"David Gerard" wrote
arXiv.org is reputed to perform a useful role. How's it look from your view as an academic mathematician?
Experts writing for experts. Even within the field this stuff is hardly readable.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"David Gerard" wrote
arXiv.org is reputed to perform a useful role. How's it look from your view as an academic mathematician?
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: Experts writing for experts. Even within the field this stuff is hardly readable.
There are a few [[Open access]] repositories out there. But is it really the case that "this stuff is hardly readable" or is it the case that this stuff isnt linkable and therefore hard to corroborate with other current research, as well as authoritative references (like Wikipedia)?
Ive always thought that reading PDFs would be exponentially easier if we could select> right-click>>google text just as we can in Firefox. (Somebody tell Ghostview and Adobe).
But even then the synergetics are as limited as the fields are specialised. Therefore there is a need for areas to be somewhat inacessible to disruption. Perhaps as it should be for ideas which Grandma doesnt want to hear another word about, and Bubba just plain dont like (or understand).
~sv~
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Science&diff=73161148&...
No disambiguation.
~sv~
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
<snip> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Science&diff=73161148&... No disambiguation. ~sv~ </snip>
Huh? Was that WP:POINT? The problem is, that our search function sucks. So we have to make finding things through the "Go" option mindnumbingly easy. It is not unreasonable to think that someone looking for a very influential album (I once had a day in class on this album in college) would search for its name, "Big Science". Why you would remove any reference to the alternate meaning in the main Big Science article kind of boggles me. Perhaps I've missed something in the hundred e-mails sent out on this list today.
User:Makemi
On 8/31/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Science&diff=73161148&...
No disambiguation.
I agree with Makemi that this seems rather random and bizarre behaviour on your part. Is this you taking an issue with 'trivia' another step towards irrational hatred?
There's already too much conflict about article naming and disambiguation without making it worse - in this case, by insisting that when a primary topic gets the name instead of it being a disambiguation page, the others have not only to accept a disambiguated title but can't even be pointed to at the main name.
Wikipedia is not purely an encyclopedia of science - or any other topic. It's every specialist encyclopedia in one bundle, and part of dealing with that is having to accept disambiguation - since while in each specialist field, there is unlikely to be ambiguity, across the whole of human knowledge some terminology overlaps.
In other words, either accept little disambiguation notes like that or accept that every ambiguous title will be a disambiguation page and nobody will get primary topic disambiguation - which latter might be my preferred choice, except everyone would squabble about that too.
What your removal of disambiguation links means is that you arrogantly think that only YOUR favorite topic should have a wikipedia article, and the others shouldn't.
-Matt
This is absolutely the wrong way to deal with this. If you don't like to mention something trivial on the first line of a serious article, simply create a disambiguation page and link to that instead ("...for other uses see..."). What you did here is a) making the encyclopedia harder to navigate and b) insulting the writers of the second article.
If several articles have the same name, you disambiguate. It's that simple. That's why it's called disambiguation, because a search term can be ambigous.
Absolutely the wrong thing to do.
--Oskar
On 9/1/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Science&diff=73161148&...
No disambiguation.
~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 01/09/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Science&diff=73161148&...
No disambiguation.
If you want to avoid silly looking hatnotes, create a disambig... even if it only has those two entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid...
--- Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to avoid silly looking hatnotes, create a disambig... even if it only has those two entries.
Well thats what Ive been doing - and a lot of it. I even made {{dis}} (syntax is {{dis|term|link 1|link 2}}) just to make this habit of making dis pages a little easier.
The problem is that I keep seeing the improper form. So then the proper thing to do is not 1) do it myself, but 2) make a stink about it, so people get the message.
And while we're on the subject, what do people think of this, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/a/a2/Disambig-alt2.png instead of the typical this?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/a/a2/Disambig-alt1.png
sv
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/1/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
The problem is that I keep seeing the improper form. So then the proper thing to do is not 1) do it myself, but 2) make a stink about it, so people get the message.
Where 'improper form' is defined as 'what stevertigo doesn't like', I see.
Just because you're oh-so-hurt that someone could possibly link to - sob - an ALBUM from a PHYSICS ARTICLE. At the top, no less.
The tragedy. Just think of the children^Wphysicists who will be hurt by that.
-Matt
On 9/1/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
And while we're on the subject, what do people think of this, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/a/a2/Disambig-alt2.png instead of the typical this?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/a/a2/Disambig-alt1.png
Hate it. It's not obvious to the naive reader. The link is out of the body of the article, and people are already well-trained by numerous websites to ignore content outside the central box. The word 'Disambiguation' itself is Wikipedia jargon; it isn't obvious that it means 'If you wanted another meaning of this term, go here'.
-Matt
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Hate it.
As in "isch, I donst tsink so?"
It's not obvious to the naive reader.
Nor is the disorganised current system, or the edit link for that matter, depending on how you define naieve.
The link is out of the body of the article, and people are already well-trained by numerous websites to ignore content outside the central box.
Do you have a source for that?
The word 'Disambiguation' itself is Wikipedia jargon; it isn't obvious that it means 'If you wanted another meaning of this term, go here'.
Hm. So edit this page" and "what links here" are common jargon? On the one hand you say 'it has to be in the content, because people dont look elsewhere.' Not the most compelling argument. On the other hand you say 'its special wiki terminology, though it doesnt belong with other special wiki terminology:' Recent changes, What links here, Related changes, Special pages...
Sigh.
-sv PS: Does adding actual fact content to Uncyclopedia constitute "trolling"?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/1/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Hm. So edit this page" and "what links here" are common jargon?
I think most people with a modicum of sense would understand "edit this page". They might think we're a bunch of raving loonies (let's face it -- we probably are) but they would probably understand the message. Hence most OTRS messages go "OMG yuv bin hacked!" rather than "I don't understand what you mean by "edit this page"."
OTOH, "what links here" is not obvious. However, let's look at audiences. What links here is useful for editors only. No-one else. "Edit this page" is for bridging the gap between readers and editors. "Disambiguation" is for the use of readers[1] *alone*, i.e. people who may have *no* other experience of Wikipedia, editing or reading.
Now ask which is the clearer disambiguation system: the current one or your proposed one. I am quite willing to concede that the current system can be downright peculiar and mock serious subjects, but I very much doubt this is the solution.
[1] editors of Wikipedia are not excluded from being "readers".
On 9/1/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Hm. So edit this page" and "what links here" are common jargon? On the one hand you say 'it has to be in the content, because people dont look elsewhere.' Not the most compelling argument. On the other hand you say 'its special wiki terminology, though it doesnt belong with other special wiki terminology:' Recent changes, What links here, Related changes, Special pages...
The difference, for me, is that 'edit this page' and 'what links here', etc. are for editing, while disambiguation is for the reader. While openness in editing is a good thing, I think that things affecting our readers are more important (in that we have far more readers than editors, and being useful is a goal).
I also feel that you haven't provided very good reasons for making a change such as this, except for that you personally find it less offensive.
-Matt
stevertigo wrote:
--- Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Hate it.
As in "isch, I donst tsink so?"
It's not obvious to the naive reader.
Nor is the disorganised current system, or the edit link for that matter, depending on how you define naieve.
How is a plane English sentence describing what someone might have wanted, or indicating that if they wanted something else in general, that they should follow a link not obvious? It is in plane english and does not require that a person be "in the know" or an editor. First time wikipedia users can get it.
The link is out of the body of the article, and people are already well-trained by numerous websites to ignore content outside the central box.
Do you have a source for that?
WTF?
The word 'Disambiguation' itself is Wikipedia jargon; it isn't obvious that it means 'If you wanted another meaning of this term, go here'.
Hm. So edit this page" and "what links here" are common jargon? On the one hand you say 'it has to be in the content, because people dont look elsewhere.' Not the most compelling argument. On the other hand you say 'its special wiki terminology, though it doesnt belong with other special wiki terminology:' Recent changes, What links here, Related changes, Special pages...
Sigh.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers. Most of the features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to find the right article.
-sv PS: Does adding actual fact content to Uncyclopedia constitute "trolling"?
Lol
SKL
--- ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Do you have a source for that?
WTF?
When you make a sweeping generalised claim about how people actually behave and perceieve things as if it were a fact, particularly as this applies to a particular case which should be easily supported or not - its fair to ask for a citation. In this case you were making some claim about how peoples eyeballs worked and that this automatically invalidated everything else I said.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers. Most of the features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to find the right article.
No, Im not. I also read lots, and in the course of editing I make little changes, and sometimes more major ones. Im more of a gnome who looks at wiki from the point of view of readability.
So I disagree that my suggestion is a bad one, just because people here say so, and particularly because all of the arguments against seem to rest on this notion that 1) its fine the way it is 2) its confusing 3) its against policy.
3 - DIS policy is borked and needs correcting. Peppering articles in the sciences with hatnotes referencing pop culture (especially particular bits that in themselves dont merit an article on their own) is called LINKSPAM and falls under SPAM and not DIS. 2 - People arent stupid, unless they are taught to act that way. 1 - It would probably be fine if every single case were handled by a disambiguation, and not left to discretion. If that was consistent, then we wouldnt see any "for the b-side by the Spice Girls" links.
-sv.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Do you have a source for that?
WTF?
When you make a sweeping generalised claim about how people actually behave and perceieve things as if it were a fact, particularly as this applies to a particular case which should be easily supported or not - its fair to ask for a citation. In this case you were making some claim about how peoples eyeballs worked and that this automatically invalidated everything else I said.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers. Most of the features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to find the right article.
No, Im not. I also read lots, and in the course of reading I make little changes, and sometimes more major ones. Im more of a gnome who looks at wiki from the point of view of readability.
So I disagree that my suggestion is a bad one, just because people here say so, and particularly because all of the arguments against seem to rest on this notion that 1) its fine the way it is 2) its confusing 3) its against policy.
3 - DIS policy is borked and needs correcting. Peppering articles in the sciences with hatnotes referencing pop culture (especially particular bits that in themselves dont merit an article on their own) is called LINKSPAM and falls under SPAM and not DIS. 2 - People arent stupid, unless they are taught to act that way. 1 - It would probably be fine if every single case were handled by a disambiguation, and not left to discretion. If that was consistent, then we wouldnt see any "for the b-side by the Spice Girls" links.
-sv.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
--- ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Do you have a source for that?
WTF?
When you make a sweeping generalised claim about how people actually behave and perceieve things as if it were a fact, particularly as this applies to a particular case which should be easily supported or not - its fair to ask for a citation. In this case you were making some claim about how peoples eyeballs worked and that this automatically invalidated everything else I said.
Actually it was not my claim. The post you were replying too was made by someone else. The WTF was that, not being in an article common sense and personal experienc should suffice for such an obvious statment.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers. Most of the features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to find the right article.
No, Im not. I also read lots, and in the course of reading I make little changes, and sometimes more major ones. Im more of a gnome who looks at wiki from the point of view of readability.
You are on this list, which means you are more involved in wikipedia than most of the people who read it. Given the numbers (17th most visited site for the month) I think it is reasonable to say that people who have never edited a single article are the majority of readers. Everyone else is just at an editor at a different stage of advancement.
So I disagree that my suggestion is a bad one, just because people here say so, and particularly because all of the arguments against seem to rest on this notion that 1) its fine the way it is 2) its confusing 3) its against policy.
3 - DIS policy is borked and needs correcting. Peppering articles in the sciences with hatnotes referencing pop culture (especially particular bits that in themselves dont merit an article on their own) is called LINKSPAM and falls under SPAM and not DIS. 2 - People arent stupid, unless they are taught to act that way. 1 - It would probably be fine if every single case were handled by a disambiguation, and not left to discretion. If that was consistent, then we wouldnt see any "for the b-side by the Spice Girls" links.
-sv.
It has been a wile since I looked but my if memory serves all the print encyclopedias do it the same way we currently do it. Only they have fewer articles so they don't have the "embarrassment" that you seem to be feeling.
SKL
--- ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Do you have a source for that?
WTF?
When you make a sweeping generalised claim about how people actually behave and perceieve things as if it were a fact, particularly as this applies to a particular case which should be easily supported or not - its fair to ask for a citation. In this case you were making some claim about how peoples eyeballs worked and that this automatically invalidated everything else I said.
You seem to be confusing editors with casual readers. Most of the features you point at are for editors. People who will take the time to get use to the conventions and terms used. Some people just want to find the right article.
No, Im not. I also read lots, and in the course of reading I make little changes, and sometimes more major ones. Im more of a gnome who looks at wiki from the point of view of readability.
So I disagree that my suggestion is a bad one, just because people here say so, and particularly because all of the arguments against seem to rest on this notion that 1) its fine the way it is 2) its confusing 3) its against policy.
3 - DIS policy is borked and needs correcting. Peppering articles in the sciences with hatnotes referencing pop culture (especially particular bits that in themselves dont merit an article on their own) is called LINKSPAM and falls under SPAM and not DIS. 2 - People arent stupid, unless they are taught to act that way. 1 - It would probably be fine if every single case were handled by a disambiguation, and not left to discretion. If that was consistent, then we wouldnt see any "for the b-side by the Spice Girls" links.
-sv.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 9/2/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
And while we're on the subject, what do people think of this, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/a/a2/Disambig-alt2.png instead of the typical this?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/a/a2/Disambig-alt1.png
The weakness is that it's not apparently obvious what "Disambiguation" means (especially when it is a single word displayed to the right of the title). A hatnote in a standardised form is easy to interpret, even for someone who hasn't seen one on Wikipedia before, and it also corresponds with how disambiguation occurs in some other publications.
[[WP:DAB]] does a very good job of setting out when disambiguation should be done, how it should be done and the various forms it can take. Interestingly, it actually suggests that where there are only two articles to be disambiguated, the form that should be taken is the one you seem not to like. I suggest you bring up this issue on the talk page there, since apparently some people consider it a good enough form to recommend.