Thanks for the feedback. My idea is to initially take the data from the intro of wiki page, but when somebody suggests a change, then the suggestions will be put up for voting. Most voted suggestion will go onto the card. I really like that idea of putting special tags for syncing. But, won't that change the literal structure of the main article? For example: If I use these tags on Madonna's wikipage, "Madonna Louise Ciccone[1] (/t??'ko?ne?/ chi-koh-nay; born August 16, 1958) is an American singer-songwriter, actress, director, dancer, and entrepreneur. <card> Born in Bay City, Michigan, she moved to New York City in 1977 to pursue a career in modern dance and performed in the music groups Breakfast Club and Emmy.</card> <br /> Madonna is known for continuously reinventing both her music and image, and for retaining a standard of autonomy within the recording industry. She attained immense popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV. Critics have praised her....." And I change the card content to something like.."An influential pop culture icon, Madonna is known for continuously reinventing her music and image. Her work often include explicit content which drives her into controversies. (And then some of her best musics.)" In this particular case, two things are happening: 1. The previous data that was irrelevant as card content but was relevant and good for the main article is now gone. 2. The literal structure of the article is damaged. There may be immediate repetition of information, or sudden change in the flow of article, or something else like that. And that's why I am planning to either save its definition part on Wikidata or make its own database/table for saving. What do you think? Is there any other better solution for this problem? One thing that comes to my mind is, we can fetch it from the wiki page as long as it's not changed from it's initial version and once changed we can then, save it in database and call from there. But, this will make it fragmented :-/ On 7 April 2013 21:40, Petr Bena &lt;benapetr(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 07.04.2013, 22:56 Gaurav wrote: Are you familiar with contributing to Wikipedia? There's an edit link, you change stuff and once you press "Save" it immediately goes live (oh well, on wikis with FlaggedRevs your change will need to be reviewed by an experienced editor for compliance with basic principles, but still not as complex and exploitable as voting). Why should changing a minor part about an article be more complex and bureaucratic that editing the page altogether? Once you separate the extract from the article, you will have a problem of having to update the extract to reflect the latest state of the article, it it really worth it? -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])

On 04/07/2013 03:24 PM, Gaurav Chawla wrote: I agree with Quim (on the bug). Consensus is a better approach for content (voting on such things is vulnerable to gamesmanship and mob rule). I am also skeptical of this as a WMF project. Slightly rethought, though, it could certainly be a cool use of the Wikipedia and Wikidata APIs and/or dumps. Matt Flaschen

On 04/10/2013 12:33 PM, Gaurav Chawla wrote: Yes. http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc20… You can technically submit many projects to many organizations. In practice we'd rather help you submitting a good one with us. :) I know you know it, but there are many project ideas with mentors available at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2013 Thank you for your willingness to experiment and contribute regardless of GSOC and whatever we say. It is essential to believe in you and your ideas. That's the spirit! :) -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Lukas Benedix &lt;benedix(a)zedat.fu-berlin.de&gt;wrote;wrote: And more: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/ts2/reasonator/?q=Q9696

Wow! That looks like an amazing proposal even in its inception. With more refinement it will have great potential. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Paul Selitskas &lt;p.selitskas(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Cheers, Nischay Nahata nischayn22.in

On 04/07/2013 02:52 PM, Max Semenik wrote: I'm glad Gaurav shared this proposal with us so early so that we can help with criticism and other feedback. Everyone else reading this who's thinking about proposing a summer project: please tell the list ASAP so we can help you too! I think my main concern regarding Gaurav's proposal is the same one Yaron mentioned in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Grv99 : as our guidelines state, "YES to projects already backed by a Wikimedia community. NO to projects requiring Wikipedia to be convinced." https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Summer_of_Code_2013#Your_project Gaurav, the reason we have these guidelines is that we have seen past failures and want to avoid them in the future. Maybe you could consider thinking about what you are really interested in and finding a more achievable way of working towards that within the structure of GSoC. For example, if you want to ensure that there's a canonical photo and one-sentence summary associated with every article topic, maybe you could work with Wikidata on that -- and then a future student can improve the Navigation Popups gadget (and spread it across all the wikis) to make use of the photo and summary sentence. That's just one idea for an approach that's more likely to succeed. -- Sumana Harihareswara Engineering Community Manager Wikimedia Foundation