On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Jennifer Riggs <jriggs(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote: It's an infrastructure, policy and outreach issue. I assume that every single person has the very best for the projects in mind and is doing it for the right reasons. That said, I see the definition of community being interpreted very narrowly. I liked what I saw with AbuseFilter but that was a singular case. Filtering edits is almost on the same level as showing advertisements. In these rare cases any change you try to make will quickly make its way through the community because many people will be outraged. There are a lot of other situations that don't propagate as well, not because they aren't very important, but because people just don't know about them. I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we are stuck in a programming mindset and we all assume that we all agreed to come here. It just isn't the case. You won't be able to find where that agreement happened.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Brian &lt;Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu&gt; wrote: it In aren't a are On which wiki do you mean, for FlaggedRevs? For the English Wikipedia, my understanding is that consensus was reached in favor of a limited trial for FlaggedRevs three months ago, but it hasn't been enabled yet because the tech team is still tidying things up and checking that everything works < http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-May/043187.html>gt;. This was not a matter of the Foundation consulting the community—the community petitioned the Foundation, from what I can tell.

I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we are stuck in a programming mindset and we all assume that we all agreed to come here. It just isn't the case. You won't be able to find where that agreement happened.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Robert Rohde &lt;rarohde(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The developer that abused templates so that qif could be written does not constitute a consensus. The conversations regarding programming on Wikipedia were extremely limited given their impact. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/3 Chad &lt;innocentkiller(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Your last sentence is key here. Templates that present a (relatively) simple interface but have complex plumbing to do cool things are much-wanted and much-needed. However, the ParserFunctions language sucks because it was made up as it goes along and resembles nothing so much as an [[esoteric programming language]]. A better language will make it easier to program templates that do complex things with a simple interface.

2009/7/6 geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: ParserFunctions is already Turing-complete, so your first clause is factually inaccurate. The present workaround is to kill template computations that take too long. The problems are: (1) they're hard to program (2) they're hard to parse.

(For the record, I'm referring to the earliest history of ParserFunctions.  I'm not sure about the history of #expr and some of the later bits.)