WikiEN-l January 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

88 participants
184 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why infoboxes are good
by Mark Gallagher 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

G'day Luna, > I do think it's worth pointing out that literally every time I've > mentioned > dislike of infoboxes to non-WPians, the reply has been along the > lines of > "Why not? They're AWESOME!" I try to explain the objections, but > usually the > person is so set on the accessibility front that they can't see why > anyone > would want to avoid the boxes. > It's not just bots that want information in an easily parsed format. I think my perspective as (let's face it) an ex-Wikipedian is pretty similar to that of the common or garden-variety non-WP reader these days. (This may be why I've become significantly more of an inclusionist since I stopped creating --- and deleting --- articles). I tend to find the infoboxes alternately annoying and silly or practical and awesome, depending on my frame of mind and purpose. If I'm after specific information --- e.g. a recent case where a colleague and I were arguing over the population breakdown of the UK --- the infoboxes save me time and prevent confusion. If I'm just reading for the heck of it (cf. xkcd's "hours of fascinated clicking") they tend to be distracting. This is especially jarring in the case of subjects whose details don't break down easily into infoboxes, like real people. As a reader, it's cool to quickly find the national motto of Burundi or the height of Centrepoint Tower without having to read through paragraphs of text. I love infoboxes! But also as a reader, it's distracting to have a professional wrestler's "coach" or actress's bust size floating in the corner of the screen. I hate infoboxes! I guess you can break that down to say: it's nice when there is a consensus view of what a given infobox should say; it's less nice when the people who populate the infoboxes have different interests and values from you. Cheers, -- Mark Gallagher 0439 704 975 http://formonelane.net/ "Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula

1 0

New technology, new errors
by Carcharoth 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

New technology, new ways to make errors, and hilarious edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio… "Sorry my error in that reversion (actually killing a bug on my HP touchscreen)." I wonder if that's bad karma? Killing the bug, not the reversion. Carcharoth

1 0

reliable sources not immune to the occasional hoax, either
by scs＠eskimo.com 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Specifically, it took 34 years for a prank perpetrated in the pages of the British Medical Journal to be revealed: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainNews/story?id=6744607&page=1

2 1

Flagged Revisions trial proposal and vote
by David Gerard 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Proposed trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial The voting page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial/Votes Closes Fri 24 Jan at 24:00! (I guess that's Sat Jan 25, 00:00.) - d.

11 21

I hope you like satire.
by Jay Litwyn 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

The thing about long and detailed satire is that a lot of it will be obvious to wikipedians. Emily Postnews. It really is about the last word on the definition of troll, not that being entertaining is illegal. If it were not for trolls and newbies, then she would hav nothing funny to say.

1 0

I can't live with [[WP:TPG]].
by brewhaha%40edmc.net 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.

5 7

BBC article on Flagged Revisions
by William King 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

The BBC has an article on the Flagged Revisions controversy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm William King (Willking1979)

14 23

Re: [WikiEN-l] I can't live with [[WP:TPG]].
by Daniel R. Tobias 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:54:59 -0500, Elias Friedman wrote: > It's usually considered bad form to change your talk page comments, > especially if someone has already responded to them. This is because such > editing can change the tone and meaning of the other editor's comments. The > usual course of action if you want to take back something you wrote is to > strike it out and add material with your new opinion. You mean like: [Original comments] Are you in favor of doing something about vandalism? -- Me Yes, certainly! -- You [Revised comments] Are you still beating your wife? -- Me Yes, certainly! -- You -- == 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/

1 0

Wikipedia has 97 per cent of online encyclopedia market
by Keith Old 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

G'day folks, E-consultancy claims that Wikipedia dominates the online encyclopedia market. http://econsultancy.com/blog/3185-wikipedia-has-97-of-the-encyclopedia-mark… *Online collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia has a massive 97% share of internet visits among the top five reference websites, highlighting the amount of work that rivals like Britannica.com have to catch up.* Britannica.com announced some new Wikipedia-style community features<http://econsultancy.com/blog/3176-encyclopedia-britannica-takes-a-page-from…> last week as it attempts to make up some of the ground lost to Wikipedia. According to stats from Hitwise<http://weblogs.hitwise.com/us-heather-hopkins/2009/01/britannica_20_wikiped…>, it currently has just 0.57% of US internet visits to the encyclopedia category. Other reference sites like MSN Encarta and Encyclopedia.com also trail way behind Wikipedia, but Britannica.com comes bottom in this category: (More in story) Regards Keith Old

1 0

Journal of Biblical Literature is also requiring a Wikipedia entry
by David Gerard 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/01/new-gu… Similar journals are apparently likely to do the same. So. When will this become standard? - d.

7 11

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 January 2009