Against my better judgment, I attempted to improve the wording of a particularly badly written article. Last time I did this ([[Spruce goose]]), it got reverted. Guess what?
Here are my changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=156028841&...
And the (partial) revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=next&oldi...
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Is it just aviation? Is it just me being jaded and impatient? Or is this the reason so much of Wikipedia prose is so crap? Because the payoff for trying to fix it is so small, and editors put so much weight on every possible detail being retained, at the expense of clarity and readability?
Feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here.
Steve
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Against my better judgment, I attempted to improve the wording of a particularly badly written article. Last time I did this ([[Spruce goose]]), it got reverted. Guess what?
Here are my changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=156028841&...
And the (partial) revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=next&oldi...
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Is it just aviation? Is it just me being jaded and impatient? Or is this the reason so much of Wikipedia prose is so crap? Because the payoff for trying to fix it is so small, and editors put so much weight on every possible detail being retained, at the expense of clarity and readability?
Feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here.
Steve
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 9/7/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
Has anyone ever given thought to stable *paragraphs*? Even if you could just say "we worked hard on this paragraph. Think before you change it" or something.
Steve
Er. With the exception of adding paragraph breaks. That usually works out okay.
On 9/7/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Against my better judgment, I attempted to improve the wording of a particularly badly written article. Last time I did this ([[Spruce goose]]), it got reverted. Guess what?
Here are my changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=156028841&...
And the (partial) revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=next&oldi...
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Is it just aviation? Is it just me being jaded and impatient? Or is this the reason so much of Wikipedia prose is so crap? Because the payoff for trying to fix it is so small, and editors put so much weight on every possible detail being retained, at the expense of clarity and readability?
Feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 9/7/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Er. With the exception of adding paragraph breaks. That usually works out okay.
I've once added sections to a long monolith of text and had that reverted. I can't say I've had simple paragraph breaks reverted though, you're right.
Steve
I don't think simple reversions are the biggest problem -- I spent a long time streamlining the prose of articles back in '05 and early '06, and none of my changes were reverted -- but all of the improvements washed away within a couple months, regardless.
I mean, hell: this is the one area where I'm actually an expert. I'm a technical writer. I've been to college for it. After slaving over assembly instructions, making sure that they're as clear as they absolutely, possibly could be, it's fun to help with a wikipedia article about something entertaining.
The writing style of most WP articles is decent by web standards, but a trainwreck compared to the best tech documentation (IBM or Apple) or to Britannica. It's easy to dismiss Britannica's mediocre website, but if you actually go to the library and take their encyclopedia off the shelf, it's a fucking joy to read. Everything is laid out perfectly; the writing style disappears into the text.
Not that britannica isn't completely doomed. But it's good to have them as competition.
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Er. With the exception of adding paragraph breaks. That usually works out okay.
I've once added sections to a long monolith of text and had that reverted. I can't say I've had simple paragraph breaks reverted though, you're right.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ben Yates wrote:
I mean, hell: this is the one area where I'm actually an expert. I'm a technical writer. I've been to college for it.
So you admit your conflict of interest?
<cowering> It's a joke! A joke! Not in the face, not in the face! </cowering>
On 9/7/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think simple reversions are the biggest problem -- I spent a long time streamlining the prose of articles back in '05 and early '06, and none of my changes were reverted -- but all of the improvements washed away within a couple months, regardless.
That's one of the weaknesses of massively collaborative writing, unfortunately. If all someone is changing is a sentence or two in any given revision, then over time inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies will accumulate and it requires someone to go through and unify the prose.
Ben Yates wrote:
I mean, hell: this is the one area where I'm actually an expert. I'm a technical writer. I've been to college for it.
I think the problem here isn't with writing skills; it's with reading skills.
Every good writer I know is a great reader. Most people are, by definition, average readers, and so I think they literally can't tell the difference between a mediocre article and a great one. When they make a change, they make it to the best of their ability, but those changes become more and more likely to look like a step backwards from an expert perspective.
As far as I can tell, this is a fundamental problem with our current model. I look forward to seeing how stable versioning gets implemented, as it could help bad writing a little. But it doesn't get rid of the fundamental problem, which is that most writing decisions get made based on the personal opinions of whomever shows up.
To fix that, I think we'd need to move to a model based more on either evidence or authority.
William
On 9/7/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Most people are, by definition, average readers, and so I think they literally can't tell the difference between a mediocre article and a great one.
Definitely. Somebody could show me their "prose" and I'll probably say "looks better than anything I could write", then give some characteristically bad advice and count how many of the FA people insist that it thoroughly sucks.
—C.W.
William Pietri schrieb:
I think the problem here isn't with writing skills; it's with reading skills.
Every good writer I know is a great reader. Most people are, by definition, average readers, and so I think they literally can't tell the difference between a mediocre article and a great one. When they make a change, they make it to the best of their ability, but those changes become more and more likely to look like a step backwards from an expert perspective.
As far as I can tell, this is a fundamental problem with our current model. I look forward to seeing how stable versioning gets implemented, as it could help bad writing a little. But it doesn't get rid of the fundamental problem, which is that most writing decisions get made based on the personal opinions of whomever shows up.
To fix that, I think we'd need to move to a model based more on either evidence or authority.
William
I couldn't agree more, both with this position and the fact that it touches on some very important issues.
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Pretty please? I've been telling Wikipedia critics "stable versions could potentially improve situation X" for _years_ now and I'm starting to feel I've been making a fool of myself.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Pretty please? I've been telling Wikipedia critics "stable versions could potentially improve situation X" for _years_ now and I'm starting to feel I've been making a fool of myself.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And how about weeklong blocks for OWNership, while we're at it?
(Yes, I'm kidding. Well mostly kidding.)
But really, we do need something done about that. I don't have any brilliant ideas at this point, but it is a problem. I've always suggested putting the bit at the bottom of the edit screen (you know, that part half the people reading this message are going to look for because they've never read it), where it says " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, *do not submit it*" (emphasis in original) at the top of the edit screen. In 18-point type. And maybe bright red while we're at it.
On 9/7/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
because they've never read it), where it says " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, *do not submit it*" (emphasis in original) at the top of the edit screen. In 18-point type. And maybe bright red while we're at it.
Trouble is, it cuts both ways. It means both "I can fix your crappy prose" and, "you can enhance (or otherwise extend) my prose (see [[technical writing]]) which is considered by some (especially in the UK) to be less than optimal, by adding details, for example a few examples or other trivia, because that's what Wikipedia is all about."
Ugh.
I hate parenthetical phrases in Wikipedia text. Especially in lead paragraphs.
Steve
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I hate parenthetical phrases in Wikipedia text. Especially in lead paragraphs.
Except, most biographical articles will have something like "... (born August 16, 1958 in Bay City, Michigan)..." in the very first sentence.
—C.W.
On 9/8/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Except, most biographical articles will have something like "... (born August 16, 1958 in Bay City, Michigan)..." in the very first sentence.
Those are ok.
(I have decreed it thus.)
Steve
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Except, most biographical articles will have something like "... (born August 16, 1958 in Bay City, Michigan)..." in the very first sentence.
Those are ok.
(I have decreed it thus.)
Steve
I decree them not okay. I loathe paranthetical remarks (of any nature) in the opening paragraph, much less the opening sentence--even birth dates and places (as these will utlimately expand to include what the country was called when he/she was born there).
Why not "Steve Bennet is a Wikipedian well known for his dislike of turgid prose (and, please let me know you got that, I'd hate to waste a good one--this parenthetical remark would not, of course, be contained in the aritlce)." He was born on May 15th, 1559 in Bay City Michigan, to a lost, nomadic Norweigan family.
"Steve Bennet is a Wikipedian well known for his dislike of turgid prose. He was born on May 15th, 1559 in Bay City Michigan, to a lost, nomadic Norweigan family."
Use of parenthetical remarks in the intro paragraph is leading to these streams of other language words so long you can't find the introductory sentence--although they look less paranthetical when they're 27 words longer than the containing sentence.
KP
On 9/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Use of parenthetical remarks in the intro paragraph is leading to these streams of other language words so long you can't find the introductory sentence--although they look less paranthetical when they're 27 words longer than the containing sentence.
I guess I find this elegant:
John Smith (1864-1899) was a....
but you're right, this becomes heavy: John Smith (born 1864 London, died 1899 Tunbridge Wells, England) was a...
Birth and death dates are fundamental to any biography. Birth and death locations can wait till later in the article.
Steve
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Use of parenthetical remarks in the intro paragraph is leading to these streams of other language words so long you can't find the introductory sentence--although they look less paranthetical when they're 27 words longer than the containing sentence.
I guess I find this elegant:
John Smith (1864-1899) was a....
but you're right, this becomes heavy: John Smith (born 1864 London, died 1899 Tunbridge Wells, England) was a...
Birth and death dates are fundamental to any biography. Birth and death locations can wait till later in the article.
Steve
I could compromise on years alone, but it's a give em 8 digits and a dash, and they'll take a dozen locations and alternative spellings situation.
KP
Calling all grad students: there's a thesis to be written about how new stylistic conventions are being developed that are better suited for readers-who-are-also-editors.
On 9/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Use of parenthetical remarks in the intro paragraph is leading to these streams of other language words so long you can't find the introductory sentence--although they look less paranthetical when they're 27 words longer than the containing sentence.
I guess I find this elegant:
John Smith (1864-1899) was a....
but you're right, this becomes heavy: John Smith (born 1864 London, died 1899 Tunbridge Wells, England) was a...
Birth and death dates are fundamental to any biography. Birth and death locations can wait till later in the article.
Steve
I could compromise on years alone, but it's a give em 8 digits and a dash, and they'll take a dozen locations and alternative spellings situation.
KP
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 9/8/07 12:03 AM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Use of parenthetical remarks in the intro paragraph is leading to these streams of other language words so long you can't find the introductory sentence--although they look less paranthetical when they're 27 words longer than the containing sentence.
I guess I find this elegant:
John Smith (1864-1899) was a....
but you're right, this becomes heavy: John Smith (born 1864 London, died 1899 Tunbridge Wells, England) was a...
Birth and death dates are fundamental to any biography. Birth and death locations can wait till later in the article.
Steve
I could compromise on years alone, but it's a give em 8 digits and a dash, and they'll take a dozen locations and alternative spellings situation.
KP
How about this:
'''John Smith''' was born on January 1, 1864, and died on January 1, 1899.
Born in London, he was a writer.
The last paragraph of the Article would read:
John Smith died in Tunbridge Wells, England from [cause of death].
The more common the name, the more important the full dates of birth and death become. It makes further research on the person much easier.
Marc Riddell
On 9/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
'''John Smith''' was born on January 1, 1864, and died on January 1, 1899.
Awful. I don't even know why he's notable or what he did.
Born in London, he was a writer.
Sounds like a game of Guess Who. Our present convention ("John Smith (1864-1999) was one of Britain's most prominent 19th century novelists, best known for his Acanthus trilogy.") is much better. Important information first. I think the years-in-parentheses works because the information is important, but it's hard to fit into the flow of a normal sentence otherwise.
The last paragraph of the Article would read:
John Smith died in Tunbridge Wells, England from [cause of death].
No, the last paragraph would read: ==Trivia== Episode 148 of The Simpsons makes a reference to John Smith...
<grins, ducks, runs...>
The more common the name, the more important the full dates of birth and death become. It makes further research on the person much easier.
Sure, but I think it's ok leaving the actual date of birth until the first paragraph of "Early life" or whatever. Presuming it's a long enough article to have such a thing.
Steve
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
'''John Smith''' was born on January 1, 1864, and died on January 1, 1899.
Awful. I don't even know why he's notable or what he did.
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is. Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Steve
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
I use the "random article" button a lot when I'm not editing, because it's often an interesting way to learn new things. If articles didn't say quickly why the subject is notable, I doubt I'd have much interest in doing that.
-- Jonel
On 9/9/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
I use the "random article" button a lot when I'm not editing, because it's often an interesting way to learn new things. If articles didn't say quickly why the subject is notable, I doubt I'd have much interest in doing that.
-- Jonel
Yes, saying quickly why the person is notable is important. Also David's right about giving the birth date right off, and death for those who have passed. It instantly puts a person and the possible information you can gain about them in a well defined category.
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
KP
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, saying quickly why the person is notable is important. Also David's right about giving the birth date right off, and death for those who have passed. It instantly puts a person and the possible information you can gain about them in a well defined category.
My biggest problem with adding birthdates in the beginning of an article is that they're so hard to verify. Thus I feel they should normally be cited *and attributed* if included. And putting an attribution in the very beginning of an article is clumsy.
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
But, c'mon, you at least know why they're an interesting enough person for you to look up, which in my mind means they're notable.
Anthony schreef:
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
But, c'mon, you at least know why they're an interesting enough person for you to look up, which in my mind means they're notable.
Someone may quote Benjamin Disraeli to me, for example, without me knowing which TV series he's playing in.
Eugene
On 9/9/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
But, c'mon, you at least know why they're an interesting enough person for you to look up, which in my mind means they're notable.
Someone may quote Benjamin Disraeli to me, for example, without me knowing which TV series he's playing in.
Eugene
He plays the bald guy on LOST.
KP
K P wrote:
On 9/9/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
I use the "random article" button a lot when I'm not editing, because it's often an interesting way to learn new things. If articles didn't say quickly why the subject is notable, I doubt I'd have much interest in doing that.
-- Jonel
Yes, saying quickly why the person is notable is important. Also David's right about giving the birth date right off, and death for those who have passed. It instantly puts a person and the possible information you can gain about them in a well defined category.
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
KP
Right! It's not at all unusual to come across someone's name in such a way that does NOT give you any real context about that person.
Just one example that comes to my mind: A few years back I was looking at the lyrics to an old pop song called "Year of the Cat". One of the lines goes (something like) "You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre contemplating a crime." At the time, I had no idea who Peter Lorre was, but Wikipedia eliminated my ignorance. This sort of thing is not all that unusual.
One good thing about having the birth and death dates in the first line is that it helps as a sort of "disambiguation". Since names are not unique, it's not always clear that you have the right person when you look someone up. But a date will often help to determine if you've found the person you're looking for.
-Rich
On 9/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
K P wrote:
On 9/9/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him.
Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
I use the "random article" button a lot when I'm not editing, because it's often an interesting way to learn new things. If articles didn't say quickly why the subject is notable, I doubt I'd have much interest in doing that.
-- Jonel
Yes, saying quickly why the person is notable is important. Also David's right about giving the birth date right off, and death for those who have passed. It instantly puts a person and the possible information you can gain about them in a well defined category.
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
KP
Right! It's not at all unusual to come across someone's name in such a way that does NOT give you any real context about that person.
Just one example that comes to my mind: A few years back I was looking at the lyrics to an old pop song called "Year of the Cat". One of the lines goes (something like) "You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre contemplating a crime." At the time, I had no idea who Peter Lorre was, but Wikipedia eliminated my ignorance. This sort of thing is not all that unusual.
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
One good thing about having the birth and death dates in the first line is that it helps as a sort of "disambiguation". Since names are not unique, it's not always clear that you have the right person when you look someone up. But a date will often help to determine if you've found the person you're looking for.
If you mean birth and death years, then I agree. If you really do mean dates, I disagree for the reason I mentioned before. It's too hard to be sure that you've got the birth and death date right (especially birth dates). You wind up using a quote from some pop-magazine article or something, which most likely did no fact checking to make sure the date was correct. I think in most cases it's best to just leave the birth date out, unless there's some significance to the particular date, it's trivia.
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
If the song is notable, then yeah, I think so.
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
If the song is notable, then yeah, I think so.
Uh, no, I think that was a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable.
KP
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
If the song is notable, then yeah, I think so.
Uh, no, I think that was a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable.
My comment wasn't meant as a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable, but he's also notable because he's mentioned in the song. A person can be notable for more than one reason, you know.
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
If the song is notable, then yeah, I think so.
Uh, no, I think that was a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable.
My comment wasn't meant as a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable, but he's also notable because he's mentioned in the song. A person can be notable for more than one reason, you know.
Oh, I thought it was. I don't think just being mentioned in a song makes you notable. It would depend upon other factors, such as how notable the song is.
KP
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
If the song is notable, then yeah, I think so.
Uh, no, I think that was a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable.
My comment wasn't meant as a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable, but he's also notable because he's mentioned in the song. A person can be notable for more than one reason, you know.
Oh, I thought it was. I don't think just being mentioned in a song makes you notable. It would depend upon other factors, such as how notable the song is.
Fair enough, however my initial comment was that he's notable for being mentioned in Year of the Cat, and I never said anyone mentioned in *any* song is notable.
Anyway, my point is that I don't care why or whether someone is notable when I look them up on Wikipedia. If I'm looking them up, then obviously I think they're notable. And I think most readers would agree with this, and couldn't care less about why Wikipedia decided a particular article was worthy of inclusion.
I guess I was just nit-picking the use of the term "notable".
On 09/09/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I guess I was just nit-picking the use of the term "notable".
Considering its practical use on Wikipedia is as a strange internal jargon word of questionable relation to conventional English usage, there's probably a lot of mileage in nitpicking it.
- d.
Anthony wrote:
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
> Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was > notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he > was mentioned in Year of the Cat. People are notable for being mentioned in songs now?
If the song is notable, then yeah, I think so.
Uh, no, I think that was a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable.
My comment wasn't meant as a joke. He's mentioned in the song because he's notable, but he's also notable because he's mentioned in the song. A person can be notable for more than one reason, you know.
Oh, I thought it was. I don't think just being mentioned in a song makes you notable. It would depend upon other factors, such as how notable the song is.
Fair enough, however my initial comment was that he's notable for being mentioned in Year of the Cat, and I never said anyone mentioned in *any* song is notable.
Anyway, my point is that I don't care why or whether someone is notable when I look them up on Wikipedia. If I'm looking them up, then obviously I think they're notable. And I think most readers would agree with this, and couldn't care less about why Wikipedia decided a particular article was worthy of inclusion.
I guess I was just nit-picking the use of the term "notable".
I guess my example wasn't quite a clear-cut as I thought it was. There are times when I encounter a name used in a context where the assumption is that I already know who the person is, but I don't know. Consider if someone simply told me that I look like Peter Lorre (or someone else--I sure don't like like Peter Lorre!). Is Peter Lorre notable simply because someone may have told me I look like him? Yet I certainly might want to find out who Peter Lorre is, to find out if I'm being complimented or insulted.
It seems to me we've gotten off the main point here. The sub-point though I think is clear: people sometimes look up someone in an encyclopedia (including Wikipedia) knowing virtually nothing except the name.
-Rich
Anthony wrote:
On 9/9/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
K P wrote:
On 9/9/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: > Presumably you knew this before you went to the article about him. Nah, I frequently follow links just to find out who the person is.
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Well, I actually use a javascript plugin that lets you hover over a link and that shows you the first paragraph.
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
I use the "random article" button a lot when I'm not editing, because it's often an interesting way to learn new things. If articles didn't say quickly why the subject is notable, I doubt I'd have much interest in doing that.
-- Jonel
Yes, saying quickly why the person is notable is important. Also David's right about giving the birth date right off, and death for those who have passed. It instantly puts a person and the possible information you can gain about them in a well defined category.
And, yes, I look people up because I don't know about them, not because I do.
KP
Right! It's not at all unusual to come across someone's name in such a way that does NOT give you any real context about that person.
Just one example that comes to my mind: A few years back I was looking at the lyrics to an old pop song called "Year of the Cat". One of the lines goes (something like) "You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre contemplating a crime." At the time, I had no idea who Peter Lorre was, but Wikipedia eliminated my ignorance. This sort of thing is not all that unusual.
Well, I'd say in that situation you already knew why Peter Lorre was notable while having no idea who he was. He was notable because he was mentioned in Year of the Cat.
One good thing about having the birth and death dates in the first line is that it helps as a sort of "disambiguation". Since names are not unique, it's not always clear that you have the right person when you look someone up. But a date will often help to determine if you've found the person you're looking for.
If you mean birth and death years, then I agree. If you really do mean dates, I disagree for the reason I mentioned before. It's too hard to be sure that you've got the birth and death date right (especially birth dates). You wind up using a quote from some pop-magazine article or something, which most likely did no fact checking to make sure the date was correct. I think in most cases it's best to just leave the birth date out, unless there's some significance to the particular date, it's trivia.
Thanks for that clarification, Anthony. I did mean "years" not the full dates. I agree that the full dates are too much for the opening line, even if there's no question of getting them correct.
-Rich
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Oh yeah. "Walter had close connections with many 18th century notables including [[Fred Johnson]], [[Pierre de Bonsang]]...".
There are all sorts of reasons you'd end up on a Wikipedia article - not necessarily because you're searching for more information on that specific subject.
Well, yeah, if you're new page patrolling, for instance, and searching around for stuff to delete. But I would think the times "normal people" go to an article for a reason other than to find more information about that subject are extremely rare.
I was a bit imprecise. I mean you often end up reading an article that was not the specific focus of your research as a whole. Hell, much of the time I end up on Wikipedia because I've googled an unfamiliar term that someone dropped into a conversation - I know no context whatsoever.
Steve
On 9/10/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Oh yeah. "Walter had close connections with many 18th century notables including [[Fred Johnson]], [[Pierre de Bonsang]]...".
It's easy to come up with a counter-example by making stuff up. Why not just say "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American entrepreneur, philanthropist and chairman of Microsoft. [[Paul Allen]] is a person."
Or here's one: "Lara Lewington (born May 10, 1979) is a British weathergirl [[Jermaine Dupri]] [[John Abbott]] happy birthday to you"
On 9/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/10/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Oh yeah. "Walter had close connections with many 18th century notables including [[Fred Johnson]], [[Pierre de Bonsang]]...".
It's easy to come up with a counter-example by making stuff up. Why not just say "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American entrepreneur, philanthropist and chairman of Microsoft. [[Paul Allen]] is a person."
Or here's one: "Lara Lewington (born May 10, 1979) is a British weathergirl [[Jermaine Dupri]] [[John Abbott]] happy birthday to you"
BTW, if any of you looked up [[Jermaine Dupri]] or [[John Abbott]] after reading this, well, *that* was a counter-example. I admit it occurs that people look up names without knowing why the person is notable, but I argue that it's rare.
As for Lara Lewington, I bet some people on this list would argue she's *not* notable, at least not by the first paragraph. I'd disagree, but...
"Lara Lewington (born May 10, 1979) is a British weathergirl and television presenter on Five, joining Five News in January 2003. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology and Drama and is an NCTJ trained journalist."
On 11/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As for Lara Lewington, I bet some people on this list would argue she's *not* notable, at least not by the first paragraph. I'd disagree, but...
"Lara Lewington (born May 10, 1979) is a British weathergirl and television presenter on Five, joining Five News in January 2003. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology and Drama and is an NCTJ trained journalist."
I am still not sure about the whole generation of new grammar structures within wikipedia just to accommodate claims to notability specifically in the first sentence. Maybe its just this example but I think the first sentence should read ""Lara Lewington (born May 10, 1979) is a British weathergirl and television presenter on Five who joined their news team in January 2003." The passive inclusion of "joining etc..." doesn't fit with the overal aim of the sentence which is to actually describe the subject, not when they did something, however, it can be accommodated through the inclusion of , who, to redirect the sentence to what she did.
Admittedly, I have an Australian bias on grammar and am frequently annoyed by people leaving words out of sentences.
Peter
On 9/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's easy to come up with a counter-example by making stuff up. Why not just say "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American entrepreneur, philanthropist and chairman of Microsoft. [[Paul Allen]] is a person."
Sheesh. Ok here's a real example, from the first article I tried, [[Montmartre]]:
In the popular cabaret the [[Moulin Rouge]], and at [[Le Chat Noir]], artists, singers and performers regularly appeared including [[Yvette Guilbert]], [[Marcelle Lender]], [[Aristide Bruant]], [[La Goulue]], [[Georges Guibourg]], [[Mistinguett]], [[Fréhel]], [[Jane Avril]], [[Marie-Louise Damien|Damia]] and others.
The context tells us that all those people are "artists, singers [or] performers". But which are which? Fortunately, by hovering over each of the names, every single lead sentence tells me. Most seem to be actress/singers, but La Goulue and Avril were dancers.
Steve
On 9/11/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's easy to come up with a counter-example by making stuff up. Why not just say "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American entrepreneur, philanthropist and chairman of Microsoft. [[Paul Allen]] is a person."
Sheesh. Ok here's a real example, from the first article I tried, [[Montmartre]]:
In the popular cabaret the [[Moulin Rouge]], and at [[Le Chat Noir]], artists, singers and performers regularly appeared including [[Yvette Guilbert]], [[Marcelle Lender]], [[Aristide Bruant]], [[La Goulue]], [[Georges Guibourg]], [[Mistinguett]], [[Fréhel]], [[Jane Avril]], [[Marie-Louise Damien|Damia]] and others.
The context tells us that all those people are "artists, singers [or] performers". But which are which?
You might not know whether they're "artists, singers [or] performers" (*), but you know one reason why they're all notable - they appeared in Moulin Rouge and at Le Chat Noir.
(*) which doesn't really make sense, aren't singers and performers both artists? If this sentence meant "artist" in the "drawing pictures sense" then
Fortunately, by hovering over each of the names, every single lead sentence tells me. Most seem to be actress/singers, but La Goulue and Avril were dancers.
Seriously though, who cares?
Anthony wrote:
On 9/10/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But surely the text surrounding the link tells you why the person is notable.
Oh yeah. "Walter had close connections with many 18th century notables including [[Fred Johnson]], [[Pierre de Bonsang]]...".
It's easy to come up with a counter-example by making stuff up. Why not just say "William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American entrepreneur, philanthropist and chairman of Microsoft. [[Paul Allen]] is a person."
This suggests that Gates is not a person. :-)
Ec
On 9/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
'''John Smith''' was born on January 1, 1864, and died on January 1, 1899.
on 9/8/07 10:01 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Awful. I don't even know why he's notable or what he did.
That would be in the first paragraph of the Article:
Born in London, he was one of Britain's most prominent 19th century novelists, best known for his Acanthus trilogy.
The last paragraph of the Article would read:
OK :-) The last paragraph of the biographical data would read:
John Smith died in Tunbridge Wells, England from [cause of death]
Marc
On 08/09/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Birth and death dates are fundamental to any biography. Birth and death locations can wait till later in the article.
I could compromise on years alone, but it's a give em 8 digits and a dash, and they'll take a dozen locations and alternative spellings situation.
Then you take them back out. Edit, people, *edit*... limiting an article "because someone might make it worse otherwise" is not a good model.
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I guess I find this elegant:
John Smith (1864-1899) was a....
but you're right, this becomes heavy: John Smith (born 1864 London, died 1899 Tunbridge Wells, England) was a...
We have infoboxes for a reason...
Nathaniel
On 9/9/07, Nathaniel spangineer@gmail.com wrote:
We have infoboxes for a reason...
Yes, but not that reason.
Steve
On 9/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Nathaniel spangineer@gmail.com wrote:
We have infoboxes for a reason...
Yes, but not that reason.
IMO, an article should contain most information in the prose. The infobox is a place for a summary of quick facts, and perhaps for statistics that would make for dry reading in the article itself.
-Matt
On 9/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, an article should contain most information in the prose. The infobox is a place for a summary of quick facts, and perhaps for statistics that would make for dry reading in the article itself.
I'd lean towards repeating material in both. There are lots of downstream uses of Wikipedia text that will have trouble processing infoboxes. Best to have it in the text as well. But succession information, flags, maps, categorisation etc can all just be in the infobox.
Steve
On 9/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, an article should contain most information in the prose. The infobox is a place for a summary of quick facts, and perhaps for statistics that would make for dry reading in the article itself.
on 9/9/07 9:00 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'd lean towards repeating material in both. There are lots of downstream uses of Wikipedia text that will have trouble processing infoboxes. Best to have it in the text as well. But succession information, flags, maps, categorisation etc can all just be in the infobox.
I agree with you, Steve. As perhaps a side issue, one thing I am finding more and more is a conflict between the data in the main section of an Article and its infobox. Mostly such items as birth and death dates, places of birth and death, dates in office, etc. This forces me to check the sources, and, where there aren't any in some cases, find my own.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 9/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, an article should contain most information in the prose. The infobox is a place for a summary of quick facts, and perhaps for statistics that would make for dry reading in the article itself.
on 9/9/07 9:00 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'd lean towards repeating material in both. There are lots of downstream uses of Wikipedia text that will have trouble processing infoboxes. Best to have it in the text as well. But succession information, flags, maps, categorisation etc can all just be in the infobox.
I agree with you, Steve. As perhaps a side issue, one thing I am finding more and more is a conflict between the data in the main section of an Article and its infobox. Mostly such items as birth and death dates, places of birth and death, dates in office, etc. This forces me to check the sources, and, where there aren't any in some cases, find my own.
Marc Riddell
Back in my software development days, that was a bit of wisdom: if the software documentation disagrees with the software itself, assume both are wrong. Seems to apply here as well.
-Rich
On 09/09/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 9/9/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, an article should contain most information in the prose. The infobox is a place for a summary of quick facts, and perhaps for statistics that would make for dry reading in the article itself.
on 9/9/07 9:00 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'd lean towards repeating material in both. There are lots of downstream uses of Wikipedia text that will have trouble processing infoboxes. Best to have it in the text as well. But succession information, flags, maps, categorisation etc can all just be in the infobox.
I agree with you, Steve. As perhaps a side issue, one thing I am finding more and more is a conflict between the data in the main section of an Article and its infobox. Mostly such items as birth and death dates, places of birth and death, dates in office, etc. This forces me to check the sources, and, where there aren't any in some cases, find my own.
If the infobox was generated based on a set of templates used somewhere in the article then you wouldn't have that problem....
Peter
On 09/09/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, an article should contain most information in the prose. The infobox is a place for a summary of quick facts, and perhaps for statistics that would make for dry reading in the article itself.
It's also a step toward much better machine readability. I'd like to see infoboxes more standardised, perhaps incorporating and using info from {{persondata}}.
- d.
On 07/09/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it? Pretty please? I've been telling Wikipedia critics "stable versions could potentially improve situation X" for _years_ now and I'm starting to feel I've been making a fool of myself.
I believe the code will finally be put on a public test wiki some time soon.
- d.
On 9/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Can someone explain how stable versions could possibly help any of this?
On 07/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Can someone explain how stable versions could possibly help any of this?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
On 9/7/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
&oldid=42
—C.W.
Vee wrote:
On 07/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Can someone explain how stable versions could possibly help any of this
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
I support stable versions, but that does not justify taking optimism to such dizzying heights. I have been around long enough to appreciate the ability of Wikipedians to generate new bugs in any system.
Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Vee wrote:
On 07/09/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Can someone explain how stable versions could possibly help any of this
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
I support stable versions, but that does not justify taking optimism to such dizzying heights. I have been around long enough to appreciate the ability of Wikipedians to generate new bugs in any system.
I assume Vee was being sarcastic, anyway. See [[silver bullet]].
On 9/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
&oldid=42
And my translation of that is: "It's already quite easy for people to vote on their favorite version of an article."
But maybe I just misinterpreted them...
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
Dangit, I thought Wikidata was the answer to everything!
(Or Semantic Mediawiki, which seems to be the currently active name/project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki
I've been telling Wikipedia critics "stable versions could potentially improve situation X" for _years_ now
Ditto, but for Wikidata. Hopefully coming soon? see also: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:DV1
Quiddity
The advantage of presenting the years immediately is that it provides the setting: "b.1910 d.1990" is more concise and informative than a vague "twentieth-century", and is the appropriate stye for an encyclopedia.
On 9/8/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
Dangit, I thought Wikidata was the answer to everything!
(Or Semantic Mediawiki, which seems to be the currently active name/project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki
I've been telling Wikipedia critics "stable versions could potentially improve situation X" for _years_ now
Ditto, but for Wikidata. Hopefully coming soon? see also: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:DV1
Quiddity
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 9/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/7/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Stable versions is Wikipedia's answer to everything.
&oldid=42
—C.W.
And my translation of that is: "It's already quite easy for people to vote on their favorite version of an article."
But maybe I just misinterpreted them...
[[Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything]]
Sorry.
—C.W.
Anthony wrote:
On 9/7/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
We really, really need stable versions. There's no point in trying to spruce up the writing style of heavily-trafficked articles until we get them; I gave up a long time ago.
There's a new MediaWiki version coming up very soon now, will stable versions finally be enabled in it?
Can someone explain how stable versions could possibly help any of this?
In the case of prose quality degrading over time due to subsequent edits adding poorly-integrated material it will allow the older "high-quality" version of the article to be marked and displayed prominently while the edits go on, only updating the marked version to a more recent one once the article reaches a new level of quality that's better overall.
On 9/6/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Against my better judgment, I attempted to improve the wording of a particularly badly written article. Last time I did this ([[Spruce goose]]), it got reverted. Guess what?
Here are my changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=156028841&...
And the (partial) revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird_strike&diff=next&oldi...
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Is it just aviation? Is it just me being jaded and impatient? Or is this the reason so much of Wikipedia prose is so crap? Because the payoff for trying to fix it is so small, and editors put so much weight on every possible detail being retained, at the expense of clarity and readability?
Feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here.
Steve
Our prose? Someone commented this week that we don't have any great prose writers on Wikipedia. That's not true. We do. And I've personally taken one of our best back down to writing an encyclopedia. Everyone at FA, including this author, disagreed with me, strongly at first. In the end, the author admitted that the FA that we wound up was both excellent and better suited to the encyclopedia than what he originally wrote--in spite of losing his brilliant prose in between the two. The other FA editors pretty much just started disliking me and ignoring me. Still, I'm proud of the article, and its primary editors are rather proud of the article, too.
Encyclopedias can be well written, but don't expect Joan Diddion.
Steve, good attempt at de-crappifying. Keep trying. Can you translate this into English, "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ?"
KP
On 9/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Steve, good attempt at de-crappifying. Keep trying. Can you translate this into English, "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ?"
I tried. I changed it to: High speed impacts, however, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage or even a total [[catastrophic failure]] to the vehicle.
But one should go further. What are we really trying to say? A sentence like the following would be much more helpful: High speed imacts with jet aircraft are responsible for $xxx million per year to the US aviation industry[1], and have caused the loss of several civilian and military aircraft in the last decade[2].
Or being specific about the "considerable damage" - to what, wings, engines or windshield? As it stands it's ridiculously vague.
I also don't like the way the article has been phrased to try and cover both planes (900kph+), trains (100-300kph) and cars (30-150kph). Let alone the fact that there is a picture of a deer in an article about *bird* strikes...
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
I also don't like the way the article has been phrased to try and cover both planes (900kph+), trains (100-300kph) and cars (30-150kph). Let alone the fact that there is a picture of a deer in an article about *bird* strikes...
Maybe the picture was taken late in the evening of December 24. :-)
Ec
K P wrote:
On 9/6/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Steve, good attempt at de-crappifying. Keep trying. Can you translate this into English, "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ?"
He was quoting his adversary. Maybe he should be asking for sources.
Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
K P wrote:
On 9/6/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The reverter seems to think it's important to mention that birdstrikes "will result in major injuries or death to the bird" and is particularly enamored with the phrasing in "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ".
Steve, good attempt at de-crappifying. Keep trying. Can you translate this into English, "High speeds, however, as for example with modern jet engine aircraft will produce considerable energy and may cause considerable damage ?"
He was quoting his adversary. Maybe he should be asking for sources.
Ec
Well, if the pen is mightier than the sword Steve is facing a wet-paper towel blade and probably won't even need to disarm his opponent to wipe sweat off his own brow.
KP