WikiEN-l July 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

88 participants
131 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
by WJhonson＠aol.com 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net writes: > There are two thousand years of > struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of > interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this > and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself.>> > ------- The only thing that is being proposed is that in those articles where we have a bible verse citation, that we alter the way it's treated. Will ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case)
by Andrew Turvey 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

Just to re-emphasis the point, in the words of the admin who blocked Desiphral: "at present there's no community consensus to block for commercial editing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_ne… ----- "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > From: "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com> > To: "Desiphral" <desiphral(a)gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 17:37:06 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal > Subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case) > > > Hi Desiphral, > > Not sure if you get these message - please find below the message I sent - hope it helps! > > Regards, > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com> > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 17:35:34 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case) > > > Looking at the blocking notice [2], there seems to be a sensible solution to this: > > You stated [1] that: "Some years ago, other people I knew became interested in my work at Wikipedia and I gladly supported them. The initial idea was that each one should have a personal account, but in practice, since it was real life collaboration and we had available only one computer, most of their/our edits ended up under my username ... I learned later that some of them managed to supplement their income by working at Wikipedia." > > Per the policy [[WP:NOSHARE]], "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked." > > It sounds like you had a clear contravention of this policy and the admins giving you a block seems to be the right thing to do. However, given your long history of good editing to the projects, particularly with the other account, you seem to have grounds to appeal the "indefinite" block. > > All you need to say is: > > "a) I accept that I shouldn't have let others use my account > b) I no longer let others use my account and won't in future > c) My account is not compromised as I have changed the password" > > Therefore: > > Given that it was done in good faith given that we only had access to one computer, and I have an otherwise clean record of extensive good faith edits to Wikipedia: > > "Please replace my indefinite block with a time limited block (maybe ask for a week?)" > > In the "Guide to appealing blocks" [3], it explicitly says: > > "You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators: • ... or: • that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead." > If they come back with other concerns about, say, paid editing, then you can address that then - but at the moment I'd suggest you focus on the reason given for the block. > > Do all that and I'm sure you'll be up and running in no time. :) > > Regards, > > Andrew > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_ne… > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desiphral#Compromised_account > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GAB > > "Desiphral" <desiphral(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > From: "Desiphral" <desiphral(a)gmail.com> > > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > Sent: Thursday, 9 July, 2009 11:18:44 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] The current purges in English Wikipedia (...and my personal case) > > > > I was recently indefinitely blocked in connection with the paid editing > > issue, without being a paid editor myself. Actually the paid users with whom > > I had a previous collaboration on voluntary subjects are even now free to > > edit. Worse, it is proposed the closure of the Wikipedia I put on track. > > > > > > Here are the relevant links: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_ne… > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_an… > > > > and in this article: > > > > http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtml > > > > this is the part that concerns me: > > > > > > "However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that > > occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives" > > found<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bad_ne…>that > > the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October > > 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of > > voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his > > native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged > > in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any > > inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly > > having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to > > request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users > > requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the > > language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a > > normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such > > conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the > > case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user > > and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that > > the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations. > > > > After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out > > that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the > > staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation > > found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that > > time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and > > adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides > > complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the > > unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some > > retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what > > exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the > > blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the > > user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death > > sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of > > our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really > > sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for > > commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication, > > while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it > > would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only > > you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers > > changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he > > permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his > > account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern, > > since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is > > understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user > > was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time > > scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user. > > > > The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about > > the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for > > such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to > > present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests > > of somebody to block<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Desi…>him > > in the Wikipedias in all languages and to > > close down<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#The_Vlax_Romani_Wikipedia_an…>the > > one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those > > suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment > > (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused > > to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for > > sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of > > this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of > > the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user > > and/or with the Wikipedia he started." > > > > > > > > After this episode, I have a feeling I am in China when logged in to English > > Wikipedia. I don't know if other users are in my situation. I guess that my > > luck resides in this coverage, to make my case known to the "free world". I > > did not check thoroughly the other things highlighted in the article, > > however, the links provided look compelling. > > > > > > Desiphral > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by Sheldon Rampton 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

Charles Matthews wrote: > I'm not yet convinced that the absence of WYSIWYG is a barrier to WP > doing anything specific, and I don't believe that the usability > studies > I have seen prove that it is. But then I tend to believe that the > issue > with expository problems lies in the underestimation of expository > writing. The question is whether WYSIWYG would make editing Wikipedia articles easier for most users. I think the answer to that question is fairly self-evident. Twenty years ago there were similar debates about WYSIWYG with regard to word processors, just as there were debates about whether command- line DOS was better or worse than the GUI that Apple introduced with Macintosh computers. Some people back then argued that word processors like WordPerfect were better than WYSIWYG because you could go into edit mode and "see" the markup codes -- [b] for bold, [i] for italic, etc. Similarly, people argued that command-line DOS was better than dragging-and-clicking windows in a GUI because you could "see" the commands and their parameters. In the end, WYSIWYG and the GUI won. Most people don't WANT to see [b] for bold. They just want to be able to make the text bold. As a result, some once-dominant word processors died off, and Microsoft was forced to adapt by replacing DOS with Windows. Wikipedia has enough earned reputation that path dependency will keep it on top of the heap for the foreseeable future, even without WYSIWYG editing, but sooner or later someone will develop a better alternative -- either within Wikipedia, or outside it. ------------------------------------------- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate>

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by Sheldon Rampton 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

Stevertigo wrote: >> (1) No WYSIWYG editing system. > > Browsers by limitation are not real "WYSIWIG editing systems," and > because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser. > New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either > proprietary or useless unless the W3C deals with it. One improvement > that comes to mind is text edit fields that are readable and > formattable, so the distinction between presentation and editing text > is blurred - maybe quick shifting between edit and view modes. Nevertheless, there are a number of WYSIWYG editing technologies that people have developed which work with web browsers, such as FCKEditor. A number of non-Mediawiki wikis already have WYSIWYG functionality, as does Google's Knols project. I know people who have tried developing WYSIWYG for Mediawiki, and the main obstacle they encounter is the wiki markup language, which is too idiosyncratic to parse properly and consistently. If Mediawiki used some other markup syntax, such as XML or HTML, they'd be able to do it. The current syntax was designed with the original intention of making it very easy and quick for people to edit articles and add formatting such as bold, italic, hyperlinks, etc. However, even a lightweight markup language is still a markup language, and WYSIWYG is easier for most people, so in this regard Wikipedia has fallen behind with regard to state-of-the-art standards for user-friendliness. Moreover, the original simplicity of Wikipedia's markup syntax has been lost somewhat as new functionality has been added. The whole templates mess is an example of this. If someone were trying to design Wikipedia from scratch today, I think they'd be able to come up with a markup syntax that supports WYSIWYG very nicely, but of course designing it from scratch is not an option. There's too much legacy material that has already been created using the existing syntax, so changing it becomes very difficult. Again, this is en example of path dependency. ------------------------------------------- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate>

2 1

Wikipedia expert needed
by Fred Bauder 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

http://www.elance.com/jobs/wikipedia_expert_needed/web_content/15606905 Wikipedia expert needed Limited Project Open Bidding Elance Escrow Project Job Description Client: [subscribers only] (5 projects posted, 1 Awarded) Billing and Payment System confirmed Provider can contact client More info Client Location: Budget: Less than $500 Proposals Received: 4 Proposals (Average Bid: US$237.50 ) Posted: 10/25/2008 13:28 EST Proposals Accepted Until: Bidding Ended on 11/01/2008 13:28 Job Description: We need three pages created on Wikipedia by someone who knows how to format text and links for Wikipedia. We started writing one of the pages ourselves but it was deleted citing "CDS A7" [It is an article about a real person, organization (band, club ........ Register/login to view more details Attached Files: Job Details Job ID: 15606905 Category: Writing & Translation > Web Content Desired Skills: Web Content Job Type: Project - Fixed Fee Preferred Job Location: Provider can be located anywhere Use Escrow?: Yes Status Reports: Not Required More Info Job Start Date: Start immediately Job Posting Visibility: PublicVisible to everyone in the Elance community plus search engines. Seal Proposals: Proposal and proposal amounts can be viewed by anyone. More Info W9 Required: Client does not require W-9 submission. More Info Fred

2 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
by WJhonson＠aol.com 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw bible citations, not for templated ones. That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}} The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV. That would be super. Then *if* someone feels the need to template it to link say to the NIV instead, then they could do that instead. Will Johnson ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.

15 52

Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
by George Herbert 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

I had thought we'd formally policyized the "please leave blocked users alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the block (short of making threats against people, etc)", but I can't find anything on-wiki that has it in writing. I know I've had discussions with people about it before and there was a general admins consensus that it was a good thing - but it does not appear to be written down in policy, guideline, or an Arbcom decision I can find. Am I missing something, or did we really never write it down? If we did not, we probably should rectify that, and I'll SOFIXIT - but I wanted to ping out to other experienced people first to see if anyone could remember where it might be written that I just haven't found yet. Thanks! -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

6 8

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by WJhonson＠aol.com 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/8/2009 3:23:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk writes: > For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial > example: > > {{#switch: > {{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }} > | error = that's an error > | correct = {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} = {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }}}} > > in your new notation?>> -------------------- I don't have any new notation Neil. I don't have a new language. In fact we shouldn't be trying to create a *new* language. If we have four proposed languages from which to choose, then one of the criteria should be "easy to understand", "intuitive to the novice". That is my point. That's been my point. Will ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by Neil Harris 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

> In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk writes: > > >> Although the point could have been put more tactfully, I think the >> salient point here is that "English-like" programming languages have >> been tried before many times, and have (with the possible exception of >> COBOL) consistently been rejected in favour of compact equation-like >> languages.>> > > ------------------------- > > Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living > third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well. > > Both use a most English-like foundation. > > > Is Python more represented in want-ads ? Most businesses still use older > generation languages, regardless of what is being taught in university. > > Will Johnson The reason why COBOL and SQL endure isn't their English-like syntax, which is a relic of the era in which they were designed, but because they were the first just-good-enough systems of their type. The same is true of C, which is an appallingly badly designed language by modern standards; but endures for the same reasons; familiarity, backwards compatibility and the widespread availability of trained programmers. But in its time, C was a _vast_ improvement over assembler, which is what it existed to replace. [Regarding want ads: granted, there are billions of lines of COBOL and BASIC code out there in the business world, but how many new projects do you see being created in COBOL or BASIC, and how many job ads for COBOL and BASIC programmers? http://langpop.com/ has a pretty good survey of what's actually used in the wider world. Gnomic ALGOL-esque languages like C, Java C++ and PHP lead the pack.] The MediaWiki template language survives for the same reason. This is not to say that it's perfect, or even very good: but it works, has a large installed base of legacy code, and general availability of the appropriate skills in the existing base of "programmers", and is just good enough to serve its purpose, and therefore survives on for the same reasons as above. Given the large installed base of existing template code, I believe it would a much better idea to start with the template language we currently have, and clean it up incrementally, than it would be to rewrite it from scratch and risk second system syndrome. Fortunately, it's (necessarily) machine-parsable, and it shouldn't be an insuperable task to clean up the syntax whilst still running alongside the old code, and remaining (mostly) backwards compatible. If this is done in stages, the current template coder base should learn the new syntax in parallel with the changes, and the new syntax should be much easier for new template programmers to learn. This has actually been done twice before: once with the creation of proper conditionals and the retirement of {{qif}}, and a second time with a subtle change in the semantics of the template system to make it faster and easier to parse and run. Perhaps the next move should be the replacement of {{{name|default}}} with something like ${name|default}, with $name as a short form for the common case? -- Neil

3 3

MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by Brian 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

They are going to add something like PHP/Python/Lua so that you can program the encyclopedia. If you want to participate in the conversation you should join wikitech-l. Cheers ;)

18 47

Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
by Andrew Turvey 07 Jul '09

07 Jul '09

----- "Michael Peel" <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote: > I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first > heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life > approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within > Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why > it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have > been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved > reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still > played out in the same fashion. I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing. I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic. As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off. Andrew

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by WJhonson＠aol.com 07 Jul '09

07 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes: > Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An > "english-like" language is not desirable, feasible, or going to > happen.>> ---------------------- I propose that A) you are not the authority invested in deciding this issue; and B) your approach is overly antagonistic and confrontational. Will ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.

4 7

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by WJhonson＠aol.com 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk writes: > Although the point could have been put more tactfully, I think the > salient point here is that "English-like" programming languages have > been tried before many times, and have (with the possible exception of > COBOL) consistently been rejected in favour of compact equation-like > languages.>> ------------------------- Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well. Both use a most English-like foundation. Is Python more represented in want-ads ? Most businesses still use older generation languages, regardless of what is being taught in university. Will Johnson ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)

3 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by WJhonson＠aol.com 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk writes: > PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE > COLON CHARACTER IN THE FIRST POSITIONAL PARAMETER FORMATTED AS A > TWO-DIGIT ZERO-PADDED HEXADECIMAL NUMBER USING LOWERCASE LETTERS FOR THE > HEX DIGITS A TO F>> ------------------------------------- You're being silly. You know quite well that no language exists like this. Will ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by WJhonson＠aol.com 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/3/2009 1:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, morven(a)gmail.com writes: > Do you really think any of these would be a higher barrier for entry > than the current template and parser-functions system? Possibly the > current system is more egalitarian only in that it is painful for > those who do know how to program as well as those who don't.>> My point is and was that whatever is used to replace the current system, should be a language that is as English-like as possible. What point are you responding to? Perhaps it's one I never made. Will Johnson ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
by WJhonson＠aol.com 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:32:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tstarling(a)wikimedia.org writes: > Then whenever > someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in > plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For > cultural neutrality it would obviously have to be internationalised > and support a number of other religious texts. Not impossible though.>> --------- I think that's an excellent suggestion. Do we have this type of magic link for an ISBN ? WIll ************** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
by WJhonson＠aol.com 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes: > Hm. But is it a local sort of "website?">> ------------------------ What are you implying by that? I have no idea what you mean. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
by WJhonson＠aol.com 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:10:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk writes: > For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a > marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way > to do it and keep the user functionality.>> ------------ Right. I'm not comfortable with a script which lives off-site, the details of which are hidden and unknowable, and I'm not comfortable with a script which is evidently choosing, without wiki-input what next site to link the user forward. All of that functionality should be brought in-project. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
by WJhonson＠aol.com 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/5/2009 10:57:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes: > Its not "one specific website." See comment: (script being removed > from deprecated site: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610 to > http://bibref.hebtools.com. See > [[Template_talk:Bibleverse#PHP_script_moving]]>> ------------ http://bibref.hebtools.com is one specific website. How is that not one website ? Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability and Fiction
by WJhonson＠aol.com 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com writes: You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would just become a default guideline to be applied where a subsidiary guideline doesn't exist? >> --------------- A little while ago I was reading through our article on the list of Outer Limits episodes and I noticed a tag at the top that I'd not seen before. It said something like that the source itself is not generally considered sufficient for an article. Thinking about that more, it's a bit odd. For a person, you can't interview them and then write up their biography, but let's say you watched an Outer Limits episode. It states who the actors were, what the title was, you can write a generally simply and bland overview of the plot. It's a primary source, but surely you are merely *describing* the source, you are not interpreting it. _http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu jx7mco9jp/4_ (http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/chairpotato-presents-outer-limits/hyu…) # Will Johnson **************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

4 4

MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by Apoc 2400 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

The current template code is ugly, but it does work. Few people can understand the source code of the more intricate templates, which is a shame, but we are getting very good use out of the ugly wikicode. We have a huge number of templates that do a lot of good with the limited ParserFunctions we have. I understand the developers want to replace it with a new template programming language, but we should be aware of the risks. Starting over from scratch and making it clean this time is one of the most common ways to begin a spectacular failure in software development. Joel Spolsky write a good column on it in 2000: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html Is it even possible to sandbox Lua to guard against any exploits, even the kind that just overloads the servers? Will it integrate well with articles written in Wikicode? How long will it take until we can use it? Most people don't need to understand advanced templates, just use it. There is actually no lack of powerful templates. We have a lot of them. The problem is that they are too hard to use. {{Birth date and age}} is a rather popular template we use to show a persons birth date and automatically calculate the current age. It allows us to provide this without having to update it every year. I guess some developers hate us for doing something like that in wikicode, but hey, it works. The only problem it that it's hard to read in the article code. It is used as {{Birth date and age|1993|2|4|mf=yes}}. If we had the StringFunctions extension enabled it could be simplified to take dates like 1993-02-04 rather than 1993|2|4. Perhaps it could even take plain text dates like "February 4, 1993". If we had the variables extension one could specify the dateformat (month or day first) in one place in the article and template like {{Birth date and age}} would follow. We are stuck with templates that are hard to use because the developers are against allowing useful programming constructs in wikicode. I really wouldn't mind a good "real" programming language for templates, but should we really but all eggs in one basket? /Apoc2400

5 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by WJhonson＠aol.com 03 Jul '09

03 Jul '09

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:45:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com writes: > Happily, it's not necessary that the *average* user be able to > contribute to programming. >> -------------- Let me just point out that I never stated the above in the first place. The average user hasn't even figured out how to use the <ref> system, and probably less than ten percent understand {templates} at all even to include them, let alone to edit them. So I would never advocate a system where the average person can do it. Rather I would advocate a system which is as easy to use as we can make it. Not as hard as we can imagine it. Will ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
by Sheldon Rampton 03 Jul '09

03 Jul '09

Stevertigo wrote: > Hm. That "crap" seems to have worked quite well for a few years now. Hardly. The templating system has been a source of complaints and frustrations for a very long time. I remember hearing Aaron Swartz get a lot of laughter when he gave a talk at Wikimania 2006 and showed a Powerpoint slide with a screenful of templating gibberish that consisted of an huge, nested series of squiggly brackets, numerals and odd symbols. The line that drew the big laugh was when he asked if people thought that syntax was user-friendly. The current system of parser functions is actually an improvement over what existed previously, because at least it provides for an if-then statement and some rudimentary calculations and logical branching. Before parser functions existed, people used an even uglier workaround in which they achieved the RESULT of an if-then statement through a process so complicated and counter-intuitive that it would take several labored paragraphs for me to even describe it . It was because that system DIDN'T "work quite well" that parser functions were developed. They're not very easy to use either, which is why the developers are now trying to come up with a better alternative. I should mention too that a number of Mediawiki extensions have been written over the years -- Semantic Mediawiki, for example -- which are also basically attempts to overcome the limitations of Mediawiki syntax and the templating system in particular. There are also oodles of extensions that people have written in attempts to add some widget or transclusion feature to Mediawiki such as Google maps or RSS feeds. If the current system "worked quite well," a lot of those add-on extensions would be unnecessary. The fact that the current template system works poorly is no one's fault. It's a consequence of the ad hoc way that Mediawiki and Wikipedia have evolved, and of course that ad hoc evolution is no one's fault either. If everyone had waited until they had a perfect wiki platform before launching Wikipedia, the project would never have gotten off the ground. The tech people have generally performed admirably at building and maintaining the software that runs Wikipedia, and I think it's great that they're talking about ways to further improve the templating system, which could certainly use it. I think they understand all too well that it's not a good system, and they also understand how difficult it will be to come up with a better alternative. ------------------------------------------- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media & Democracy Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: <http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html> Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: <http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed> Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: <http://www.sourcewatch.org> Support independent, public interest reporting: <http://www.prwatch.org/donate>

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
by WJhonson＠aol.com 02 Jul '09

02 Jul '09

"Protecting people" is really very broad isn't it? How about "If the publication of certain information on a subject would lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the subject's life." Much narrower. Will Johnson In a message dated 7/1/2009 12:11:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee(a)rahul.net writes: No, because in this context, "do what's right" means "you may ignore rules for reasons other than the ones just listed". (It only lists improving and maintaining the encyclopedia; protecting people is not listed.) **************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:News suppression (was: News agencies are not RSs)
by WJhonson＠aol.com 01 Jul '09

01 Jul '09

Isn't "do what's right" the same as "assume good faith and assume the assumption of good faith" ? The no-mans-land between "don't try to inflict malicious harm" and "report evidence-based statements" is a big fat gray one. In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee(a)rahul.net writes: This is about IAR, you know. IAR is inherently about using personal judgment; if we modify IAR so that IAR may be used to do the right thing, we should *not* define "right" or even assume that it has one definition. **************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)

2 1

2026

2025

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 July 2009