date:20130509

[Wikitech-l] [GSoC] tools for micromanagement

2013-05-09 Thread Yury Katkov

Hi everyone!

What tools do you use for a small tasks in Google Summer of Code? I mean
the tasks like "prepare the working environment", "learn gerrit", "write a
blogpost", etc.? I thin that bugzilla is too heavy for this purpose.

Also can we use microblogging for reporting the current progress (in
addition to posts in a blog one in 2 weeks )? I tried that once and it was
very fun and efficient.

Cheers,
-
Yury Katkov, WikiVote
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] category intersection conversations

2013-05-09 Thread Matthew Flaschen

On 05/09/2013 03:49 PM, James Forrester wrote:
> On 9 May 2013 12:40, David Gerard  wrote:
> 
>> So yeah, whatever we use to add tags needs to be able to add citations
>> as well, right there next to the tag.
>>
> 
> Well, to me that's an even more compelling reason create such a system
> (Categories as-is don't have them): "WikiTags let you cite the source of
> why the subject is tagged that way".

Or a reason to have all the real data in Wikiata, and have NewCategories
be a way to query Wikidata.  Wikidata already has (basic but improving)
support for adding a citation to every statement.

But this (like switching to tags) would be a big change.

Matt Flaschen

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] category intersection conversations

2013-05-09 Thread Bartosz Dziewoński

Dmitriy, yes, and that's the point - in practice Wikipedia categories
are not transitive.

We've been working on this slowly at pl.wp lately, trying to split the
categories into two kinds marked with appropriate templates: "topic"
categories, including all related entries, e.g. Category:Water; and
"object" ones, which would imply transitiveness, like the Politicians
example provided above.

Topic cats could contain object ones, but not vice versa. This seems
like a good compromise to me, but requires a good deal of work, and
we're slowly progressing.

-- 
-- Matma Rex

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: [Wikitech-l] category intersection conversations

2013-05-09 Thread Dmitriy Sintsov

On 09.05.2013 20:28, Brad Jorsch wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 PM, James Forrester
wrote:

* Pages are implicitly in the parent categories of their explicit categories
* -> Pages in are in (its first parent) and (its first parent's parent) and (its second
parent) and (its second parent's parent) and …
* -> Yes, this poses issues given the sometimes cyclic nature of
categories' hierarchies, but this is relatively trivial to code around

Category cycles are the least of it. The fact that the existing
category hierarchy isn't based on any sensible-for-inference ontology
is a bigger problem.

Let's consider what would happen to one of my favorite examples on enwiki:
* The article for Romania is in . Ok.
* And that category is in , so Romania is in that too.
Which is a little strange, but not too bad.
* And is in and .
Huh? Romania doesn't belong in either of those, despite that being
equivalent to your example where pages in also end up in via .

There is probably nothing contradictionary in your Black sea category
relation example because "Seas of " implies that has
*multiple* seas, while Romania has only *one* sea border (no offence,
there are lot of small countries and large country does not always means
a happy life). is a little bit more weird, but
could be explained as long and complex area of Crimean peninsula. So,
the categories actually are not so wrong.

53 matches

Mail list logo