On 1/3/03 10:56 AM, "Erik Moeller" <e.moeller(a)fokus.gmd.de> wrote:
> It is my understanding that this was the consensus, so I have disabled
> the "minor edit" checkbox for anonymous users. The reasoning here is
> that an anon can never gain the trust necessary to have his edits
> ignored by some users.
>
> Note that the checkbox is simply not rendered, an anon can theoretically
> still get an edit marked as minor with URL magic. I'll try to get to
> that later.
>
This is not good. Please change it back until this can be better discussed.
This is a wikipedia-l issue, not wikitech-l issue.
At 12:00 04/01/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >> I think there shouldn't be any "minor edits" flag at all; we have the
> >> ability to have the software determine if an edit is "minor"; why not
> >> let the software flag a change as minor in the html if only a few bytes
> >> have changed?
> >
> >Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite
> > ->
> >Richard Wagner was not an anti-Semite
> >
> >4 bytes. Minor edit?
>
>The current system also fails to catch that one, since a person making a
>change like that would probably mark it as minor. My proposal to let
>the software do the work is no worse than the current system, and is a
>win from a usability point of view.
Your proposal is, I think, worse than the current system. Unreliable users
still wouldn't be trusted and would still have every edit checked, reliable
users still would be trusted and have every edit ignored by default. But
with your proposal, large edits (in terms of sheer size), which might
actually be very minor (lots of spelling fixes, table formatting, restoring
vandalised articles, etc), would not, in fact, be marked minor. And
automatically marking small edits is minor is surely a bad idea - it would
be worse than the current system because people who are honest about such
small (in terms of size) changes actually being major would have their
edits automatically marked minor as well.
It might well be "a win from a usability point of view" inasmuch as one
doesn't have to click on a pesky check box if one's edit is minor, but this
is surely outweighed by the fact that those "M"s on Recent Changes would
all become unreliable (instead of just some of them being unreliable).
LP (camembert)
jimbo - you are forgetting significant figures, 10 miles is not 16.09 km
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
At 12:00 04/01/2003 +0000, Cunc wrote:
> > It is my understanding that this was the consensus, so I have disabled
> > the "minor edit" checkbox for anonymous users. The reasoning here is
> > that an anon can never gain the trust necessary to have his edits
> > ignored by some users.
> >
> > Note that the checkbox is simply not rendered, an anon can theoretically
> > still get an edit marked as minor with URL magic. I'll try to get to
> > that later.
> >
>This is not good. Please change it back until this can be better discussed.
"Until it can be better discussed"? What does that mean? Do we have to wait
until a full moon or something?
Seriously - I for one do actually trust some anon users enough to ignore
their edits, and don't really think this is such a great change. I should
think that people who are concerned about cleaning up vandalism and so on
have minor edits switched on anyway, so isn't this just going to thrust a
lot of edits that minor-edit-ignorers don't care about onto their Recent
Changes pages? I may be wrong, but I think the majority of anon users can
be trusted (just as the majority of signed in users can be trusted).
I note, by the way, that a lot of anon users do still to be making edits
marked as "minor". So has this really been implemented?
LP (camembert)
In a message dated 1/4/2003 4:22:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
krooger(a)debian.org writes:
> think there shouldn't be any "minor edits" flag at all; we have the
> ability to have the software determine if an edit is "minor"; why not
> let the software flag a change as minor in the html if only a few bytes
> have changed? We already do something similar for the links on article
> pages, where we classify the links according to their size.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
Because a minor edit is determined by more than just byte size. Adding one
word (such as "not") can change the meaning of an article, but a bot might
consider that a minor edit, while a lot of little typo fixes could be missed.
Danny
I just stumbled across [[The KnowledgeWeb]] on Recent Changes, and had a
look at their demo, especially their demo search results
(http://www.k-web.org/demo/search_results.html). It resembles "What
links here", but goes beyond it.
I think it would be quite possible to have such a "view" linked from
every wikipedia article. As brief contents, we could use the first
(real) sentence of an article (that is, no table containing images, no
language links, etc.). We could also display the first image of the
article, if there is one. We don't have a "node type", though. (I tried
to introduce flexible categories to wikipedia in the past, but would you
listen to me? ;-)
Would there be, basically, interest in such a "smart browse" (or
whatever) function?
Magnus
On Friday 03 January 2003 07:34 am, tarquin wrote:
> The [[Orders of Magnitude]] group of pages should help with this --
> wherever units are given they should link to one of the "chain pages"
> that give comparisons & conversions.
IMO it is a fallacy to think that your average American can really can get
their brain around what 9,000,000 square miles (sic) is in the real world or
the average European can really get their brain around what 9,000,000 square
kilometres (sic) is in the real world. They both just /think/ they know what
that is because they are familiar with what the base unit is.
IMO numbers that size combined with the fact that areas and especially volumes
get numerically larger faster than what most people intuitively expect (a
circle with a diameter of 20 units has an area of 314 sq units; a sphere with
an diameter of 20 units has a volume of 4,190 cubic units) tends to render
such large numbers relatively non-comprehensible without some frame of
reference other than familiarity with a base unit.
That is why the Orders of Magnitude articles are so useful: A list is given
with examples of things in the same size range and if that size range
includes an Imperial unit then a conversion factor is presented. In addition
to this, links to an online converter are provided for most of the order of
mag /and/ unit articles. See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E6_m²http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_kilometer
> Besides, the metric system is really not hard to grasp. There's one
> basic unit for each type of measurement that can be used for anything.
> and the same multiplying prefixes apply to all units.
Very true. This is one of the reasons why the WikiProjects
have standardized on metric/SI while linking to either the unit
articles (such as N,NNN [[square kilometre|km²]]) or the order
of mag articles (such as [[1 E9 m²|N,NNN km²]]). The unit
articles have conversion factors in them, the order of mag
articles have examples of things in the given size range
and both article types have links to an online converter.
(NOTE: We toyed with the idea of having Imperial in parenthesis
but this makes the tables too fat for users with 800x600 displays).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=January_3&diff=555047&oldid=554…
(along with updating almost all articles linked from that page)
On sab, 2003-01-04 at 07:14, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> As for the idea about special markup for measures, is there a need for
> any markup at all? Cannot the PHP software do a reg.exp matching for
> a number of digits followed by the word "miles" or "metres", and
> automatically do the right thing?
Digits vs words (in many languages), comma vs period vs space separators
for thousands and digits, decimals vs fractions, abbreviations vs words,
in various grammatical numbers and cases, hypenation, etc. Not to
mention the precision issue.
Tell you what, you write code that does The Right Thing reliably and
I'll be happy to put it in.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I personally would prefer the metric system, but I understand others may
not agree with that. Can't we just include both? I mean some people will
be alot more familiar with metric measurements than imperial. Which one
goes first I guess depends on who is writing the article, and from where
the figure is obtained (converting a rounded figure, and then rounding it
again seems bad to me, and it should be obvious that the first figure is
the most accurate, or at least the figure as released by whoever came to
it.
ASB [[User:Smelialichu]]
--
<signature>
There are only 10 types of people in this world;
Those that know binary...and those that don't
</signature>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:13:59 +0900, Guillaume Blanchard
<gblanchard=D478G1Wy5/l3+QwDJ9on6Q(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hello there, happy new year !
> Are there any problems to set ^^x^^ (or something else) to be
> <sup>x</sup>
> or better <sup><font size="-1">x</font></sup> ?
> We frequently use it on french wikipedia and it is a little bit tired to
> write each time.
Your first markup is much better than the second. The font size change is
better achieved via the stylesheet:
sup, sub {font-size: 83%;}
--
Richard Grevers