On 25/08/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In interviews I say "We're very far from perfect, but we're *good enough to be useful*."
That's a nice slogan: "Wikipedia: Good enough to be useful"
"Wikipedia: Useful enough to be dangerous."
--- "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
"Wikipedia: Useful enough to be dangerous."
"Wikipedia: Informative enough to make you a pariah (within McSociety)."
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Im a little tired of mail threading, subject forking, ineditability, untaggability, and the general disorganization of the standard Piper.
Something better, there is? OTRS comes to mind, but that might be too process oriented. Something... mailable, threadable, that can show >> text as hidden in a collapsable div... something that will do all of that and yet be low-maintenance... :)
SV ...Something that can strip the footer that will be at the end of this message...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/26/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im a little tired of mail threading, subject forking, ineditability, untaggability, and the general disorganization of the standard Piper.
Something better, there is? OTRS comes to mind, but that might be too process oriented. Something... mailable, threadable, that can show >> text as hidden in a collapsable div... something that will do all of that and yet be low-maintenance... :)
SV ...Something that can strip the footer that will be at the end of this message...
You should REALLY try gmail, it is almost unsettling how smart it is in collapsing what you don't need to see. Almost all footers (except for the first one in a thread, I think that's how it works by recognizing lines that repeat from mail to mail) gets collapsed, aswell as all quoted text, except when you need to read it to get the context of the message. I find myself going "How the hell did Gmail know I needed to read that!!!". It will also sort mails into "conversations" which is worse than threading (since it doesn't explicitly show who responded to whom) but is never a problem. You can also tag each conversation with whatever you want to make it easier to sort through. It has a brilliant search engine which you can find anything with, it has mindnumbingly large storage space and it's archiving concept means you never have to delete a thing (i've currently got 177 mb of mail in my account, most of it wikien) but still get mail out of your inbox. It really is the best there is.
I'll send you an invitation :P
--Oskar
--- Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
You should REALLY try gmail, it is almost unsettling how smart it is in collapsing what you don't need to see. Almost all footers (except for the first one in a thread, I think that's how it works by recognizing lines that repeat from mail to mail) gets collapsed, aswell as all quoted text, except when you need to read it to get the context of the message. I find myself going "How the hell did Gmail know I needed to read that!!!". It will also sort mails into "conversations" which is worse than threading (since it doesn't explicitly show who responded to whom) but is never a problem. You can also tag each conversation with whatever you want to make it easier to sort through. It has a brilliant search engine which you can find anything with, it has mindnumbingly large storage space and it's archiving concept means you never have to delete a thing (i've currently got 177 mb of mail in my account, most of it wikien) but still get mail out of your inbox. It really is the best there is.
I'll send you an invitation :P
Well that's client based and I was talking about something server-based that helps everyone see the threads in better way.
The idea is that subject headers are almost entirely useless for following a thread, and for understanding the value of particular mails. Oftentimes people will interject one-line humour into serious discussions about policy, and this will basically kill the thread. Sometimes people try to change funny discussion into serious discussion. Oftentimes we find threads are just repeats of earlier types of topics, and its hard to tell if 1) you dont know the history or and 2) you dont read up on all the current threads well enough to understand the connections.
Anyway its neat that G-mail can do all of that sorting from just plain email, and I certainly will try it out (again). :)
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki-style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup (which is essentially the same thing as a mailinglist, see news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english )? If you want real discussion, you can't try to limit what somebody is saying, and if you have as many members as wikiEN has, there are going to be a lot of posts and not always easy to follow the discussion. Threads and forks and subject renamings and funny posts are going to occur. The only way to limit it is to drastically cut down on the number of members ("Everyone with less than 2000 edits must DIE!!!"), and that's not an option that any of us wants.
Personally, I think the mailinglist/newsgroup (NNTP) way is by far the greatest way of conversing on the internet. Although, for shorter discussion that may take longer time (ie talkpages), the wiki-way is pretty awesome.
--Oskar On 8/26/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
You should REALLY try gmail, it is almost unsettling how smart it is in collapsing what you don't need to see. Almost all footers (except for the first one in a thread, I think that's how it works by recognizing lines that repeat from mail to mail) gets collapsed, aswell as all quoted text, except when you need to read it to get the context of the message. I find myself going "How the hell did Gmail know I needed to read that!!!". It will also sort mails into "conversations" which is worse than threading (since it doesn't explicitly show who responded to whom) but is never a problem. You can also tag each conversation with whatever you want to make it easier to sort through. It has a brilliant search engine which you can find anything with, it has mindnumbingly large storage space and it's archiving concept means you never have to delete a thing (i've currently got 177 mb of mail in my account, most of it wikien) but still get mail out of your inbox. It really is the best there is.
I'll send you an invitation :P
Well that's client based and I was talking about something server-based that helps everyone see the threads in better way.
The idea is that subject headers are almost entirely useless for following a thread, and for understanding the value of particular mails. Oftentimes people will interject one-line humour into serious discussions about policy, and this will basically kill the thread. Sometimes people try to change funny discussion into serious discussion. Oftentimes we find threads are just repeats of earlier types of topics, and its hard to tell if 1) you dont know the history or and 2) you dont read up on all the current threads well enough to understand the connections.
Anyway its neat that G-mail can do all of that sorting from just plain email, and I certainly will try it out (again). :)
SV
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki-style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup (which is essentially the same thing as a mailinglist, see news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english )? If you want real discussion, you can't try to limit what somebody is saying, and if you have as many members as wikiEN has, there are going to be a lot of posts and not always easy to follow the discussion. Threads and forks and subject renamings and funny posts are going to occur. The only way to limit it is to drastically cut down on the number of members ("Everyone with less than 2000 edits must DIE!!!"), and that's not an option that any of us wants.
Personally, I think the mailinglist/newsgroup (NNTP) way is by far the greatest way of conversing on the internet. Although, for shorter discussion that may take longer time (ie talkpages), the wiki-way is pretty awesome.
Since we're on the google thread already, google groups is kinda a newsgroup/mailing list hybrid. I haven't used it extensively, but it might be something to look at. It's not as open as what we're using now though, so there are some drawbacks. It also looks like it does push you to the webpage more than being email-only, which is probably unacceptable for many people.
Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki-style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup
I think what stevertigo is getting at is an enhancement to the mailinglist server software that would recognize the HTML markup Yahoo uses to quote what's being replied to. Not necessarily to keep the HMTL, but at least to convert it. As it is, you have to use a separate editor. An RSS type mailinglist where you at least get some basic markup would be nice.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki-style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup (which is
Wikis are crap for having actual conversations.
Steve
On 8/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki-style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup (which is
Wikis are crap for having actual conversations.
Steve
I'd say that that depends on the conversation. If there is a long, drawn-out discussion with many parties, than yeah, it's crap. However for purposes of having a talk-page (atleast a talk-page about a relatively non-controversial topic), it's awesome. Comments like "Statement X sounds wierd to me, can somebody source it?" or something similar (which is what is contained in the vast majority of wikipedia talk-pages), comments which draws only a few replies works very well on wikis. Honestly, I can't think of a better format for them.
On 27/08/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki-style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup (which is
Wikis are crap for having actual conversations.
I'd say that that depends on the conversation. If there is a long, drawn-out discussion with many parties, than yeah, it's crap. However for purposes of having a talk-page (atleast a talk-page about a relatively non-controversial topic), it's awesome. Comments like "Statement X sounds wierd to me, can somebody source it?" or something similar (which is what is contained in the vast majority of wikipedia talk-pages), comments which draws only a few replies works very well on wikis. Honestly, I can't think of a better format for them.
There's a Forum extension for Mediawiki which does pretty well on Uncyclopedia. Check http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/DUMP .
- d.
On Aug 27, 2006, at 16:37, David Gerard wrote:
On 27/08/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what that format would be. A forum? A wiki- style page (which there are plenty of on wikipedia)? A newsgroup (which is
Wikis are crap for having actual conversations.
I'd say that that depends on the conversation. If there is a long, drawn-out discussion with many parties, than yeah, it's crap. However for purposes of having a talk-page (atleast a talk-page about a relatively non-controversial topic), it's awesome. Comments like "Statement X sounds wierd to me, can somebody source it?" or something similar (which is what is contained in the vast majority of wikipedia talk-pages), comments which draws only a few replies works very well on wikis. Honestly, I can't think of a better format for them.
There's a Forum extension for Mediawiki which does pretty well on Uncyclopedia. Check http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/DUMP .
- d.
The problem is that DPLforum is extremely expensive for the server. I've found there is no way in hell to convince the devs to implement it on en.wp. We can always keep trying though!
On 8/27/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that that depends on the conversation. If there is a long, drawn-out discussion with many parties, than yeah, it's crap. However for purposes of having a talk-page (atleast a talk-page about a relatively non-controversial topic), it's awesome. Comments like "Statement X sounds wierd to me, can somebody source it?" or something similar (which is what is contained in the vast majority of wikipedia talk-pages), comments which draws only a few replies works very well on wikis. Honestly, I can't think of a better format for them.
I wouldn't call that a conversation. Requests like that also work well in wiki as they're fairly timeless: I've seen sequences where A posts a question, is replied to with another question by B 6 months later, and C answers another 6 months later again.
Steve
On 27/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Anyway its neat that G-mail can do all of that sorting from just plain email, and I certainly will try it out (again). :)
You can also send mail using your other email addresses (like Yahoo!) from within Gmail, so you wouldn't have to change your email address.
~Mark Ryan
On 26 Aug 2006, at 19:49, stevertigo wrote:
--- "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
"Wikipedia: Useful enough to be dangerous."
"Wikipedia: Informative enough to make you a pariah (within McSociety)."
Dangerous enough to be useful.