Wikipedia-l November 2001

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

36 participants
112 discussions

Re: [Wikipedia-l] No subpages. Is that your final answer?
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

sounds wonderful. And thanks again for all your work. :-) KQ >I just saw the other post with [[algebra]]ic. I could easily make it a rule >that ''upon pressing the Save button'' on the edit page, all "[[foobar]]xyz" >occurrences would become "[[foobar|foobarxyz]]". That would include "]]ic", >"]]s", "]]es", etc. Opinions? > >Magnus >0

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request...
by Gareth Owen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

Mark Christensen <mchristensen(a)HTEC.com> writes: > Frankly partially linked words don't particularly bother me, Me neither (and it was my idea) > so it seems like time better spent on other things, It just didn't seem like it would be much work (spoken like a true non-programmer, eh?) -- Gareth Owen "Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)

1 0

meta.wikipedia.com is up!
by lsanger＠nupedia.com 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

Let's start transferring stuff! http://meta.wikipedia.com/ Stuff to transfer includes [[Wikipedia commentary]] stuff as well as all personal essay-type stuff. It doesn't include Wikipedia policy and utility pages. Larry

1 0

RE: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it!
by Mark Christensen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

This is good, but I think it should only be short term. Long term, I am convinced that there is a better option. I'm swamped with other things right now, but I've been reading this list, and I'd like to weigh in briefly. I'd advocate placing the MetaWikipedia information in its own namespace on the PHP wikipedia software. That way, we could show encyclopedia changes in one table, with meta pages (including the Talk: namespace) in another table. We want the meta-information to be easily accessible, and easily linked (at least in user's minds) to the relevant Talk and Article namespaces. That way we can easily move information back and forth (refactoring discussion to add information to encyclopedia articles, and to add policy decisions to the MetaWikipedia namespaces.) So, I'm all for a metawikipedia wiki for now, as a testing ground for the concept, and as a testing ground for no-subpages, but I am convinced that in the end, we'll really want all of this to be "together" so we can have easy access to all the information about wikipedia in one place. This also lets us write code that will allow us to gather and present even more information in simple ways. For example it would be nice to see the % of meta page edits to actual article edits over a given period, so we can track how "on task" we've been. Yours Mark -----Original Message----- From: lsanger(a)nupedia.com [mailto:lsanger@nupedia.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:33 PM To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Let's do it! Jimbo asked if he should create meta.wikipedia.com and I said "yes." I don't know when it will be created, but it should be fairly soon. This will help us test both the installation and the operability of the new software in a live situation, not just a "test" situation. If we like, we can always move the stuff back to a "discussion:" or "commentary:" namespace on www.wikipedia.com. But it might turn out that we'll like it just fine as it is. When the wiki is up, we'll let you know. Larry [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

3 2

RE: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request...
by Mark Christensen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

Actually since the word typed in is [[ox]]en, we won't need a database or anything, we just use the section inside the double brackets to define the page reference, and the whole word (defined by the area between spaces) as the link. The feminism, feminine issue is a red herring, because we wouldn't link to part of either of these words. Sophistry and Sophism, would still require the [[xxx|yyy]] format, as it does now. The only benefit of this software change would be to pretty up partially linked words. Frankly partially linked words don't particularly bother me, so it seems like time better spent on other things, but I don't really care one way or the other. The downside of the suggested modification is that someone could link to postmodern[[ism]], leading an unsuspecting person to click on a link to --postmodernism--, and get our page on --ism--. So, I do think it essential to provide a way to override this behavior if you really, really want make a partial word a link. -----Original Message----- From: Manning Bartlett [mailto:manning@bartlett.net] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:06 PM To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request... hmmmm... I could see how this would work with systematic suffixes such as "cow/cows", but how would it convert"oxen" to "ox", "sophistry" to "sophism" or "misanthropic" to "misanthropy"? I think we'd need either a consistent language (which is not likely in our lifetimes), or else a huge database of how terms link to one another. Even then we'd run the risk of words like"feminine" being linked to "feminism" which is not accurate. Manning ----- Original Message ----- From: Gareth Owen To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] a quick feature request... I'm very lazy, so I like typing things like [[algebra]]ic to create the word "Algebraic" with a link to algebra. This is convenient but ugly looking. Are ther compelling reasons why software shouldn't convert the whole word into a link, exactly like [[algebra|algebraic]] would? -- Gareth Owen [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

1 0

Another PD Resource
by Gareth Owen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ More along the lines of Proj. Gutenberg. Lots of classical texts, and some 19th Century stuff. -- Gareth Owen Todays Fun Fact: Tufts University is the Alma Mater of Elaine Benes

2 1

a quick feature request...
by Gareth Owen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

I'm very lazy, so I like typing things like [[algebra]]ic to create the word "Algebraic" with a link to algebra. This is convenient but ugly looking. Are ther compelling reasons why software shouldn't convert the whole word into a link, exactly like [[algebra|algebraic]] would? -- Gareth Owen

2 1

Re: [Wikipedia-l] CIA World Factbook
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

the [[/Government]] pages are the only ones that obsolesce quickly. The rest (People, Communications, Military, Transportation, Economy, History)--barring catastrophes or other newsworthy events that people would really think of adding anyway--are fairly static. Maybe we could just come up with a script to update the Government each year? (I can think of a few that are past due right now) ;-) KQ0

4 3

Re: [Wikipedia-l] No subpages. Is that your final answer?
by Gareth Owen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes: > But in general, I think we should be wary of taking control away from the > user. Certainly. > Maybe a user wants to have part of a word linked (even if we might > think it is ugly), for a good reason. Why remove that option? So don't remove the option, just change the default. If one can force it to be ugly, but its beautiful by default, everyones happy. -- Gareth Owen "Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)

2 1

Re: [Wikipedia-l] No subpages. Is that your final answer?
by Gareth Owen 10 Nov '01

10 Nov '01

Michel Clasquin <clasqm(a)mweb.co.za> writes: > Against. I've found occasional good uses for "prefix[[snafu]]suffix" that > I don't want to lose - for instance it is possible to say [[peace]]fully > or [[peace|peacefully]] and they link to the same page. I don't follow. Or rather, I can't see any good uses. Can you enlighten me? > But an adjective or adverb as a link doesn't look right in an encyclopedia > context. Maybe not, but does [[peace]]fully look any better? > IMHO there's far too much talk about letting the software do all the work > lately ... Is that not what software is for? (very OT aside: I blame GUIs. I see so many people doing repetitive tasks manually with Windows file manager that I can see why people don't classify computers as labour-saving devices any more.) -- Gareth Owen "Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
12
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l November 2001