Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Steve Bennett wrote: > Oh, this is so easy in MOO code[1], it's not funny: > > {{`tostr(args[1], " + ", args[2], " = ", args[1] + args[2]) ! ANY => > "that's an error"'}} > > (yes that's a backquote at the start and a normal one at the end. > Semantics of "+" may differ from what you intended.) I think it needs more squiggly brackets. And a couple of @ symbols. Can you sprinkle in some hash marks too, pretty please? --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Charles Matthews wrote: > I'm not yet convinced that the absence of WYSIWYG is a barrier to WP > doing anything specific, and I don't believe that the usability > studies > I have seen prove that it is. But then I tend to believe that the > issue > with expository problems lies in the underestimation of expository > writing. The question is whether WYSIWYG would make editing Wikipedia articles easier for most users. I think the answer to that question is fairly self-evident. Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command- line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with Macintosh computers. Some people back then argued that word processors like WordPerfect were better than WYSIWYG because you could go into edit mode and "see" the markup codes -- [b] for bold, [i] for italic, etc. Similarly, people argued that command-line DOS was better than dragging-and-clicking windows in a GUI because you could "see" the commands and their parameters. In the end, WYSIWYG and the GUI won. Most people don't WANT to see [b] for bold. They just want to be able to make the text bold. As a result, some once-dominant word processors died off, and Microsoft was forced to adapt by replacing DOS with Windows. Wikipedia has enough earned reputation that path dependency will keep it on top of the heap for the foreseeable future, even without WYSIWYG editing, but sooner or later someone will develop a better alternative -- either within Wikipedia, or outside it. --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Stevertigo wrote: >> (1) No WYSIWYG editing system. > > Browsers by limitation are not real "WYSIWIG editing systems," and > because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser. > New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either > proprietary or useless unless the W3C deals with it. One improvement > that comes to mind is text edit fields that are readable and > formattable, so the distinction between presentation and editing text > is blurred - maybe quick shifting between edit and view modes. Nevertheless, there are a number of WYSIWYG editing technologies that people have developed which work with web browsers, such as FCKEditor. A number of non-Mediawiki wikis already have WYSIWYG functionality, as does Google's Knols project. I know people who have tried developing WYSIWYG for Mediawiki, and the main obstacle they encounter is the wiki markup language, which is too idiosyncratic to parse properly and consistently. If Mediawiki used some other markup syntax, such as XML or HTML, they'd be able to do it. The current syntax was designed with the original intention of making it very easy and quick for people to edit articles and add formatting such as bold, italic, hyperlinks, etc. However, even a lightweight markup language is still a markup language, and WYSIWYG is easier for most people, so in this regard Wikipedia has fallen behind with regard to state-of-the-art standards for user-friendliness. Moreover, the original simplicity of Wikipedia's markup syntax has been lost somewhat as new functionality has been added. The whole templates mess is an example of this. If someone were trying to design Wikipedia from scratch today, I think they'd be able to come up with a markup syntax that supports WYSIWYG very nicely, but of course designing it from scratch is not an option. There's too much legacy material that has already been created using the existing syntax, so changing it becomes very difficult. Again, this is en example of path dependency. --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Stevertigo wrote: > The word "monopoly" implies unfair business practices such that make > an inferior product the exceedingly market-dominant one. Putting aside > its basic inapplicability in an open-source context, and the fact that > in that context people will make free choices to use a tool, and not > to mention participate in that tools' further development.. what is > the argument? If you don't like the connotations of the word "monopoly," maybe you'll be happier with "path dependence," which conveys the same basic point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence Obviously, "unfair business practices" are not responsible for maintaining Wikipedia's existing templating system. However, path dependence clearly occurs even in open source contexts. I think path dependence plays a big role in enabling Wikipedia to maintain its standing as the most popular online encyclopedia, and it probably is responsible for preventing a number of improvements from happening with Wikipedia. For example: (1) No WYSIWYG editing system. (2) The current templating system, which works but is far from easy for most people to use. (3) Governance practices which are sometimes less than optimal. If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now become state-of-the-art website design, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Wikipedia looks a lot like Web 1.0 rather than Web 2.0. Web design has come a long way since Wikipedia was launched. Many websites now integrate video very nicely and use Javascript/AJAX to improve user-friendliness and make pages more interactive and dynamic. The semantic web is also becoming more than a buzzword, and it's not hard to imagine a "Wikipedia 2.0" that would incorporate those sorts of features to become even more useful, attractive and popular than it already is. So why aren't those features already in place? Because the huge weight of Wikipedia's millions of articles and users makes it inevitable that introducing those sorts of features will be more technically challenging than if someone were to design those same features for a website that only has a small number of articles and users. In short, path dependence means that Wikipedia's very success makes it harder in some ways for the project to innovate and improve. --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Stevertigo wrote: > Hm. That "crap" seems to have worked quite well for a few years now. Hardly. The templating system has been a source of complaints and frustrations for a very long time. I remember hearing Aaron Swartz get a lot of laughter when he gave a talk at Wikimania 2006 and showed a Powerpoint slide with a screenful of templating gibberish that consisted of an huge, nested series of squiggly brackets, numerals and odd symbols. The line that drew the big laugh was when he asked if people thought that syntax was user-friendly. The current system of parser functions is actually an improvement over what existed previously, because at least it provides for an if-then statement and some rudimentary calculations and logical branching. Before parser functions existed, people used an even uglier workaround in which they achieved the RESULT of an if-then statement through a process so complicated and counter-intuitive that it would take several labored paragraphs for me to even describe it . It was because that system DIDN'T "work quite well" that parser functions were developed. They're not very easy to use either, which is why the developers are now trying to come up with a better alternative. I should mention too that a number of Mediawiki extensions have been written over the years -- Semantic Mediawiki, for example -- which are also basically attempts to overcome the limitations of Mediawiki syntax and the templating system in particular. There are also oodles of extensions that people have written in attempts to add some widget or transclusion feature to Mediawiki such as Google maps or RSS feeds. If the current system "worked quite well," a lot of those add-on extensions would be unnecessary. The fact that the current template system works poorly is no one's fault. It's a consequence of the ad hoc way that Mediawiki and Wikipedia have evolved, and of course that ad hoc evolution is no one's fault either. If everyone had waited until they had a perfect wiki platform before launching Wikipedia, the project would never have gotten off the ground. The tech people have generally performed admirably at building and maintaining the software that runs Wikipedia, and I think it's great that they're talking about ways to further improve the templating system, which could certainly use it. I think they understand all too well that it's not a good system, and they also understand how difficult it will be to come up with a better alternative. --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Brian wrote: > Let's be clear that, especially after the failure of Nupedia to take > off, > Wikipedia's success was a surprise both to Sanger and Wales. Neither > of them > expected that this would happen and can therefore not take full or > too much > credit for it. The fact that they were surprised by its success does not mean that they don't deserve credit for it. History is full of ideas whose success surprised their creators. I'm sure the Beatles were surprised when they soared to the top of the music charts (especially after they had spent years grinding away with only modest success in Hamburg and Liverpool). When Linus Torvalds released the first version of Linux, he had no way of knowing that it would take off the way it did. That doesn't mean the Beatles don't deserve credit for their music or Torvalds doesn't deserve credit for Linux. If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of an online encyclopedia after their first attempt, they persevered, retooled and came up with an alternative approach that did work. Of course they had no way of knowing what a success it would become. They got lucky, and a huge community of other people has contributed in various ways. But they still deserve credit for the original innovation. --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ 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] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I haven't written anything on wikien-l in a long time, but I've been following a bit of this thread about Larry Sanger's open letter and thought I'd propose something. Wikis are good for purposes other than creating encyclopedias, and it might be interesting to see if Jimmy and Larry could use a wiki to resolve their differences. Currently the way in which the conflict is being expressed is leading toward more polarization and hostility rather than less. One of the things we see frequently often on wikis, however, is that people who have strong disagreements about some topic can nevertheless agree to a considerable degree on what an article about that topic should say. The process of reiteratively editing a single article often leads to a synthesis that multiple parties accept. (In some cases, a mediator or arbitration committee may need to render a judgment, but this is only necessary in a minority of cases.) So here's my proposal, if Jimmy and Larry would agree to it: Why don't they both start a wiki page in which they both edit and revise a statement describing the history of Wikipedia and their roles within it? Rather than do this on Wikipedia, I would suggest doing this on a private wiki that only they and other parties of their choosing are allowed to see. If they would both agree to go through this process, I think they might find it possible to work out something that they can both accept. And if they can't reach and agreement, they can look for some independent third parties to mediate. Right now there is some obvious hostility between them, but I think they both should have good reason to want to overcome that. They both played crucial roles in creating what has now become a remarkable project of great benefit to the world, and they both should feel pride and satisfaction in what they've accomplished. Watching this conflict simmer and bubble (as it has now for years) is a bit like watching the Beatles feuding after the band broke up. I think it would be better for both parties' reputations, and for their personal happiness as well, if they could find some way to reconcile, and the current process doesn't seem to be leading that way. Just a suggestion. ------- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate> ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l