I will henceforth be referring to all wiki markup as "text decoration
language". Also, funny that Wikipedia volunteers know that "hacky" isn't a
word but Amazon's employees apparently don't.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM, wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "How does it compare to wikipedia?
> Like wikipedia, we support group editing, version history, reverts,
> notifications on changes, and diffs.
> Unlike wikipedia, we will use the rich text editor for editing instead of
> using a hacky text decoration language."
> Well, I daresay many of us prefer our "hacky text decoration language ".
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
(Following on from another thread)
I have a theory that Wikipedia makes only *part* of the Internet not
suck. Wikipedians aggregate online knowledge (and offline as well, but
let's stick to online here), thus making it easier to find information
about something, especially when there are lots of ambiguous hits on a
Google search and you don't know enough to refine the search. But the
useful parts of the internet (i.e. not the social media and similarly
non-transient information-deficient areas of the internet) didn't stop
growing when Wikipedia came along.
In theory, if the growth of the information-dense parts of the
internet has continued to outstrip the growth of Wikipedia and the
ability of Wikipedians to aggregate that knowledge base, then large
parts of that part of the internet should still "suck" (to continue
using that terminology) - i.e. be less amenable to searching due to
absence of information or poorly organised information. I base this on
many years of searching daily for information about topics ranging
from the well-known to the borderline obscure to the outright obscure.
Over the years since Wikipedia started, the ability to find
information online has changed beyond recognition. Around about 2004-5
(I need to check dates here), Wikipedia was rising rapidly up the
search rankings, and now comes top or near the top on most searches.
But there are still many, many topics on which no articles, or only
redlinks, exist. I come across these daily when searching, and see
that information on these topics is out there, scattered around if you
search on Google, but hasn't been aggregated yet.
The question I have is whether the growth in the amount of
unaggregated information (and I include other information-organising
sites here, not just Wikipedia) will always outstrip the ability of
various processes (include the growth of Wikipedia) to aggregate it
into something more useful? If the long-term answer is yes, then
information overload is inevitable (and search engines will gradually
start to suck again). If the long-term answer is no, then at some
point the online aggregation (or co-ordination of data to form
information in the real sense) will start to overtake the flow of
information from offline to online, and order will continue to emerge
from the (relative) chaos.
The key seems to be the quality of the information put online.
Well-organised and searchable sites and databases are good. Poorly
organised information sources, less so, as while they can in theory be
found by search engines, they may be less easy to distinguish from the
background noise, though it also depends greatly on the amount of
information you start with when carrying out a search for more
To take a specific example, I very occasionally come across names of
people or topics where it is next-to-impossible to find out anything
meaningful about them because the name is identical to that of someone
else. Sometimes this is companies that name themselves after something
well-known and any search is swamped by hits to that well-known
namesake. Other times, it is someone more famous swamping a relatively
obscure person - a recent example I found here is the physicist Otto
Klemperer. Despite having the name and profession, it is remarkably
difficult to find information about the physicist as opposed to the
composer. If I had a birth year, it would be much easier, of course.
Thanks for the quick responses and for handling the issue, guys! You
guys aren't on the mailing list, so I'm including your responses
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <hartman(a)videolan.org> wrote:
> I'v added the metadata class to it, as this is a UI element, much like mboxes are.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <hartman(a)videolan.org> wrote:
> Note that pages are cached (and cannot be cleared) on the mobile server. As such you can only see the result on pages that were not previously cached like
> [[User:Oconnor2/Sandbox]] for instance. The mobile server cache expires after a couple of hours (not sure how long it takes).
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Hampton Catlin <hcatlin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> This has been taken care of.
> Should be gone now!
I noticed that the "Invitation to edit" template which is being trialled on
some medical articles is not working as designed on m.wikipedia.org.
The tutorial information for new users is meant to be collapsed by default,
but on m.wikipedia.org the tutorial is expanded by default, which is quite
undesirable since the article itself is not even expanded when viewed there!
Here's an example of what I mean:
The template itself is here:
Since this seems (to me) to be an issue that should be addressed quite
quickly, is there anyone familiar with how m.wikipedia.org works who could
advise how the template might be edited to make this not happen? Wapedia has
the same issue with these articles incidentally.
Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of the use of this template, but I'm not
trying to argue against it here - this just needs some expert assistance to
fix quickly. If there's a more appropriate place than here to ask, please
clue me in about that too.
The importance to the individual of collaborating within a group. And the
importance to the group in recognizing, and nurturing, the individual.
"Amy Chua Is a Wimp"
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 17, 2011
"Most people work in groups. We do this because groups are much more
efficient at solving problems than individuals (swimmers are often motivated
to have their best times as part of relay teams, not in individual events).
Moreover, the performance of a group does not correlate well with the
average I.Q. of the group or even with the I.Q.'s of the smartest members.
"Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie
Mellon have found that groups have a high collective intelligence when
members of a group are good at reading each others' emotions when they
take turns speaking, when the inputs from each member are managed fluidly,
when they detect each others' inclinations and strengths.
"Participating in a well-functioning group is really hard. It requires the
ability to trust people outside your kinship circle, read intonations and
moods, understand how the psychological pieces each person brings to the
room can and cannot fit together."
This also presents to how "home schooling" can produce the
On 17 January 2011 00:50, wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I don't think it helps to characterise any simple questioning of the leader
> as a "deranged vendetta".
Simple questioning isn't what I call a "deranged vendetta". Snide
innuendo of the most slimy kind is what I refer to.
As I said, I question the purpose and utility of leading the
discussion down this rabbit hole. The discussion of a simple test
statement typed during the first stages of the wiki, and its' possible
applications as a motto for the project describing its purpose in a
simple two-word phrase, somehow became a discussion about the
truthfulness of an individual. That isn't helpful.