Daniel (mav) wrote:
We cannot control what others do, but we should not support any content fork of our own. However the fact that others are thinking about this in terms of needing a fork should get our attention that we need to create something in-house ASAP that is fast, open and scalable (see above).
I think it is high time to re-look at Magnus' reader- controlled article rating software. We have gone far trusting editors with the ability to edit, I think we should see if we can trust readers with the ability to rate article versions.
I hate the idea of forking just as much as I hate having to put up with vandalism, trolls, POV-pushing and edit wars. I'll do whatever I can to prevent a Robert Frost style fork:
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth.
I do NOT want to take the other. I don't think it's "just as fair" (i.e., attractive). I'm not convinced it has "the better claim". At this point it seems "really about the same."
If the foundation chooses MediaWiki software (as opposed to just copying and pasting articles into Microsoft Word, fer Pete's sake!), it will have to hire programmers to set up their server, administer their web site, and (most likely) customize MediaWiki for their unique requirements. It should be OBVIOUS that any changes to MediaWiki ought to be shared with Wikipedia.
I don't have all the answers, but the first idea that popped into my mind was:
* Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article version. * A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned meaning. * My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!) * Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"
If the foundation chooses to cooperate with Wikipedia as much as I hope, then I would expect to have it identify particular VERSIONS of Wikipedia articles which it has approved. I daresay some of these might be the "current version" and even remain as the current version.
Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously relevant internal link) to an article version tagged by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the software would notify the foundation's editors. They could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.
Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version, I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about using the History and Diff functions.)
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I don't have all the answers, but the first idea that popped into my mind was:
- Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article
version.
- A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned
meaning.
- My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!)
- Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"
This is the right approach. All article versions need to have several slider flags associated with them in the database. Some of those flags, like confidence, need to be automatically set according to the software's judgement of the trustworthiness of the editor (based on some reputation model). Other flags need to have an interface radio button setting so readers/editors can rate the article versions on any number of aspects.
Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously relevant internal link) to an article version tagged by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the software would notify the foundation's editors. They could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.
Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version, I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about using the History and Diff functions.)
Right, Ed. There is absolutely no reason for a fork. All we need is some proactive, creative, and *bold* programming experimentation.
Long live Respectipedia.org!!
Tom Haws
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:04:56 -0500, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The latest issue of Software Development magazine is on-line now:
Yes, that's great.
And I found a professor of church history whose students cite Wikipedia in papers they write.
How does the professor feel about this?
The question is, where do we go from here? Larry Sanger left the project for a mix of reasons, but SOME of them made sense (at least to me). We never resolved the tension between:
A) Anyone can edit any article, any time; and, B) People can count on every article to be accurate and fair.
Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software. Do we need to fork?
I'm not sure how forking would help, but we do need to * get simple tagging/rating software to work (neither templates nor categories are scalable substitutes at present) * have more explicit metadata [license info, article type, article content flags; user licensing info, user flags] * encourage the regular production of static, highly-organized subsets of our dynamic, somewhat chaotic whole. (CDs/DVDs and their preparation steps; a variety of organizations of the encyclopedia, in online and print versions)
I was approached by the director of a foundation (with a multi-million dollar budget) to create a fork of Wikipedia leading to a print edition
Sexy. I'm pretty sure we will publish a print edition on our own well before 2008. Would this change their interest in doin the same? Perhaps they want to publish a niche variant that we would not be interested in...
to be published no later than 2008. If I do this, maybe it will get me out of your hair? (The Cunctator wrote, "Rinse, wash, repeat.")
Get who out of whose hair? I wish I saw more of you around the mailing list, in fact... don't let the trolls stress you out too much.
-- +sj+
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:01:20 -0700, Tom Haws hawstom@sprintmail.com wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I don't have all the answers, but the first idea that popped into my mind was:
- Let users (or a subset of them) "tag" an article
version.
- A tag (or "flag") could take on any assigned
meaning.
- My favorite tag idea: "Vandalism-patrolled by mav" (!)
- Here's another: "Selected for the print edition"
This is the right approach. All article versions need to have several slider flags associated with them in the database. Some of those flags, like confidence, need to be automatically set according to the software's judgement of the trustworthiness of the editor (based on some reputation model). Other flags need to have an interface radio button setting so readers/editors can rate the article versions on any number of aspects.
Or if a Wikipedian makes a minor correction (like spelling, punctuation, grammar; or an obviously relevant internal link) to an article version tagged by the foundation - then it would be GREAT if the software would notify the foundation's editors. They could quickly review the change and probably be GLAD to endorse the current version. This would PREVENT forking, or at least reduce it to a bare minimum.
Better yet, if a Wikipedian makes a SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT to a foundation-tagged article version, I'd think the foundation would be OVERJOYED to endorse it. (I'm planning to educate them about using the History and Diff functions.)
Right, Ed. There is absolutely no reason for a fork. All we need is some proactive, creative, and *bold* programming experimentation.
Long live Respectipedia.org!!
Tom Haws
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sj schrieb:
Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software.
I'm not sure how forking would help, but we do need to
- get simple tagging/rating software to work (neither templates nor
categories are scalable substitutes at present)
I'll have to give the voting/validation/tagging software a major workover for the upcoming MediaWiki 1.5, as that changes version handling (to the better!). Other than that, the feature can handle both yes/no and scaled (like one-to-five) values for multiple "tags" (suitable for DVD, neutrality, completeness, whatever).
- have more explicit metadata [license info, article type, article content
flags; user licensing info, user flags]
A quick hack I did during 21C3 can separate current "metadata" (categories, interlanguage links, certain templates) from the article body for editing, and display them in a second edit box. I see that as a first step towards a "real" metadata system.
- encourage the regular production of static, highly-organized subsets of
our dynamic, somewhat chaotic whole. (CDs/DVDs and their preparation steps; a variety of organizations of the encyclopedia, in online and print versions)
Don't forget the Wikipedia Readers! :-)
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sj schrieb:
Not enough people were interested in Larry's "Sifter Project". I don't know if anyone is using Magnus Manke's "tagging" software.
I'm not sure how forking would help, but we do need to
- get simple tagging/rating software to work (neither templates nor
categories are scalable substitutes at present)
I'll have to give the voting/validation/tagging software a major workover for the upcoming MediaWiki 1.5, as that changes version handling (to the better!). Other than that, the feature can handle both yes/no and scaled (like one-to-five) values for multiple "tags" (suitable for DVD, neutrality, completeness, whatever).
Magnus, this is phenomenal! Huge high-fives to you!
Tom Haws