Hi,
please take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FA/BeenOnMainPage&action…
The template causes pages to become invalid XHTML. (Not in a majorly
serious way, but still.) I fixed that. Unfortunately, it breaks the CSS
rules people have put into their user CSS to style it. Thus I was reverted.
What is the proper avenue for this kind of situation? The "normal user"
will, of course, just think I broke it and revert it, without caring
about XHTML conformance. The correct way however required for those
users to fix their CSS. What do I do?
Timwi
David Gerard wrote:
>>Or popular with the readers, at least.
>>http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?ns=articles&limi…
>>Interesting to-do list task: see what subjects or subject areas are in
>>demand from that list, and make a list of related subjects in the area
>>that aren't covered or could do with serious work.
>>- d.
Interesting. I am surprised that "Irukandji jellyfish" came so high up on the
list... is there some anomoly here?
Not all that surprised about how high Pokemon came up, it is a large fictional
universe and I would guess that that universe's main article would get a high
result.
Aww... my userpage and user-talk page aren't even on the top lists in their
respective categories. :-/
Sjakkalle
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> On Aug 31, 2006, at 12:55 AM, stevertigo wrote:
>> Noting certain deficiencies in areas of advanced physics
>> - bleeding edge stuff in particular seems to be a bit disorganised.
>> Few qualified editors and things are no doubt lonely at the top.
>> Does the fact that Wikipedia is 1/10 Pokemon and sex/porn articles
>> chase
>> away scientists? What would WP look like if NOR was lifted for
>> certain science
>> articles?
> That is the premise of Wikinfo, but those guys don't show up the
> way the cranks do.
You mean, you don't get the scientists but you do get the cranks?
A lot of that will be that Wikipedia has an incredibly powerful brand
name. (c.f. the New York Times comparing mathematics to Wikipedia, not
the other way around.) So even a friendly fork designed to take much
of the same material but operate on it with notably different policies
will have trouble getting contributors, because everyone will come
here first.
OTOH, I've often wondered if setting up an academic wiki would be
something to attract people. It could use Mediawiki and GFDL and have
similar content guidelines to Wikipedia, just use signed articles,
allow article ownership and allow original research. The academic
barrier would guard against non-accredited cranks if not the
accredited ones ;-) Such a thing even be usable as referenceable
source material for Wikipedia articles. I'm not saying this is a good
idea, for Wikipedia, for readers or for civilisation in general, but I
do wonder if and how it would work.
- d.
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:18:27 +0200
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Does openness dull the bleeding edge?
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b8ceeef70608310418q56ec67c1v54823a49f0f6bf59(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 8/31/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > How would you feel about adding beautiful and insightful prose to an
> > article on a university, only to find that someone has later added:
> > "In a 1999 episode ("Lovers' Walk," Season 3, Episode 8) of Buffy the
> > Vampire Slayer, Joyce (Buffy's mother) says to Buffy, "[[Carnegie
> > Mellon]]has a wonderful design curriculum.""
> >
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnegie_Mellon_University&oldid=…]
> > ... Delighted, no doubt!
>
> The solution isn't bad though:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_University_in_popular_culture
Actually, I'd say that's worse, because it enforces the idea that all
references to fiction in an article on a "real" topic are on equal
footing and of equal importance, which simply isn't true.
Despite the poor quality and excess that many of these sections suffer
from, it /is/ possible to write a good section about a subject's
coverage and appearances in fiction. It just isn't done the way it
should be often enough.
~~Sean
(or "small solar system bodies", as we should probably start calling them)
Today, I noticed that rambot was alive again - just running tests, but
it still made me think about mass-content-adding.
We currently have somewhere north of one thousand articles on
asteroids; maybe 1200? Only two seem to have been deleted after AFDs,
and at least one of those was a one-sentence stub; that said, there's
only been about six deletion debates. So there seems, on the face of
it, to be a vague acceptance of them.
This group of articles should, at least in theory, be something that
could be filled out with bots - the basic asteroid article is "was
discovered by A on B, named for C, part of group D, here are orbital
elements E and very sketchy composition details F, external links to
databases G and H." The main reason this is simple is that for
asteroids studied in detail, we've usually written the article
already!
So, this is me dipping my toes in the water.
a) Would people accept a mass-created set of articles like this, if
done neatly and tidily and well-referenced? They're not of desperate
general interest, but they're not going to clutter the namespace
(nothing except asteroids is called "5464 Obscurename"), they're not
going to demonstrate any particular cultural bias... and, hey, it's
not like they're unverifiable.
b) If so... where's the limit? All asteroids known well enough to
catalogue is excessive - there's well over 100,000 numbered and
~350,000 known - so we'd need a threshold somewhere (plus "obviously
notable" cases). The first n asteroids? All ones with assigned names
(~13,500)? All those believed to be above a certain size?
Feedback appreciated; I'll poke the data sources a bit in the next few
days and try to put a more detailed proposal on the wiki.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
On 30 Aug 2006 at 10:10, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that once people think that a decision is going to
> result in a president they tend to bring up a load of annoying side
> issues.
There was a series of high-profile court cases in the late part of
the year 2000 that did have the effect of resulting in a president
(some say the wrong one), but most legal cases only result in a
"precedent" instead.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
It appears that Russian Wikipedia is about to reject Verifiability as a policy:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%…
Verifiability is usually considered one of the 3 core content policies
on English Wikipedia.
This leads to a question; must the different Wikipedias have the same
core policies? Could Russian Wikipedia do away with NPOV and NOR as
well? Could some other language Wikipedia do away with WP:CIVIL,
etc.?
Jay.
Spam e-mail messages these days tend to be full of weird words,
designed apparently to fool filtering programs. Several times
lately, I've spotted "Wikipedia" among these words. The latest
example is a message with the bizarre subject line "Safely Their
iPods Toilet" (which brings some pretty odd imagery to mind), which
then opens its body with:
Agreed for: Price Launch
Make Dangerous Says Thanks Wikipedia Posts Football
revealed wanted codevelop
Now, is the football that Wikipedia posts the American variety or is
it soccer? Inquiring minds want to know.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
oops, meant to send to list as well
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: 29-Aug-2006 20:44
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:LIVING and "sensitivity" again
To: Sydney aka FloNight <poore5(a)adelphia.net>
On 29/08/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I note that one of the talk page responses is that a "sensitivity"
> policy would reduce editor arguments. So would Sympathetic Point Of
> View and article forks, and that isn't a reason either.
> Perhaps I'm worrying about nothing. But it really sits wrong having that there.
I should point out also: that although the big fuss is about negative
articles being libelous, the serious *quality* problem with our pop
culture articles is that they are hagiographies. The fans are the main
people interested in those articles, and they guard them jealously.
This makes our pop culture articles *really bad*. Neil Gaiman
commented at length about this in his (widely read) blog, for example.
Our pop culture articles are rubbish, and they definitely need no more
encouragement toward a hagiographic point of view.
- d.