concentrate on meaningful content, not dick around with cosmetic matters. I think our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation. I don't have WMF numbers, but one contributor on mediawiki-l, who runs an intranet covering a large public service organisation in the US, reported a remarkable uptake in wiki participation just by going to FCKeditor. The users are smart, capable and competent people in their fields, but were seriously put off by wikitext. Wasn't the whole idea of wiki markup to have something simple that anybody can learn? It should continue to be the case that the essential wiki markup can fit onto a single page that an editor can print ans pin to the wall beside his computer as a cheat-sheet. What doesn't fit on that page isn't basic. Templates are only useful if you know which are there if you need them, and have the advanced skills needed to manipulate them to desired effect. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 28 December 2010 12:33, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Wasn't the whole idea of wiki markup to have something simple that anybody can learn? It should continue to be the case that the essential wiki markup can fit onto a single page that an editor can print ans pin to the wall beside his computer as a cheat-sheet. What doesn't fit on that page isn't basic. There's various levels here, all of which need to be removed: * What doesn't fit on a single-page printed cheat sheet isn't basic. * What doesn't fit in a pop-up box on a single screen isn't basic. * What doesn't fit in a line under the edit box isn't basic. * Wikitext isn't basic unless you assume HTML, which you can't. Wikitext is however powerful, and there are 160,000 editors in any given month on en:wp who cope with it. But that's a drop in the ocean. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 12/23/10 1:31 PM, George Herbert wrote: The social stuff which is complex is something which is a barrier, but one that all western society members who are modern communications literate are fundamentally equipped to handle. Some will fail at it but you really just need to be good at electronic communications, functionally literate, and social enough to handle basic give and take discussions. This seems to beg the question: How do you define modern communications literate? Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 12/27/10 9:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: On 12/21/10 1:12 PM, David Gerard wrote: I can't speak for anyone but myself - but I think, and I've seen many others who express an opinion think, that competition would be good and monopoly as *the* encyclopedia is not intrinsically a good thing. I can't agree more. To this end, Wikipedia should be encouraging forks, encouraging other sites to copy articles into other wikis which in turn could edit them into something consistent with the new site's philosophies. Being the sole arbiter of NPOV can lead to very un-neutral results. Where other sites have been copying and developing articles in their own way, WP could even have interwiki links to these other sites. snip The initiative must still come from those who would run those sites. Indeed. Just out of interest, how many people here would consider devoting the time and energy and resources into setting up a Wikipedia fork? I know some active Wikipedians have done so, but sustaining such forks can be very difficult. What practical steps can be taken to encourage a diversity of useful and sustainable forks that demonstrate what is and is not possible? Or is th etime better spent improving WMF projects? Carcharoth I'm not available for serious sustained work on any fork but Wikinfo, but I can help people get set up. There has to be a vision though, of something better. Maybe something that is an actual wiki, quick and easy, rather than the template coding hell Wikipedia's turned into. Absolutely. It comes down to two issues: What Wikimedia *can* provide, and what the new project *must* provide. In addition to funding the new project must indeed provide a vision. A working WYSIWYG is indeed one such possibility, but the mediawiki software may not be so helpful to them. My idea was somewhat more modest in that it was content based. Although it would not reflect my personal philosophy something like Conservapedia is something to be encouraged. It's vision would likely only allow a limited and manageable subset of Wikipedia articles. Interwiki links from Wikipedia to that project could be given for those who would like an alternative view of the subject with the understanding that the other project may not be bound by NPOV. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. The grinches did get rid of the recipes though; not many left. I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish, and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word only has one etymology, so there isn't that problem. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I came to accept the Wikipedia is not a dictionary
guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
dismay I find it to be fairly widely ignored when it comes to
etymology, usage, and profanity. I'm interested in seeing what the
original and/or newly rewritten language had to say about it.
{{fact}}
Fairly widely ignored? I see very few articles that could not be
encyclopaedic.
What's very few? Hundreds? Thousands? 1%? And what's could not be
encyclopaedic?
There are many articles about terms, phrases, slang, interjections,
adjectives, verbs, etc. In most cases they could be turned into an
encyclopedia article - after all you can turn just about any topic
into an encyclopedia article - but they aren't encyclopedia articles,
they're long, well-written, interesting, dictionary entries.
And, like Ian W points out, the policy is probably too
strict anyway: a more seamless transition from encyclopaedia-space to
dictionary-space would probably serve WMF's mission quite well.
That seems to be the prevalent attitude, which is exactly why I think
the policy is widely ignored. If you make a dictionary entry which is
more than a few paragraphs long, suddenly it's accepted as an
encyclopedia article.
Maybe it's a good idea. A with news articles in wikinews, Wikipedia
seems to do a better job at making dictionary entries than Wiktionary.
But if that's what you want to do, at least make it explicit.
Especially when you're talking about the etymology and usage of a
word, there's a bit of a gap between the very terse etymology that
Wikitonary allows, and the more flowing style found at Wikipedia.
However, that more flowing style is only permitted in the context of
*encyclopaedia* articles, so we have nothing like it for pure *word*
articles.
Meh.
No, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. The grinches did get rid of the recipes though; not many left. I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish, and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word only has one etymology, so there isn't that problem. No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself. I think your meh example is perfect. Wiktionary: what does meh mean? Wikipedia: why is meh even a word? In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. The word's Simpsons origins, the debate over whether it was a real word, its inclusion in the list of 20 words that defined a decade - all of this is interesting, notable, relevant, and probably out of place in a Wiktionary article. You wouldn't do it for just any word, perhaps, but this one even has a referenced claim to notability. I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself. I think your meh example is perfect. Good, me too. Wiktionary: what does meh mean? Wikipedia: why is meh even a word? In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word meh]]? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Wiktionary: what does meh mean? By the way, I just want to point out that Wiktionary, like most dictionaries, contains more than just word meanings. It also contains usage and etymology, which seems to me to be exactly what that Wikipedia article contains. The only difference is that Wikipedia contains it in a more free-form article, and that it is more complete. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why. What makes a word notable? Without looking in Wikipedia: Is argh notable? Is ahoy notable? Is because notable? Is awesome notable? Is anorexic notable? Is shithead notable? Is hungry notable? How do we decide whether or not a word is notable? What are the guidelines that should be used? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
Anthony wrote: The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting requirements... Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a failure. But if it is, it's arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that structure, which is necessary for a dictionary (especially a multilingual one). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote: Anthony wrote: The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting requirements... Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a failure. But if it is, it's arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that structure, which is necessary for a dictionary (especially a multilingual one). If Mediawiki is keeping the Wiktionarians from succeeding, then they should fork Mediawiki. But I don't think that's the real problem. A better candidate would that the imposition of top-down structure in a wiki just doesn't work. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
Steve Bennett wrote: In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. Anthony replied: Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia. And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word meh]]? Why? -- David Levy ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On 12/21/10 4:17 PM, Carcharoth wrote: Has anyone ever suggested a way for people to highlight a mistake and click to bring it to someone else's attention? But without logging any IP address. I suppose that sort of system would get overwhelmed by trolls very quickly. Maybe an off-wiki system to allow people using Wikipedia to generate a note for themselves on corrections to make later on? That seems more complex than fixing a simple typo. If I can go in and make a simple spelling correction it's done very quickly. On the other hand if I need to explain what needs fixing and where it is in a site it's just not worth my while. Ec This would be a generic equivalent of the Fix family of templates based on Template:Fix I hate this coding but selecting the text which needs attention and hitting enter could create a popup where the problem could be explained or at least noted, if the person did not want to spend time on it. Selection from a checklist would put tags like spelling verification needed Source? in at the end of the highlighted text. We have a wide variety of such template, although I would be at a loss to remember them all or use them without a crutch like the popup I suggest. A new editor, could never, of course. These templates are simple but there are lots of them, often duplicating each other. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. Anthony replied: Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not has television episode guide entries. As it stands we're discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries. As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia. And that's my whole point. Wikipedia *does* contain lots of dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it shouldn't. And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word meh]]? Why? Disambiguation. I guess [[meh]] would be acceptable, though. It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun would suffer from the problem. [[shithead]] should be about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not the word dog. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
I wrote: The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? Anthony replied: That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not has television episode guide entries. As it stands we're discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries. My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content). Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function. As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia. And that's my whole point. Wikipedia *does* contain lots of dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it shouldn't. Your opinion of what constitutes a dictionary entry differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large. I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary). And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word meh]]? Why? Disambiguation. I guess [[meh]] would be acceptable, though. It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun would suffer from the problem. [[shithead]] should be about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not the word dog. We use the format Foo (word) or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see Man (word). Otherwise, titular disambiguation (the main function of which is navigational, not informational) isn't needed. A subject's basic nature should be explained in its article's lead. -- David Levy ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes. Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? Anthony replied: That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether or not has television episode guide entries. As it stands we're discussing whether or not it has dictionary entries. My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content). That point is not relevant, though. Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function. What makes something an encyclopedia article about a word? Sounds to me like another way to describe a dictionary. As implicitly acknowledged in your question, Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia. And that's my whole point. Wikipedia *does* contain lots of dictionary entires, even though there is a page saying that it shouldn't. Your opinion of what constitutes a dictionary entry differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large. I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary). So Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it. And if the concept is the word, shouldn't the title of the article be [[the word meh]]? Why? Disambiguation. I guess [[meh]] would be acceptable, though. It's not so important with interjections, but any word which is a noun would suffer from the problem. [[shithead]] should be about shitheads, not the word shithead, just like [[dog]] is about dogs, not the word dog. We use the format Foo (word) or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see Man (word). I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see: *troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression) Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. And I guess if Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is more explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
I wrote: My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content). Anthony replied: That point is not relevant, though. Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant. Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function. What makes something an encyclopedia article about a word? Sounds to me like another way to describe a dictionary. Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? Your opinion of what constitutes a dictionary entry differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large. I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary). So Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it. No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are. Unlike a dictionary, Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately list and define words. Only words deemed culturally/historically noteworthy are treated as things in and of themselves. No one is suggesting that it's okay to write a Wikipedia article about any word, provided that it's formatted as an encyclopedia article. We use the format Foo (word) or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see Man (word). I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see: *troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression) That's why I wrote or similar. As is true across Wikipedia in general, there probably are some instances in which our parenthetical disambiguation is unnecessarily specific. Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one. -- David Levy ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? How did we get from difference engine to computer? And I guess if Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is more explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy. Appropriate, although that language has been there probably since Larry Sanger. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally, or some cases not literally enough, the point of not a dictionary to me in our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If it's a definition, regardless of how much fluff we can put behind it, it belongs on Wiktionary. If it's more than just a word then it might have a place on Wikipedia. It's usually not all that hard. -Steph On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? How did we get from difference engine to computer? And I guess if Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is more explicit about being a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline, that would then reflect the de facto policy. Appropriate, although that language has been there probably since Larry Sanger. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Faith is about what you really truly believe in, not about what you are taught to believe. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content). Anthony replied: That point is not relevant, though. Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant. I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored. What makes something an encyclopedia article about a word? Sounds to me like another way to describe a dictionary. Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? It isn't comparable. Could it be comparable? I don't know. So Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it. No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. That begs the question. Wikipedia obviously only includes articles about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. But what is it that's *different* about words, which justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline? This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are. Sounds like formatting to me. We use the format Foo (word) or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see Man (word). I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see: *troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression) That's why I wrote or similar. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one. Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline? What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word. Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source? Do dictionaries count as reliable sources? On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. So Wikipedia shouldn't have articles (verbose dictionary entries) about words? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline? What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? The various What wikipedia is not... standards evolved before the notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary policies. Notability is more or less a generic test. Wikipedia is not... standards dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's notability - they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it to cover the corner cases. Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that not a dictionary is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that not a dictionary stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions. There are a number of other confusing and misapplied parts of What wikipedia is not. I would say one of the most consistently misapplied ones is to consider Wikipedia is not censored. to be an inclusion guideline on it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content stands under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the content shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT not censored isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to decide. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline? What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? The various What wikipedia is not... standards evolved before the notability guideline reached it's current form, so the ones dealing with inclusion/exclusion should probably be thought of as complementary policies. Notability is more or less a generic test. Wikipedia is not... standards dealing with exclusion are a non-exhaustive list of specific cases where something probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of it's notability - they serve both as a shortcut around notability and an addendum to it to cover the corner cases. Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that not a dictionary is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that not a dictionary stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions. There are a number of other confusing and misapplied parts of What wikipedia is not. I would say one of the most consistently misapplied ones is to consider Wikipedia is not censored. to be an inclusion guideline on it's own. The intent should be clear on that one - it means that offensiveness, obscenity, tastelessness, and any other reason to find content objectionable are simply not considerations - if the content stands under whatever other applicable content guidelines apply, then the content shouldn't be removed on account of someone's objection, BUT not censored isn't by itself reason to keep something - that's for other guidelines to decide. Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on. Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that, guidelines, that means that not a dictionary is it's own EXCLUSION test, aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go for any other exclusion test. Interpreting it as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, that means that not a dictionary stands on it's own. When it applies, the article probably doesn't belong here regardless of it's notability, but there may be the need to make exceptions. I think that's roughly the way the guidelines is interpreted by most, though with a special de facto exception for offensive terms (I think the way it works is that no one wants to write an encyclopedia article about the concept behind the offensive term, so the article becomes one about the word, and not the concept). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is censored. If you want to include current troop movements Wikipedia is censored. Or unload an child pornography image. Examples go on and on. Essentially all it means is that if extremely offensive or inappropriate material has been widely published we can't keep it out of Wikipedia. Not censored is about just that, it doesn't mean we throw out other content policies, it means that we don't remove offensive material simply for the sake of it's offensiveness. Other policies that call for removal of material such as legal requirements to do so, BLP, notability, reliable sources, still apply. Good taste, and encyclopedic nature generally should still apply. The reason not censored even exists is to make sure that censorship doesn't trump writing an encyclopedia, not so that people can go out of their way to be offensive. As an example, an article about breast cancer may very well have pictures of breasts in a medical context. Those images are inherently encyclopedic in nature - not censored is meant to give us firm ground to stand on when someone cries foul over those images. or any other encyclopedic content. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? It isn't comparable. Could it be comparable? I don't know. By the way, how does that article and the article on [[black people]] not violate Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged. Because one of the unwritten exceptions to the guideline is that articles on terms which shouldn't be used in encyclopedias (without the quotation marks or italics) don't count. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 12/23/10 1:31 PM, George Herbert wrote: The social stuff which is complex is something which is a barrier, but one that all western society members who are modern communications literate are fundamentally equipped to handle. Some will fail at it but you really just need to be good at electronic communications, functionally literate, and social enough to handle basic give and take discussions. This seems to beg the question: How do you define modern communications literate? Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, smartphone user. Those are a 95%+ solution for kids and young adults, if not 99%, and are easy enough for older adults (my parents, etc) to the point that they're arguably better than an 80% solution for the US population. If we were that good, we'd be golden. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally, or some cases not literally enough, the point of not a dictionary to me in our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If it's a definition, regardless of how much fluff we can put behind it, it belongs on Wiktionary. If it's more than just a word then it might have a place on Wikipedia. It's usually not all that hard. -Steph Extensive information on the development of a concept is inappropriate in a dictionary. For example the word robot. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] WYSIWTF
Hi all,
I'm still on vacation, but I saw the WYSIWYG discussion, reloaded,
and was bored, so...
As far as I could deduce, the goal is to use a run-of-the-mill HTML
WYSIWYG editor, with minimal modifications, to edit MediaWiki text.
Since rebuilding the perfect parser has Failed Repeatedly (TM), any
parsed substitute should fall back gracefully, that is, only parse
wikitext into some HTML structure when it is very sure it is doing it
right, and otherwise leave it alone and just show it as old, ugly
wikitext.
I took two hours to write a pure JavaScript demo that can render
(note, not parse!) wikitext as HTML, so that a WYSIWYG HTML editor
could use it. Some elements, like headings, blank lines, and
templates, it converts into a pseudo-parsed structure, using classes
to indicate where the element(s) came from. I believe that, basically,
the original wikitext could be reconstructed from the rendered HTML
(not checked, though), and that changes in plain ol' HTML (read:
WYSIWYG edits) could be integrated likewise.
My demo is rudimentary: no checking for HTML comments or nowiki, no
bold or italics, no ref or [[link]] handling, and tables and lists
are ignored as well. But even so, the output remains readable and
recognisable as wikitext, and it should be quite clear how the
original wikitext could be regenerated from it.
The main function right now is the template collapse. Template code is
surrounded by a green border, and the template name is green. Long
templates hide their parameters, which can be shown by double-clicking
the template name. Depending on context, it is decided to use div or
span, so short inline templates stay inline. It is not always
pretty, but IMHO demonstrates the concept.
The JavaScript seems reasonably quick. Yes, some wikitext will be hard
to render; but frankly, we can just ignore it for the time being.
Better something that works quickly and reliably in most cases and
fails gracefully than something that would be perfect but never gets
done, I say!
Again, quick hack demo warning. If you're brave enough to try it, my
test article (only runs in article namespace ATM) is the article of
the day, [[Lince (tank)]].
JavaScript at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/wysiwtf/wysiwtf.js
CSS at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/wysiwtf/wysiwtf.css
To test, edit your vector.js, and copy this:
document.write('script type=text/javascript
src=http://toolserver.org/~magnus/wysiwtf/wysiwtf.js;\/script');
document.write('link rel=stylesheet type=text/css
href=http://toolserver.org/~magnus/wysiwtf/wysiwtf.css;\/link');
Force-reload, go to an article, and you'll see a new WYSIWTF tab (I
trust you can decipher the acronym ;-)
Enjoy! ;-)
Magnus
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
Anthony wrote: I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored. In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its cultural history, associations, et cetera, you wrote: Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? This appeared to imply that because entries about words are present in dictionaries and absent from traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia's deviation from this convention can only be described as the inclusion of dictionary entries. My point is that Wikipedia contains a great deal of content, handled in an encyclopedic manner, that traditional encyclopedias lack. And some of these subjects are traditionally covered, with varying degrees of similarity, in other reference works. But just as Wikipedia's inclusion of articles about television episodes doesn't make Wikipedia a TV almanac, its inclusion of articles about words doesn't make it a dictionary. Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? It isn't comparable. Could it be comparable? I don't know. Unless I've badly misunderstood Wiktionary's scope, its current rules wouldn't allow this. Of course, Wiktionary's scope is tied to that of a traditional dictionary to no greater extent than Wikipedia's is tied to that of a traditional encyclopedia. So if the Wiktionary community were to decide to permit such entries, I would reconsider my position. By the way, how does that article and the article on [[black people]] not violate Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's Black people article and Nigger article cover the same subject? One is about a racial classification of humans. The other is about a word commonly used as an ethnic slur. Because one of the unwritten exceptions to the guideline is that articles on terms which shouldn't be used in encyclopedias (without the quotation marks or italics) don't count. Come again? That begs the question. Wikipedia obviously only includes articles about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. But what is it that's *different* about words, which justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline? As I said, the guideline addresses the inclusion (actually, the exclusion) of dictionary entries, *not* words. Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate. This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are. Sounds like formatting to me. The guideline explains that content suited to these formats is appropriate and inappropriate (respectively) for inclusion in Wikipedia. It isn't about reformatting dictionary definitions to make them fit. To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one. Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline? See above. What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms from the language in which it's written. So while typically reliable, it isn't contextually relevant. -- David Levy ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 12/23/10 1:31 PM, George Herbert wrote: The social stuff which is complex is something which is a barrier, but one that all western society members who are modern communications literate are fundamentally equipped to handle. Some will fail at it This seems to beg the question: How do you define modern communications literate? Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, smartphone user. Those are a 95%+ solution for kids and young adults, if not 99%, and are easy enough for older adults (my parents, etc) to the point that they're arguably better than an 80% solution for the US population. Those examples are also widely used all over the world, including in regions where the Internet is still new. Most highly popular services start by letting each participant define themselves, and the default contribution that people are encouraged to make is usually permament and not subject to removal by others. One of the unkind and awkward aspects of the Wikipedia experience is, that the default requested contribution is an edit, new page, or upload, all of which may be reverted or followed by warnings and challenges, by people who expect you to RTFM to learn how to behave. Some possible improvements: - add new things that all users are encouraged to contribute (first-class citizens of the list 'ways to further the project'), which are entirely within the user's control: information about themselves and their environment, joining wikiprojects and work groups, taking part in polls and usability studies, answering questions from other users and readers - make a user's contributions permanently visible to them, if not to others (modulo vandalism), taking advantage of permalinks and file histories, even when those contribs have for now been removed from the default public view(s) of an article, or when they have been quarantined from view by other users for concerns about copyright status. this improves on the crude tool of deletion and keeps contributors from feeling that their hard work has been destroyed or disrespected, often due only to it being incomplete or not-yet-proven-notable. - develop better sandboxing policies, tools, and effective sandbox environments, so that new users can truly experiment and get used to editing before they are challenged, reverted, deleted, and blocked. Sam. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored. In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its cultural history, associations, et cetera, you wrote: Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia? This appeared to imply that because entries about words are present in dictionaries and absent from traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia's deviation from this convention can only be described as the inclusion of dictionary entries. It was a question. Not even a question which I posed to you. I certainly didn't mean the question as a statement that A implies B. I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question. Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? It isn't comparable. Could it be comparable? I don't know. Unless I've badly misunderstood Wiktionary's scope, its current rules wouldn't allow this. Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a comprehensive discussion of the word? Probably not. And that's probably a big part of the reason why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia. By the way, how does that article and the article on [[black people]] not violate Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's Black people article and Nigger article cover the same subject? No, of course not. I'm suggesting that they are titles which are different words for the same thing (synonyms). An article about the word gasoline and an article about the word petrol wouldn't cover the same subject either. One is about a racial classification of humans. The other is about a word commonly used as an ethnic slur. So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, and [[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it would be fine? That begs the question. Wikipedia obviously only includes articles about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. But what is it that's *different* about words, which justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline? As I said, the guideline addresses the inclusion (actually, the exclusion) of dictionary entries, *not* words. Of course words aren't excluded! As for dictionary entries being excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries (usage, etymology, meaning)? Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate. What counts as beyond a dictionary entry. Are you talking about length, or content? What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them? As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms from the language in which it's written. Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not comprehensive or random. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WYSIWTF
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: Force-reload, go to an article, and you'll see a new WYSIWTF tab (I trust you can decipher the acronym ;-) Hi Magnus, I'm not getting an extra tab. Perhaps I've done something stupid, but I stuck the above code in vector.js, reloaded, nothing. Same in Chrome, FF, Opera. What simple thing am I missing? Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:40 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: There's various levels here, all of which need to be removed: * What doesn't fit on a single-page printed cheat sheet isn't basic. * What doesn't fit in a pop-up box on a single screen isn't basic. * What doesn't fit in a line under the edit box isn't basic. * Wikitext isn't basic unless you assume HTML, which you can't. Wikitext is however powerful, and there are 160,000 editors in any given month on en:wp who cope with it. But that's a drop in the ocean. Moving in the right direction. If we did this to articles, but not to templates, we'd at least have the confusing parts contained in their own little magic black box (or green box, or however else you want to express a template in the editing interface.). We could reasonably get that down to Section tags, emphasis tags, table tags, image tags, hyperlinks, lists, and template transclusions, plus the nowiki and comment functions. Some may argue, but everything else is superfluous to editing an article, or could be wrapped up nice and neat as a template to hide the deep magic of wikitext from the layperson. -Steph ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The next Apollo programme: usable WYSIWYG on WMF sites
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Please discuss there ... I'm not on Foundation-L, so I'll discuss here: So, specification of the problem: * We need good WYSIWYG. The government example suggests that a simple word-processor-like interface would be enough to give tremendous results. Yes. * It needs two-way fidelity with almost all existing wikitext. No. As Magnus has suggested, it needs, with a high degree of reliability, to split Wikitext into chunks that it can edit, and chunks that it can't. And the former category should be much larger than the latter. Even something that can't edit tables, template transclusions, or references would still be very valuable. * We can't throw away existing wikitext, much as we'd love to. Of course. * It's going to cost money in programming the WYSIWYG. Probably. * It's going to cost money in rationalising existing wikitext so that the most unfeasible formations can be shunted off to legacy for chewing on. Only if you make the assumption I questioned above. * It's going to cost money in usability testing and so on. Maybe. Once we can trust it not to break existing pages, then I think we can turn it on and will have no trouble collecting reams of feedback. Usability testing would be useful for optimising it, but isn't needed at the start. I think we would get a long way with Magnus's kind of approach. Maybe even with some server side support: the server splits the wikitext up into pieces that it knows the client can deal with. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Eschatology and Wikipedia
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Those examples are also widely used all over the world, including in regions where the Internet is still new. Most highly popular services start by letting each participant define themselves, and the default contribution that people are encouraged to make is usually permament and not subject to removal by others. One of the unkind and awkward aspects of the Wikipedia experience is, that the default requested contribution is an edit, new page, or upload, all of which may be reverted or followed by warnings and challenges, by people who expect you to RTFM to learn how to behave. Some possible improvements: - add new things that all users are encouraged to contribute (first-class citizens of the list 'ways to further the project'), which are entirely within the user's control: information about themselves and their environment, joining wikiprojects and work groups, taking part in polls and usability studies, answering questions from other users and readers - make a user's contributions permanently visible to them, if not to others (modulo vandalism), taking advantage of permalinks and file histories, even when those contribs have for now been removed from the default public view(s) of an article, or when they have been quarantined from view by other users for concerns about copyright status. this improves on the crude tool of deletion and keeps contributors from feeling that their hard work has been destroyed or disrespected, often due only to it being incomplete or not-yet-proven-notable. - develop better sandboxing policies, tools, and effective sandbox environments, so that new users can truly experiment and get used to editing before they are challenged, reverted, deleted, and blocked. Sam. Soft deletion. I'm still a fan actually. While we still have way too many deleted revisions both from before and after oversight and revision deletion were introduced that are not fit to be seen, I think it would be worth revisiting a default form of deletion that preserves a public history, and reserving hard deletion and oversight-ish things for things that really need to go away forever. With regard to copyright though, unfortunately, those deletions do need to be hard. We can't knowingly let Wikipedia be used as a store for copyright violating materials, even if they are stored just for the benefit of one user, otherwise WMF could face legal liability issues.(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just an open source advocate with some personal interest in copyright law.) However, we should at least preserve a personal record of those contributions without the actual content, so that the user can understand why they were removed and learn from it. -Steph ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)
This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do that now? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
