WikiEN-l October 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

101 participants
246 discussions

Added things to navigation panel only appear sometimes
by Brian Peyton 27 Oct '04

27 Oct '04

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

1 0

Despite growing pains, users hope for dominance of Wiktionary, Mediawiki
by Sj 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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+

3 2

NSK
by Anthony DiPierro 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

> 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.

3 2

Viewing deleted pages (Kate's script)
by Anthony DiPierro 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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.

3 2

WP in The Guardian (London)
by Charles Matthews 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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

3 2

Recent changes vs. What's New
by NSK 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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

6 6

Censorship of Current Events
by Poor, Edmund W 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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

3 3

RE: [WikiEN-l] Censorship of Current Events
by Poor, Edmund W 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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).

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] NY Times partisan advocacy on Missing Explosives inIraq
by Poor, Edmund W 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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

1 0

NY Times partisan advocacy on Missing Explosives in Iraq
by Poor, Edmund W 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

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

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
25
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l October 2004