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?
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
>> [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.]
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> David Goodman
> DGG at the enWP
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
"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
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:16:12 +0000
From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia
>This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
>This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for
>2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met (currently 3.5 million
>of an estimated 4.4 million articles)
You think there are only 4.4 million possible topics? Based on what criteria?
Stevertigo also thought this in the essay Wikipedia:Concept limit, which I
tagged as . There are probably tens of millions of potentially
notable topics, if not hundreds of millions. However, we're better at deleting
new articles than writing them and writing a new article that will survive these
days requires more detailed research than in years gone by.
In a discussion elsewhere , the question of how WIkipedia compares
for neutrality with other encyclopedias came up.
We've been compared with other encyclopedias for accuracy before. Has
anyone ever tried to compare us on neutrality? Or whatever
roughly-synonymous measure doesn't automatically bias the test towards
Wikipedia, which has it as a fundamental content policy.
Compare Britannica. They've never touted themselves as neutral -
they've touted themselves as *authoritative*. The Wikipedia article
on EB notes that EB has been increasingly lauded as less culturally
biased with time, though it occurs to me that's just the sort of
aspect a Wikipedia writer would note.
And how good a proxy for what readers actually want is neutrality? I
think it's excellent, but I could be wrong. Do readers actually just
want to be told?
How would you compare the neutrality of Wikipedia with that of
something else, in a meaningful and useful manner, such that the
framing of the question doesn't necessarily pick the winner before
 Modulo the EB content disclaimer, which makes ours look mild.
I am a student of Human resources and Lifelong learning from the Czech republic. I have studied in Sweden in Linköping as an Erasmus student for one year.
I am making for one of my course a small survey about wikipedia volunteers and I have found your e-mail at the Wikipedia websites.
Can I ask you some questions? It would be great if you answer them for me and if you can write me, where you are from and what you are doing!
1) Why did you start with editing wikipedia articles?
2) How many articles have you edited?
3) What are your expectations and motives to edit articles on wikipedia?
4) How would you define online volunteerism?
5) Do you support another platform as an online volunteer?
Thank you very much for you answers! I am appreciating it so much.
My e-mail is: Michala.beer(a)yahoo.com
I wish you a nice day!
If you want, you can fill the questionnaire here:
This study examines credibility judgments in relation to peripheral
cues and genre of Wikipedia articles, and attempts to understand user
information verification behavior based on the theory of bounded
rationality. Data were collected employing both an experiment and a
survey at a large public university in the midwestern United States in
Spring 2010. This study shows some interesting patterns. It appears
that the effect of peripheral cues on credibility judgments differed
according to genre. Those who did not verify information displayed a
higher level of satisficing than those who did. Students used a
variety of peripheral cues of Wikipedia. The exploratory data show
that peer endorsement may be more important than formal authorities
for user generated information sources, such as Wikipedia, which calls
for further research.
Til uvedkommende, der læser med: Der er ingen grund til at læse min
mail. Jeg har intet at gøre med FARC, al-Jihad, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizb
al-Mujahidin eller ETA. Jeg har aldrig gjort Zakat, går ikke ind for
Istishad, har ikke lavet en bilbombe eller kernevåben og jeg ved
dårligt nok, hvad Al Manar og бомба betyder. Men tak for den udviste
I cannot belive it,
my pages where I write to Wikipedia to help support our efforts in promoting
Wikipedia in Kosovo is deleted as advertising.
Pages to help build up the community, invites and other things are also
deleted off my personal page, and I was not informed about this at all.
Can someone please help me with this, I am speechless!
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.orgflossal.org
> By this message I would like to thank all of you that helped me with
> my survey about copyright in the digital age.
> I collected a respectable number of responses and I received a lot of
> comments and suggestions.
> Now I am going to close the survey in a few days. So before starting
> in processing the data I'd rather to ask you a last effort in
> promoting the initiative.
> I will be very grateful if you could spread the link for the last
> time. And if you did not have the chance to fill the questionnaire,
> please do it soon.
> Here is the link: http://www.aliprandi.org/en/survey .
> If you are on Facebook, you can help me sharing the public event and
> the fan-page that I created: they are available searching by the
> Facebook search-engine the words "survey copyright digital age".
> Thanks very much for your support.
> Simone Aliprandi - Ph.D. Candidate at Bicocca University of Milan
Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org
Most of you are probably familiar with Citizendium, the competitor to
Wikipedia that Larry Sanger started back in 2006. Citizendium is now
dying under the weight of a massive bureaucracy, which was landed upon
the project either far too early or far too late in its development at
a time when there were not enough users to support it. A cursory
glance over the forums at http://forum.citizendium.org will reveal a
great deal of bickering and quarrelling, and very little progress.
Several months back, I decided to create a "fork" of Citizendium
called "Knowino". (I guess I intended it more as a social than a
technical fork—so far we've imported quite a few mathematics and
physics articles from Citizendium, but my main aim has been to run the
community in a less bureaucratic and top-down way than Citizendium.)
You can find it on the Web at:
Knowino is still very, very much in the development stage (one could
argue that a wiki never really *leaves* that stage), ;-) but so far
here are the main things that differentiate Knowino from Citizendium
* Anyone can contribute. Creating an account and signing in is
recommended, but not mandatory. (Unlike Citizendium, where you have to
create an account under your own real name.)
* Expert contributors are invited to review articles using Flagged
Revisions. (Unlike Wikipedia. The process for selecting expert
contributors still needs to be fleshed out a little.)
* Temporary content "forks" (splits) are used to facilitate dispute
resolution. (Unlike both Wikipedia and Citizendium.)
* We allow multiple articles, written from different approaches, on
individual topics. (Unlike both Wikipedia and Citizendium. I suppose
we'll see how this turns out in the long run.)
If you're interested, I encourage you to check out Knowino at