Hello list,
I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using the banner space for something other than the fund drive (there is already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space.
But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy, focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale. My favorite peeves are: * the misuse of external links in the body of articles, * improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology! ;) * self refs in-body/outside-of-parenthesis. 'For more information,' etc.
-stevertigo
On 31/08/2007, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using the banner space for something other than the fund drive (there is already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space. But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy, focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale. My favorite peeves are:
- the misuse of external links in the body of articles,
- improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology! ;)
- self refs in-body/outside-of-parenthesis. 'For more information,' etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia_ads
Mind you, there was strong opposition to it when it showed up, at the notion that they would be generally deployed - rather than confined to people's user pages, placed there as the user chose. People seem to have an aversion to public service announcements in ad form, as well as advertising itself.
- d.
On 8/31/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
- improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology! ;)
It is even better/worse than that. I have seen the term "hatnotes" used outside wikipedia.
Stephen Colbert is not that far wrong to talk about "wikiality".
Personally as the initial author of WP:BITE, I feel conflicting emotions when biting the newbies is referred to on online fora entirely divorced from wikimedia...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 8/31/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
It is even better/worse than that. I have seen the term "hatnotes" used outside wikipedia. Stephen Colbert is not that far wrong to talk about "wikiality".
I was just thinking about howat one point early on I was roundly chastised (and rightly so) for pushing various neologia... and one just came back and bit me in the butt. But in a nice way.
Personally as the initial author of WP:BITE, I feel conflicting emotions when biting the newbies is referred to on online fora entirely divorced from wikimedia...
And not to mention on adult Wikpedias [sic], "biting" is supposed to have friendier significance. Le langage humain - go figure.
-stevertigo
On 31/08/2007, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using the banner space for something other than the fund drive
They did no such thing.
(there is already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space.
But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy, focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale.
Wikipedian eyeballs putting that kind of thing in anon notice is pointless and if you start adding rubbish to the top of the screen for logged in users there will be resistance and rightfuly so.
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
They did no such thing.
Ah, thank you Geni for that concise, but detailed explanation.
Wikipedian eyeballs putting that kind of thing in anon notice is pointless and if you start adding rubbish to the top of the screen for logged in users there will be resistance and rightfuly so.
Next time, you can just boil it down to "pointless rubbish" and save your fingers the trouble. No doubt it bothers you to have to respond to such "pointless rubbish" at all, so why get CTS while doing it?
Thanks again so much for your opinion.
-stevertigo
On 31/08/2007, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
They did no such thing.
Ah, thank you Geni for that concise, but detailed explanation.
Details are tricky but note the edit summery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Anonnotice&diff=1532...
Next time, you can just boil it down to "pointless rubbish" and save your fingers the trouble. No doubt it bothers you to have to respond to such "pointless rubbish" at all, so why get CTS while doing it?
Thanks again so much for your opinion.
Nyet. I would regard anything not of immediate significant global importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed in sitenotice to be a problem. This does not mean it would be pointless just a really bad idea. Placing what you suggested in anon notice would be largely pointless since the things you list are not really the kind of things non editors want to work on.
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Details are tricky
Thankfully you can explain them all for us in three words or less.
But note the edit summery (sic)
"99.9% of people that use Wikipedia are readers" Uh, yeah. And...? And 3 percent of editors also read articles. And casual readers never become editors, do they?
Nyet. I would regard anything not of immediate significant global importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed in sitenotice to be a problem.
Then I'm sure everyone else will follow your lead. Surely the "ten things" must have been done without consulting you, which of course resulted in the "problem" that was the "ten things" fiasco. :-\
This does not mean it would be pointless just a really bad idea.
OK. "Really bad idea" is... just as good as "pointless."
Placing what you suggested in anon notice would be largely pointless since > the things you list are not really the kind of things non editors want to work on.
Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia ) nor is there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with editing content anyway.
Should I go on? -stevertigo
On 01/09/2007, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Details are tricky
Thankfully you can explain them all for us in three words or less.
But note the edit summery (sic)
"99.9% of people that use Wikipedia are readers" Uh, yeah. And...? And 3 percent of editors also read articles. And casual readers never become editors, do they?
Wrong edit summery.
Nyet. I would regard anything not of immediate significant global importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed in sitenotice to be a problem.
Then I'm sure everyone else will follow your lead. Surely the "ten things" must have been done without consulting you, which of course resulted in the "problem" that was the "ten things" fiasco. :-\
ten things in not in sitenotice
This does not mean it would be pointless just a really bad idea.
OK. "Really bad idea" is... just as good as "pointless."
Placing what you suggested in anon notice would be largely pointless since > the things you list are not really the kind of things non editors want to work on.
Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia ) nor is there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with editing content anyway.
Should I go on? -stevertigo
There is a difference between adding content and house keeping. While anons can and do fix spellings stylistic issues and hatnotes are not something I see them dealing with much.
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is a difference between adding content and house keeping. While anons can and do fix spellings[,] stylistic issues and hatnotes are not something I see them dealing with much.
"...not something I see..." You could maybe try using your imagination?
-stevertigo
On , stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia ) nor is there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with editing content anyway.
Should I go on? -stevertigo
On 01/09/2007, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is a difference between adding content and house keeping. While anons can and do fix spellings[,] stylistic issues and hatnotes are not something I see them dealing with much.
"...not something I see..." You could maybe try using your imagination?
-stevertigo
Imagination? It either happens or it does not no need for imagination. If you can provide evidence that it happens on a reasonable scale I will take that into consideration.
I don't like the idea of sticking editing specific links in the anon notice. The "10 things..." list is a handy page that readers might find interesting/informative. We need to remember that most people that use Wikipedia are readers, not editors, so we shouldn't necessarily impose links about something they could care less about on them.
--John Reaves
On 8/31/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using the banner space for something other than the fund drive (there is already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space.
But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy, focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale. My favorite peeves are:
- the misuse of external links in the body of articles,
- improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology!
;)
- self refs in-body/outside-of-parenthesis. 'For more information,' etc.
-stevertigo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/31/07, John Reaves johnreaveswp@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like the idea of sticking editing specific links in the anon notice. The "10 things..." list is a handy page that readers might find interesting/informative. We need to remember that most people that use Wikipedia are readers, not editors, so we shouldn't necessarily impose links about something they could care less about on them.
On 8/31/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list, I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using the banner space for something other than the fund drive (there is already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space.
But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy, focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale. My favorite peeves are:
- the misuse of external links in the body of articles,
- improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology!
;)
- self refs in-body/outside-of-parenthesis. 'For more information,' etc.
One compromise would be to use some parser function trickery to make the nature of the site notice text depend on the namespace of the page being viewed. Then the ones that blatantly break the fifth wall or are of dubious importance (or the ones Geni decides to raise hell about) can at least be kept out of article space.
—C.W.