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
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)
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>
"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)
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)
First define "right".
In a message dated 7/1/2009 9:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwave.google.co…
(See from about 31:00 onwards for the relevant bit...)
Real-time collaborative editing. Scroll back and forth through
history, showing changes by a single user or of a single paragraph.
Embedded comments updated in real time. Edit from multiple clients.
Could we please have all of this? This is several orders of magnitude
better than MediaWiki's collaborative editing features.
Steve
I've created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Notability_and_…
regarding notability and how it applies to fiction has been created in
order to gauge community opinion on whether a guideline or an essay is
most appropriate.
All editors are invited to present comments as to the current treatment
of fiction on Wikipedia, especially with regards:
*Whether a true consensus exists or whether the community is split
*Whether a guideline other than the [[WP:GNG|general notability
guideline]] can be created
*Whether an essay describing the differing views is better
Editors wishing to present specific proposals for a guideline, essay or
another way forwards are free to do so. I'm sending this message in
keeping with the instructions at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?
**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)