"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news://news.gmane.org/fbad4e140908211511y22906e4ue3dbbd7b12cfcf45@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/21 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message
For the now-largely-abandoned article validation feature, here's a suggested list: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_plan The list there is:
The whole thing, methinks would be on a RATE tab. "What were you looking for?" is a search box with your current search in it.
Oooooh. Well spotted. Yes, the Special:Search page needs a "What were you looking for, in detail?/Did you find it?" on it.
I do not think anybody asks all of those questions unless they contribute. If they answer in the positive, then maybe a template should disappear. If they answer in the negative, then maybe it should appear. Of course, if they edit, that might be a quick way of learning which templates apply, so the user could place the template closer to where it belongs in an article, or just follow links in the template to directions on making improvements.
I'd expect here we're talking about a simple "rate this article" clicky thing for readers who can't be bothered editing or are scared to, but still want to make Wikipedia better somehow.
It could be a set of five bowling pins on the right quarter of a content warning, with a green checkmark on it by default and a red X over it if the user clicks. If the user saves a change, then that template disappears and they get a message on their talk page telling them how to reinforce their change. Most people would go the other way around and delay removing a content warning until they had done what they could about it--save final change and call it a strike. There could of course be people who can do a lot about a content warning without reading any fine manual, then become monsters and write more into our manual. _______ http://www.lovetolearnplace.com/SpecialDays/Labor/Workman%20of%20God%20Works...
(As I noted on the linked page, making full data available to anyone who wants it is a good idea, and absolutely appropriate as it's part of working on the encyclopedia. That may even go as far as making full contributor/IP data available just as article history is. Thinking about it, though, that may discourage ratings - they're anonymous on most sites.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l