In SkinPHPTal.php I added this in the section with the others:
$nav_urls['projects'] = array('href' =>
htmlspecialchars($this->makeI18nUrl('projects')));
And in xhtml_slim.pt I added this:
<li id="n-projects"><a href="${nav_urls/projects/href}"
i18n:translate="string:projects">Projects</a></li>
I also added the text "Projects" in MediaWiki:Projects.
On some pages, such as special pages, the item is there. And in most
content pages it's missing. How do I fix this?
I'm running mediawiki 1.3.7
Yesterday, the O'Reilly Network's Scott Hacker addressed the end-user
experience of setting up and customizing a wiki (with some eloquent
commentary by visitors at the end) :
_Where's the Movable Type of the Wiki World?_ (
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/5794 )
Hacker suggests the Wiki world needs its own elegant, soup-to-nuts
wikiproject, comparing the chaos of wiki communities and documentation
to that of the blogging world pre-Movable Type. He shopped around for
a wiki to use for an educational project (which was inspired by
WikiPedia, retro camel caps and all), and finally settled on MediaWiki
as the best choice. Unfortunately, its "scattered and obtuse"
documentation, "stupidly difficult" customizations, and lack of an
off-wiki user manual, left him cold. He notes he'd be willing to pay
on the order of $100 for an actively developed, well-supported
solution.
---
U.Penn student Swarat Chaudhury, writing for India's venerable paper /
The Statesman / , was more openly optimistic:
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=24&theme=&usrsess=1&id=58137
"Wikipedia has spawned a sister project called Wiktionary
(http://www.wiktionary. org), a collaborative multilingual dictionary
with pronunciations, etymology and quotations. The grand ambition of
these projects is nothing short of letting the demos beat the experts
at their own game... Personally, I still rely on the OED most of the
time, but I also look forward to a day when Wiktionary beats it hands
down."
+sj+
> Ah, you are reading and answering the list. Excellent! Now, what was your
> Wikipedia username again? I note you didn't answer this simple question
> previously. Do you in fact edit on Wikipedia at all?
I think I figured it out, but I see no reason why someone can't post to this
mailing list without giving his Wikipedia username.
A script to allow users to view deleted pages has already been created. It
is at http://download2.wikimedia.org/tools/view_deleted_article.
Kate asked Angela if she "could make it available to all users". Angela
said no.
So, basically, the problem has been reduced to getting permission to use the
script. Kate suggests that this should be done by applying to the Board
(since Angela is a member). I left a note on Angela's talk page asking her
where I can go from here.
Anthony
> I'm not entirely sure how that interface works, and how it
> interacts with any non-deleted history, but if it works in a fairly
> sane way then it could presumably be extended to all logged in users.
> On a quick side-note to which, there's probably going to be a more
> flexible permissions system in the software soon, so it ought to be
> possible to assign this ability to a subset of users distinct from the
> subset assigned general "admin" privileges.
Surprised no one has mentioned this so far - there is a very favourable
story in today's Guardian newspaper, a two-page spread in its G2 features
supplement : "How Wikipedia turned knowledge on its head".
Charles
Hi,
Have a look at my wikis where I changed "Recent changes" to "What's New":
http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org or http://jnana.wikinerds.org
I suppose that Wikipedia should do the same because most web surfers are
familiar with the "What's New" link but they may not clearly understand what
"Recent changes" is about.
Also, I think that the "Community portal" link could be just "Community".
Shorter, simpler and less clutter.
--
NSK
Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org
Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org
Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org
To make it worse, 10 minutes after I corrected the liberal bias in the
Missing Explosives story some anonymous IP user deleted the entire day
-- wiping out 1/2 hour of my work.
How can we be accurate or neutral, with this sort of thing going on?
When I've brought this up previously, people ask me to provide examples.
I have. Today I've done so again.
These are not isolated examples. And now on MediaWiki I find that
someone wants to create news articles which CANNOT EVER BE EDITED AGAIN.
Well, that would be nice if they are vetted for accuracy and neutrality
first.
We cannot side with the Kerry campaign and refer to the explosives as
having "not been secured or guarded" properly. That's merely their
CLAIM. Two other sources (one media, one military) say that NOBODY ever
saw any such explosives other than UN inspectors BEFORE the invasion.
I hate to sound shrill, but this sort of bias is endemic -- and I just
don't have the 8 hours a day it would take to counter it by myself.
I think the news sidebar needs a manager, just like our Featured Article
sidebar has a manager.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
The version Nicholas reverted STILL omitted both the IAEA evaluation
that Saddam's men moved the munitions, and AGAIN deleted the Pentagan
assertion that US troops searched the facility and found no such
munitions.
I hope we don't have to start 'protecting' the Current Events page.
Can't we just all follow the NPOV rules?
I have corrected these ommissions for the second or third time now....
Ed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Knight [mailto:nknight@runawaynet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:28 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Censorship of Current Events
>
>
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
> > This is simple vandalism from some random anon user, and there is no
>
> THIS, on the other hand:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&diff=0&oldid=6
874941
was clearly not random (I've already reverted it).
Professor Lih wrote:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:31 AM
> If you expect to cite only "objective" news sources, it will
> be an empty page. No credible news organization can ever
> claim to be objective. One should evaluate it against the
> spectrum of other sources, and determine whether it is fair
> and balanced.
Yes, you are right. But I think we could highlight cases where a news
organization OMITS easily obtainable information that contradicts the
slant of its story. There's supposed to be a difference between
commentary (like editorial, or an op-ed column) and straight news.
As I said later in the post you responded to, Wikipedia cannot condemn
any news source, any more than it can endorse one. But I can WISH for
objectivity, can't I?
A very idealistic Ed Poor
A recent NY Times article which "broke" the story about Missing
Explosives in Iraq reads more like an editorial than straight news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html
* The article conceals the Pentagon statement that "no explosives had
been found in QaQaa.
* The article questions whether Bush had been informed, but ignores an
Associated Press report quoting White House press secretary Scott
McClellan as saying that Rice DID inform Bush.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAQ_TIMELINE?SITE
=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I think we should downgrade our estimation of the NY Times. They are not
an objective news source: they mix straight reporting with
editorializing.
Or, if Wikipedia cannot "endorse or condemn" anyone or anything, then at
least we should prominently document the fact that the NY Times article
omitted these 2 crucial pieces of news information.
We don't want to let Wikipedia be used to manufacture an October
surprise, do we?
Ed Poor <- trying hard to be non-partisan when writing articles