In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com writes:
What would that serve? I do not understand that! Please help me understand what non-indexing stub articles will serve? Wouldn't that hamper the entire point of stubs. We advertise via stub templates to ask people to expand articles for a reason.>>
---------------------------------------- "No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub". It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for public consumption"
The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready. This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd be ready to accept any alternative to that.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
I am sorry I still do not get it. 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?
2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?
3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".
4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is disruptive.
5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize thoughts a bit.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com writes:
What would that serve? I do not understand that! Please help me understand what non-indexing stub articles will serve? Wouldn't that hamper the entire point of stubs. We advertise via stub templates to ask people to expand articles for a reason.>>
"No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub". It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for public consumption"
The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready. This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd be ready to accept any alternative to that.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62 ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
<<From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com I am sorry I still do not get it. 1) Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
<<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would simply be to hide it, not delete it.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
<<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is disruptive.>>
You always have a choice. When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to avoid a more perilous result.
<<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize thoughts a bit.>>
Thank you. A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
Will Johnson
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:40 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com <<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is disruptive.>>
You always have a choice. When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to avoid a more perilous result.
Will Johnson
I don't drive.
- White Cat
We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something.
Hmm... maybe a little jazzier....
How about "Nupedia"?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
<<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would simply be to hide it, not delete it.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
<<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is disruptive.>>
You always have a choice. When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to avoid a more perilous result.
<<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize thoughts a bit.>>
Thank you. A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Or Nüpedia. That would be great. Á la Nü Jazz, Nü Metal, etc.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:05, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
We should rename this project "Newpedia" or something.
Hmm... maybe a little jazzier....
How about "Nupedia"?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:40 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles
from the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
<<2) How would you decide which article is ready for public consumption or not? A process like "requests for publishing"?>>
Everything gets published as normal, until someone flags it and then you would have a process just like AfD, except the end result would simply be to hide it, not delete it.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
<<4) I am not "ready to accept" anything I am forced to accept. Your tone implies I have no other choice to either accept your proposal or mass deletions. Mass deletion itself has no consensus behind it and is disruptive.>>
You always have a choice. When you are going 60 mph toward a lake and need to turn either left or right, you have to decide fairly quickly to avoid a more perilous result.
<<5) You seem to have a workable idea but perhaps need to organize thoughts a bit.>>
Thank you. A sentiment reflected by countless others before you.
Will Johnson
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it? If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published" namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be made to change red links that point to where the article should be in main space a different color and point them at the "non-published" space.
In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are still "in the works".
Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are done today.
Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you like, just be constructive about it.
On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it? If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would hasten the process.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published" namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be made to change red links that point to where the article should be in main space a different color and point them at the "non-published" space.
In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are still "in the works".
Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are done today.
Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you like, just be constructive about it.
On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
it?
If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Explain why :P
Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion (not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).
For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article. The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every company having a page etc.
There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once those are started the work comes to improving the existing items, Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)
On 1/14/09, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would hasten the process.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published" namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be made to change red links that point to where the article should be in main space a different color and point them at the "non-published" space.
In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are still "in the works".
Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are done today.
Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you like, just be constructive about it.
On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
it?
If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I do not see the reason why some people are in a panic. We are nowhere near a situation where we run out of topics. If anything real world topics such as science, history and etc will keep developing.
The problem we have today is that some peoples standards of inclusion is so low that it is compromising our content amount in bulk. In other words, there is a current substantial decrease in content amount as a result.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Explain why :P
Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion (not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).
For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article. The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every company having a page etc.
There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once those are started the work comes to improving the existing items, Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Indeed but doesn't every non featured article fall under "not ready for consumption" category? - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published" namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be made to change red links that point to where the article should be in main space a different color and point them at the "non-published" space.
In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are still "in the works".
Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are done today.
Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you like, just be constructive about it.
On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
it?
If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Stubs aren't bad. They may be about a topic which doesn't have many information.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 12:57, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles
from the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it? If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l