Is there any chance for progress to be made on this? I recently ran
into this problem again at a featured article candidate I was
reviewing. It is has a very worthy 'National Historic Landmarks' set
of templates at the bottom, but unfortunately this leads to massive
template linkage bloat. Of the over 100 articles that link to this
article, I estimate that only three links are from within the text of
other articles - the rest are from the templates.
If I had been able to see at a glance that this article was linked
from two other articles, I would have been able to make a suggestion
to link back to those articles, and maybe link from other articles. As
it was, I was unable to do this and this caused some problems (which
it is best not to go into here).
So is there anyway to encourage or help with whatever needs to be done here?
Carcharoth
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:10 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> agreed. The footer templates are the biggest source of linkage bloat.
> the templates are useful, and we need some way of keeping track of
> what should be in them when we add or delete articles, but they make
> working with what links here for any practical purpose extremely
> difficult. They'd be much more helpful if they were separated.
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> On 07/02/11 10:56, Carcharoth wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Magnus Manske
>>>> <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many of these links are due to templates, which I can do little about.
>>>>
>>>> Can *anyone*, even in principle, do something about that? It really
>>>> bugs me that the "what links here" function doesn't distinguish
>>>> between links arising from templates (often not directly relevant) and
>>>> links directly from the article wiki-text. If the answer is something
>>>> to do with parsers, please do explain!
>>>
>>> Yes, it's possible. It was necessary to register links from templates
>>> in the pagelinks table so that when a page is deleted or created, the
>>> HTML caches can be updated so that the link colour will change. With a
>>> schema change and some parser work, it would be possible to flag such
>>> links so that they are optional in "what links here".
>>
>> That would be wonderful. It might even get me to create a bugzilla
>> account to vote for a bug if there is one open on this...(of course,
>> one problem is still that some templates are relevant to article
>> content and some are not - the ones that generate distracting links
>> are the navigational ones that tend to be at the bottom of pages, the
>> footer templates - and I'm not sure if infobox links would count as
>> template links or not - they are generated from parsing of a template
>> parameter, but don't appear in the template itself, unlike the footer
>> navboxes).
>>
>> [In case anyone is confused, an example is the massive footer
>> templates that can lead to Nobel prize winners decades apart linking
>> to each other, or diverse topics within a broad area linking to each
>> other, though only through templates and not in the text. Oh, and some
>> links appear in both footer templates, infoboxes, and the article
>> 'text'. Not sure how that is handled.]
>>
>> Carcharoth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely
don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has
done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to changes that
would make the pedia a "healthy, collaborative and fair creative
community", just not convinced that reforming or replacing Arbcom is the
place to start.
Without knowing which aspects of the pedia Marc and Phil diagnose as
unfair or unhealthy it is difficult to know if your diagnosis is the same
or the reverse of mine. Though our preferred solutions are certainly
dissimilar. I'm not convinced that "lack of a formal, structured
full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia
Project". Remember the wiki is at its strongest as a self organising
community where people don't have to file requests in triplicate with some
commissar. I like the flexibility of being able to launch things like the
death anomaly project without having to seek approval from some central
authority. To me "a formal, structured full-oversight body" isn't a way to
achieve a "healthy, collaborative and fair creative community", if anything
its the reverse.
That said we are a community in a longterm decline, which isn't in itself
healthy; But we are a large and committed community that is still getting a
lot done, so one shouldn't exaggerate the unhealthiness. We are still in
large parts an astonishingly collaborative community, despite the
unfortunate shift from fixing things to tagging them for others to fix. As
for the fairness, I'd be interest in knowing which specific aspects you
consider unfair. If there are any current or potential Arbs who you
consider unfair then the time to say so is during the election for Arbcom.
A well constructed case demonstrating that a candidate had a tendency to
unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom.
WereSpielchequers
On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell
> > <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a
> >> disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative
> and
> >> fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change
> that?
> >> How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about
> change,
> >> get started? I would be interested in helping.
>
> on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you
> > are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community
> > (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute
> > resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started
> > out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide
> > leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been
> > attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body,
> > but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course
> > part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too
> > radical changes).
> >
> > The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of
> > these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by
> > someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may
> > take months or years to come to a conclusion.
> >
> > Carcharoth
>
> I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body
> other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal,
> structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire
> Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't
> register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a
> formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to
> the structure of the Project require.
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
Hey Everyone,
I wanted to let everyone know that earlier today, we launched the Feedback
Dashboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard
This dashboard is a running list of comments that new editors submitted via
Moodbar (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MoodBar). The idea behind this
feature is to capture, in a lightweight fashion, the editing experience of
folks that are just starting out. After either attempting or submitting an
edit, new editors get an invitation in the upper left hand corner inviting
them to provide feedback on their editing experience. The Feedback
Dashboard provides a feed of these comments.
This feature is still experimental, so please excuse any wonkiness and let
us know of any bugs you find.
Take a look to find out what makes new editors Happy, Sad, or Confused!
Also, if you'd like to either comment on the feature or participate in its
further development, please leave a message here [1] or here [2].
Howie
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Feedback_Dashboard
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_editor_feedback
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and
> constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete
> {{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't
> be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to
> legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Template:Jackass exists as a navigational template for the show.
Carcharoth
Hey guys
So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC to
discuss the Article Feedback Tool and what we're planning to do with it -
namely, scrapping it and replacing it with an entirely new version ;).
Attending will be Fabrice Florin, the contractor leading development on the
new version, Howie Fung, the WMF's product manager, and myself. If you're
interested in the AFT, whether because you think the existing version is
good or because you think it's really bad, we'd love for you to attend -
every opinion and viewpoint is welcome. The session will be held in
#wikimedia-office at 19:00 GMT/UTC, and I hope to see a lot of you there :).
Thanks
Oliver Keyes
Community Liason, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
Everyone,
I am pleased to announce that we have two contractors joining the Technology
team. Fabrice Florin will be joining us for the next six months as Product
Consultant, leading the development of the next version of the Article
Feedback Tool. Oliver Keyes (User: Ironholds on enwp) will be joining us as
a community liaison for the next three months. His role is to help ensure
that the community input is better incorporated into WMF’s product
development process.
Fabrice has extensive background in the fields of education and journalism.
He is founder and executive director of NewsTrust, a nonprofit social news
site devoted to good journalism -- as well as Truthsquad, a network
dedicated to fact-checking the political claims made during election
campaigns. His previous ventures include: Handtap, a wireless content
service for mobile phones; shockwave.com, a web entertainment site at
Macromedia; Apple Computer's Multimedia Lab, a new media R&D group; and a
variety of other roles in media and technology. Fabrice earned four patents
for his interactive TV work at Apple and was recently elected an Ashoka
Fellow for his work as social entrepreneur [1]. Read more in his online bio[2].
Oliver has been an editor since 2006 and is both an administrator and an
OTRS volunteer on the English Wikipedia. With strong experience in content
creation as well as administrative tasks, he has a broad base of knowledge
that will undoubtedly be helpful in coordinating community feedback,
organizing discussions, and making sure more voices are heard as part of the
product development process.
As many of you know, the Tech department continues to look for ways to
gather input from our experienced editors when designing new features.
Oliver’s job will be to act as a conduit between WMF’s development team and
members of the community, helping editors make suggestions on feature
development and helping ensure that the Foundation incorporates this input.
Fabrice may be reached at fflorin at wikimedia dot org, as well as his
userpages on the English Wikipedia and Mediawiki ([[User:Fabrice Florin]]).
Oliver will be on the projects as [[User:Ironholds]] and [[User:Okeyes
(WMF)]]; he can also be contacted directly via
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Okeyes_%28WMF%29.
We’re very excited to be working with Fabrice and Oliver. Please join me in
welcoming them!
Howie Fung
Senior Product Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
[1] http://www.ashoka.org/fellow/fabrice-florin
[2] http://newstrust.net/about/bio_florin
"10:20, 29 April 2011 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) m (37,376 bytes)
(moved Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge over
redirect: Marriage to the Duke of Cambridge) (undo) "
He must have had his finger on the button waiting for Beardie[*] to
pronounce them man and wife...
[*] I can call him that; my mother knows him reasonably well
(apologies for the cross posting)
This is just a quick note to alert you that we'll be having an IRC
Office Hours on Friday, October 22 at 02:00 UTC to discuss the India
Education Program [1].
The team working on the India Education Program will be present to
answer any questions about the program in #wikimedia-office on
irc.freenode.net. See the Meta page on IRC Office Hours for more
information on accessing the IRC channel and time conversions [2].
Hope to talk with you then.
LiAnna
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
--
LiAnna Davis
Global Education Program Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation