On Thursday 26 September 2002 12:01 pm, Brion wrote:
> Giskart wrote:
> > Brion VIBBER wrote:
> >> Pursuant to KQ's suggestions, I've started a page on the English
> >> wikipedia:
> >>
> >> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Embassy
>
> and now Esperanto:
> http://eo.wikipedia.com/wiki/Vikipedia_Ambasadorejo
>
> > A good idea be would it not be better to use the meta-wikipedia for
> > this ? Now it is used to put stuff on that is out of please on the
> > English wikipedia. I see a future for the Meta - wikipedia as the
> > central conectionpoint between all wikipedias. A truly international,
> > multi-lingual wiki for essays and other non-encycopedia stuff but also
> > as the centre for international co-ordination. For Embassys or some
> > respresantation. You can make different "Main Page"s on the same wiki.
> > Somthing like this;
> > http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Hoofdpagina
>
> >
>
> > I think there will be more active in the Embassy pages if the are all on
> > 1 wiki. Then there are only only 2 wikipedias to monitor. . If the
> > Embassy pages are all on the home-wikipedias i think some will be
> > forgotten and the traffic, if any, will only be downstream from the
> > English to the others but not upstream.
>
> My experience with Meta has been that I check it somewhere between very
> rarely and never, which makes it useless for me for discussion or site
> announcements. On the other hand, the wikis I participate in *editing* I
> check rather regularly (en, eo quite frequently, fr at least few times a
> week; I check de for the bug reports page), and so I'm much more likely
> to notice big news / help requests / policy discussions there. Likewise
> the mailing lists (eg intlwiki-l) come directly to my inbox once I've
> subscribed, so it's tough to ignore them.
Sorry Brion, but your logic here fails me (chicken and the egg scenario). The
Meta is practically useless for what it was made for because nobody uses it
for much of anything but a dumping ground of POV material. So by ignoring it,
you are extending its uselessness.
I really like the idea of having the meta be the neutral ground for all the
different Wikipedia projects and I am glad to see that several alternate
homepages in different languages have already popped-up. This trend should be
encouraged. Why not have the same setup for the Embassy pages? Isn't this
/exactly/ what the meta was made for?
If the software made it possible for people to see changes made to Metapedia
in their own language's Recent Changes then I can forsee much more activity
over at the Meta.
I'm with Giskart on this one.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
An initial version of "stub detection" is running at Lee's test site.
Links to stub articles (less than 500 chars) are shown in green.
REDIRECTs are shown as normal links. For example, try
http://www.piclab.com/wikitest/wiki.phtml?title=Biology
I suggest to
* make the minimum size for a "real" article a user option
* set it to zero as standard
which means nobody gets this special mark-up, except they choose it in
their prefernces. That would avoid confusion, especially among newcomers
(blue links? and red ones? and green ones?).
Also, everybody can decide how large an article has to be at least...
PLEASE, gimme feedback, or I'll implement it as is! (just so the "hate
it" can register in time, for once...)
Magnus
P.S.: Same goes for the "Special:Maintenance" page at the same place,
while you're at it :-)
The Cunctator wrote:
>The original purpose of Meta was to balkanize discussion about the project
>from the Wikipedia Recent Changes page. It was clear to me that would
>inevitably lead (with the alternative of the mailing list) to the decay and
>disuse of meta-discussion in the WikiWiki Way. And it has.
>
>This can be repaired by unbalkanizing it and by unbalkanizing the mailing
>list. Users should be able to include both meta and the mailing list updates
>into the Recent Changes functionality.
That's not an idea I would like at all. I go to wikipedia when I want to write or edit articles, or do mindless updates like on the year or country articles. I go to the mailing list expecting policy discussion or explanation of motives, etc. I go to metapedia expecting hopelessly POV essays which typically don't merit response.
In my eyes, wikipedia is the workplace, the mailing list is the lounge, and metapedia is the storage closet. I don't think that's a bad thing. When I want to work, I don't always want to chitchat, and when I want to chitchat, I usually don't want to work.
kq
We can solve the dilemma Cunctator mentioned with soft deletes of one
sort or another.
Problem #1: There are way too many micro-stubs and nonsense pages that
have to be deleted.
Problem #2: Once in a while, our hard-working Volunteer Deletion Crew
accidentally deletes something that another contributor (like Cunctator)
wishes they'd been able to look at before deletion.
Solution A: Replace delete by a "soft delete" that erases the current
text but keeps the article history. A link to the article shows the
?-mark (or red line) same as a hard delete.
Solution B: Create a "marked for deletion" function, with a timer. A
standard period of time after being marked, say, 24 hours, the software
automatically deletes it -- unless someone removes it from the deletion
queue. (Variation: any edit to a "marked" article automatically clears
the "delete me" flag.
Ed Poor
Noticed something pretty cool while surfing around at random - Wikipedia
got a plug by Wil Wheaton on 19th September. (www.wilwheaton.net is one
of the most widely-read blogs on the internet, so hopefully that gave us
a few new users...)
--
adamw
On Thursday 26 September 2002 06:21 pm, Anthere wrote:
> - is it possible to watch several wikis from the same
> place ? I know there's the issue of confusion if it's
> a common list, or the issue of the multiplication of
> lists (could be solved by a drop-down (?) menu anyway.
> The core question is just, is it possible ?
This was proposed before by me and somebody else months ago. It was generally
thought at that time that it would be too confusing and too difficult to get
to work right (not to mention it would majorly add to feature creep). Maybe
things have changed since then.
Slight aside;
I still think Metapedia is practically useless because there is too much
emphasis on this blasted mailing list and because Metapedia has a separate
Recent Changes.
Of course wiki isn't the best way to have back and forth discussions....
I'm rambling. Estoy muy cansado. Opps, wrong list....
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hello,
I wanted to revisit the issue that the red links brought up, and the Spanish fork before that: the non-English wikipedias often feel left out, snubbed, and/or ignored. I don't want to debate whether they should or not, because it's not productive and people never want to be told how they should feel anyway. That they do feel that way is a problem, regardless of whether we think it should be.
I've been talking with one of the contributors to the French wikipedia, and I think the other wikipedias feel isolated because of a general lack of communication about policy and software issues. I'd like to propose a few ideas we've come up with to deal with the problem:
1: we could ask for volunteer wikipedia diplomats: polyglots who are willing to inform various communities about policy and software discussions taking place that may affect them. This idea would require people willing to help and keep up on the issues, and probably be a burden. I can't imagine many people with enough zeal to do it: mav and the indefatigable Ram-Man, if s/he is bilingual, and not many others (including myself).
2: we could create a special page on each wikipedia to post relevant issues to, in English. This is not an ideal solution, even though many people speak English: it would be preferable to post fluently in that wiki's language, and also we'd have several pages to update each time and might forget one. However, this solution is better than the de facto one we have now, which is to take whatever action people on the list agree on, and then field complaints from people who aren't on the list (not everyone speaks English, of course, so please don't say that they should just sign up). :-)
3: We could create a page on the English wikipedia posting a summary of the current issues and pointing people towards wherever the discussion is taking place (talk pages, list, etc.). Then we could post a link to it in each wikipedia requesting that interested people follow the page. This would be burdensome for them, because they would have to visit the link periodically and check for pages, and because the people who do speak English would have to translate for the others.
4: we could create that page mentioned above but modify the "watch this page" function to allow people on any wiki to watch a page on any other wiki. That's a good idea, but I imagine people active on several wikipedias would eventually have their watch page turn into a confusing mess. So it might call for multiple watch lists, a less-than-great solution unless they're all available from any wikipedia. Also, it still requires translators.
5: we could post a link on each wikipedia labeled "policy discussion." Like "user talk:" at the top right, it could indicate when the page has changed since your last visit. Still requires translators.
6: we could install the software on the non-English wikipedias, explain how to change options, etc., and let them adminsitrate it themselves. Doesn't require English, does require ComputerSpeak.
I think a good general suggestion would be to change agreed-on options only on the English wikipedia, since it's typically only English-speaking people who agree to it, and then to post that the new option is available to the other wikipedias as well--but not mandatory.
I do not think I'm exaggerating the issue; and if you've ever spent much time in a place where you do not speak the language and others don't speak English, then I'm sure you'll agree. It's quite easy to feel frustrated. And, of course, a series of misunderstandings is what led to the Spanish fork.
I'm very interested in comments and other ideas.
kq
On Thursday 26 September 2002 06:21 pm, you wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > Alternatively - since the old versions appear to be saved at the system
> > anyway, what about creating a 'restore' function on the Deletion log?
>
> If I go do that right now, will everyone SHUT THE FARDELS UP? :)
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Would it be possible to simply view what was contained in the page without
restoring it?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 9/27/02 12:19 AM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip> > Of course wiki isn't the best way to have back and forth
> discussions....
> > But it is a better way to develop consensus.
I'm not so sure. Discussions on wiki, when they take the form of an
attempt to formulate a consensus document, are extremely susceptible to
one party framing a problem that is prejudicial (explicitly or subtly)
toward one point of view. Then, if another party attempts to reframe the
problem posed by someone who insists strongly on getting his way, an edit
war ensues. If that were how we settled all our policy issues, it would
be way too easy for a single person to have undue influence over the
policy-making process, and for an alleged consensus actually to be bogus.
Of course, this isn't the case when one uses the page basically as a
mailing list thread, as talk: pages often are. But then it's the fact
that the wiki page resembles a mailing list that "levels the playing
field."
The nice thing about a mailing list is that nobody gets to frame a
problem; each participant is free to contribute and analyze. (And other
participants are also free to delete messages without reading them; their
length doesn't dominate the page the way that enormous replies on a wiki
page does.)
So, while I still think Meta-Wikipedia still has a useful function (e.g.,
I'm glad I have an appropriate place for all my 'pedia-related essays),
I'm rather glad that a lot of the discussion has moved onto the mailing
lists.
Larry