In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the article in amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit. >>
That however really isn't a fault that can be laid at the feet of the citation method (inline), but rather perhaps at the feet of the editor program.
It has been discussed before, that it might be helpful should we have a way to splice apart the content from the format. Vanilla HTML does not do that at all, but other competing editors can and do. Some steps in that direction have been taken already with the newer upgrade, but not all, in particular the templates. Perhaps this is an opportunity.
W.
On 5 October 2010 13:39, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the article in amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
That however really isn't a fault that can be laid at the feet of the citation method (inline), but rather perhaps at the feet of the editor program.
It has been discussed before, that it might be helpful should we have a way to splice apart the content from the format. Vanilla HTML does not do that at all, but other competing editors can and do. Some steps in that direction have been taken already with the newer upgrade, but not all, in particular the templates. Perhaps this is an opportunity.
W.
One of the things that the Usability team is working on is the idea of "template folding" - as discussed here: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/template-folding/ Indeed, I suspect that one of the main reasons for moving to the iFrame editing window system with the Vector skin was to enable this kind of thing. (unfortunately the test environment for this feature that is referred to in the blogpost is currently broken).
I for one am really looking forward to this usability enhancement rolling out as it a brilliant way of hiding away all the code elements from people when they first click "edit" but not breaking any of the actual functionality that makes wikipedia templates so powerful. This "folding" idea is also intended to be combined with "form based editing" which will enable people to not only open up the template in the normal way but also in a way that shows the template parameters in a human-readable popup box which you can then edit.
-Liam
Looks good. Keep at it. :)
A.
One of the things that the Usability team is working on is the idea of "template folding" - as discussed here: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/template-folding/ Indeed, I suspect that one of the main reasons for moving to the iFrame editing window system with the Vector skin was to enable this kind of thing. (unfortunately the test environment for this feature that is referred to in the blogpost is currently broken).
I for one am really looking forward to this usability enhancement rolling out as it a brilliant way of hiding away all the code elements from people when they first click "edit" but not breaking any of the actual functionality that makes wikipedia templates so powerful. This "folding" idea is also intended to be combined with "form based editing" which will enable people to not only open up the template in the normal way but also in a way that shows the template parameters in a human-readable popup box which you can then edit.
-Liam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/10/2010 15:23, Liam Wyatt wrote:
On 5 October 2010 13:39,WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jayen466@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the article in amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
That however really isn't a fault that can be laid at the feet of the citation method (inline), but rather perhaps at the feet of the editor program.
It has been discussed before, that it might be helpful should we have a way to splice apart the content from the format. Vanilla HTML does not do that at all, but other competing editors can and do. Some steps in that direction have been taken already with the newer upgrade, but not all, in particular the templates. Perhaps this is an opportunity.
W.
One of the things that the Usability team is working on is the idea of "template folding" - as discussed here: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/template-folding/ Indeed, I suspect that one of the main reasons for moving to the iFrame editing window system with the Vector skin was to enable this kind of thing. (unfortunately the test environment for this feature that is referred to in the blogpost is currently broken).
What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it? Because the readability of something like the Bulger article is very low. Making it easier to edit with peppered refs will probably mean that more refs get added making it less readable.
NOTE: when reading an article or a book one rarely looks at the references. They are, in the main, a distraction.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/2010 19:48, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it?
Could it be both or do we get to choose only one?
NOTE: when reading an article or a book one rarely looks at the references. They are, in the main, a distraction.
This is not my case nor my perception about it. Besides, they are not just notes, but references. References are important to build traceable knowledge layer after layer.
Hoi, Who is our audience ? I am sure that a certain training is needed to feel comfortable with references and sources. When you are comfortable with it, you probably use a particular terminology and consider illustrations distractions...
Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a scholarly work. It is not intended to be one. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 October 2010 01:17, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/2010 19:48, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it?
Could it be both or do we get to choose only one?
NOTE: when reading an article or a book one rarely looks at the references. They are, in the main, a distraction.
This is not my case nor my perception about it. Besides, they are not just notes, but references. References are important to build traceable knowledge layer after layer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMq2u3AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LfEYIAJG1keR2ovZOWCBW64I5O1qg Fwej27v/yAIx8QTgobAP3TjMlQInP2Hn4T6bilIu2FHRQvLYUz1DiyvsPNBYxj+n ftaR+vrKk/gRgAJ1y3qN/Bw5UnUDd4YTjsnl1CcETdEg6UcUuC4/v8L33NMLeXL7 8pXrkafhEaRqWn8RNI+RuabAoaR1HgTXh+iy7NQJLZkjAvpv2Jyw/WENKIUq7tDM qAt5i1Q9VnipmnCaLbIJWDB2Ui4Hxpj2gwV4uOSzVJvmmFnJcR7ANgn2TbvjR1j6 A9CTg6DSl2csw90RNNIQzembP/5Zt4oMTB+/Tg1E6iKDh5Av8iadHCh7HOiN97E= =VFM3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5 Oct 2010, at 18:48, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it? Because the readability of something like the Bulger article is very low. Making it easier to edit with peppered refs will probably mean that more refs get added making it less readable.
NOTE: when reading an article or a book one rarely looks at the references. They are, in the main, a distraction.
I disagree completely; if I'm reading a non-fiction book, I find the references very useful, and wish that they were easier to track down. I find the ease of access of Wikipedia's references absolutely vital in its role as a starting point for research, as well as a double-check of where the information comes from. This is possibly due to my more academic background (I'm used to reading papers with lots of references, although I much prefer Harvard-style to the numbered style that Wikipedia uses), so I'm not saying that this is a widely held viewpoint, but bear in mind that there is a wide spectrum here. The references are there in articles or books for a reason. ;-)
BTW, if anyone's not tried using navigation popups to read references while reading an article, then you're really missing out - it's fantastic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups
Mike Peel
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org