Uri's "base" proposal is essentially identical to the "context"
proposal I made a few months ago when we were debating the
subpage issue. Larry was not very opposed to the idea because
it isn't as tempting to use it to categorize top-level things,
which is the evil we were trying to avoid with subpages. But at
the time it was felt to be unnecessary. We can certainly revisit
that decision if some pages make it clearly needed.
> Subpages or not, it would be useful to be able have the slash (/)
> as part of the article name, e.g. "TCP/IP", "IBM System/360",
> and "OS/2", where the slash is part of the proper noun.
That's the way it is now. "/" is just another character.
0
Hello,
The recent conversion to the no-subpage policy has created a
problem with editing those pages that describe whole independent
universes. This first came to my mind in relation to
[[Middle Earth]], but it is also relevant to pages such as
[[Star Wars]], [[Star Trek]] and possibly other pages.
Since this involves a policy issue as well as a technical one,
I wanted to discuss it in Wikipedia-L before I (or someone else)
began to write lengthy patches.
The problem is in the following: it is extremely inconvenient
(as a policy) to write "[[Middle Earth/Elrond|Elrond]] was
the lord of [[Middle Earth/Rivendell|Rivendell]]" than it is
to write "[[Elrond]] was the lord of [[Rivendell]]"
I could think of several solutions to this problem:
* Remove the [[Middle Earth/]] part (e.g. [[Elrond]] instead
of [[Middle Earth/Elrond]]. But this would not only
add fictional content to the generally real-world
encyclopedia but also confuse the readers (think about
[[USS Enterprise]]!)
* Creating a new namespace (e.g. [[Middle Earth:Elrond]]).
But that would not automatically solve the linking problem,
and would generally contradict the way namespaces are
used now (the division being functional and not
content-oriented).
* Creating a new Middle Earth wiki. Although it would solve
most of the problems above, that would require too much
effort and make linking with the "main" Wikipedia more difficult.
The solution which I would personally prefer is to add another
addressing mode to the Wiki links.For example, we could add
a #base directive after which all links except escaped ones
would receive a certain prefix. For example:
#base [[Middle Earth/]]
[[!JRR Tolkien]] wrote that [[Elrond]] was the lord of Rivendell.
The link with the prefixing "!" would not be affected. However
after the #base directive, [[Elrond]] will automatically become
[[Middle Earth/Elrond]].
What do you think about it? Could this be implemented or there's
another (easier) solution?
Sincerely yours,
Uri Yanover
Meta question: is there a place in the wikipedia for these issues?
(Yes,
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=wikipedia:PHP+script+bug+reports
ugh, what a horrible URL. )
Meta meta question: is a wiki appropriate for defect tracking?
(not answered)
The history of pages has been amputated when changing to the new
software, in other words, changes made before the new PHP software are
not accessible. I see two problems with this:
1) Lost authorship.
2) Lost changes.
1) is the problem that the revision history used to contain the author
information for the documents. I understand that it is a requirement of
the Gnu FDL that the author information be retained so that it can be
reproduced as needed under the terms of the license.
2) is more obvious, but perhaps less problematic. In many cases you may
say "so what", but the fact is that there may have been useful content
in older revisions (I have browsed the older revisions in order to
understand the creation process of a document or gain insight into some
debate). This content has now been thrown away. What is the policy on
keeping older versions? Is it "keep all of them" or "only keep
revisions when it is convenient, in particular if changing the software
destroys all older revisions then that's fine"? Don't forget that the
software will change again and again over the lifetime of the wikipedia.
I would say it behoves wikipedia to maintain a storage format that is
largely independent of the software (even if that storage format is not
the one used by the software, it could be an export format for example).
Sorry to go on about 2) so much, but it strikes me that the current
attitude is a little immature. The current attitude as I see it
is one of "changing software is simple; maintaining a database is
not our concern; user requirements are only superficially important".
I think 1) (the authorship problem) needs addressing. What is intended?
Cheers,
drj
Hello again,
I also wanted to make some other small remarks but thought it best to put
them in a separate mail.
About the lay out of the pages: I usually read Wikipedia with a small font
and in that case the header becomes a lot of white space because it stays
the same height because of the Wikipedia logo (which I like very much,
btw.). If the logo would be reduced to half the size then the header would
consume far less space.
About the mark-up language: I've seen some request for more mark-up features
and even full HTML and XML. Since I'm very fond of the WikiWiki-concept this
sends shivers down my spine. I would actually vote for the opposite, i.e.,
to abandon all HTML mark-up and even those that only looks like HTML. For a
good example look at what the mark-up languages are on MoinMoin or PhpWiki.
An alternative mark-up for tables, for example, would have prevented
problems such as there were with incorrect HTML on the page for Quaternions.
This also brings me to another issue. Shouldn't there be a definitive
thourgh formal description of the syntax of the mark-up language (in for
example BNF) and its semantics? They are trying to do something like that at
PhpWiki at the moment.
(http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/FormalWikiGrammar) If such a thing
had existed, would that not have helped Magnus? I also feel it is a point of
principle because it would make the content of Wikipedia more open and
usable for other people who would also like to write software that operates
on its contents, or for us if we want to convert old content with old
mark-up to a newer mark-up. I'm willing to invest some time in such a
description if some people agree with me.
On reporting bugs: I'm confused by the three pages for reporting bugs. I
understand the separate page for the "minor" issues but why are the other
two (the usual Wikipedia bugs pags and the PHP script bug reports page) not
merged? The bugs for the usemod script should of course be checked if they
still apply, and if not then filtered out. Has this not been done because
nobody has yet taken the trouble (or the responsibility), or is there
another reason?
By the way, if I sound critical, I didn't mean to. I think the step to a
database-based Wikipedia is a step of major importance and I am amazed at
the amount of time and effort that you guys have spent on this. Thank you,
thank you, thank you.
Kind regards,
-- Jan Hidders
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
> > PPS: There is also an old saying that starts:
> > "If it ain't broke..."
>
> There's also an old saying: "Beggars can't be choosers."
Beggars? *boggle*
Well, I guess I've been leeching off you for a year now.
I'm sorry to have used so many of your valuable resources.
--
Gareth Owen
I have a couple of general wiki questions, and thought I would ask here
since several of you have pretty good wiki experience.
How standard is the wikipedia text format?
Is there a standard name for that type of format? I am calling it
WikiText, but I'd rather use the usual term, if there is one. My
conversion utility is called txt2db, but I realized that is a bad
name. It's not for any text file, but for a specific format. So I want
toknow how I should properly refer to it.
btw, I will have a demo of some Wikipedia articles on my LDP mirror
soon, and after that passes LDP staff inspection, it will go live on
the LDP site! Woo Hoo! That should get Wikipedia some good publicity,
and it will sure help the LDP as well. Thanks again to all of you for
your wonderful spirit of cooperation.
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david(a)lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
Microsoft does not like negative or even objective press coverage and they
have a tendency to be a bully about it. If something appears that they
don't like, they have the ability to punish the publication.
--Knight-Ridder New Media President Bob Ingle
"Derek Ross" <derekross(a)fisheracre.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> It would have been a surprise if everything had gone completely without a
> hitch. There's nothing like production use for stressing a new app to
> breaking point.
Or, indeed, beyond. Which is why you don't (or at least *shouldn't*) roll out
new code into production use without stress testing it.
I appreciate that there is an old joke that goes:
"Fast, cheap, correct - Pick any two"
but this is taking the piss.
IM-not-so-HO, at the moment, the 'pedia is quite useless.
(I've been searching for the UN convention on human rights for 10 minutes.
I know its there, I added it in myself.
Last weeks wiki would've found it in 5 seconds
Brittanica.com just found it in 5 seconds).
Can we not have the old one back until the code/hardware can at least perform
in an acceptable manner?
PS: The search has returned now. It says this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia articles
Found 76 occurences of un convention on human rights. For each article, you
can see its first paragraph and the first paragraph that contains ''un
convention on human rights''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the page is blank.
PPS: There is also an old saying that starts:
"If it ain't broke..."
--
Gareth Owen
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, David Merrill <david(a)lupercalia.net> wrote:
>
> I have a couple of general wiki questions, and thought I would ask here
> since several of you have pretty good wiki experience.
Actually, I would suggest asking asking at MeatBallWiki
(http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl), perhaps on the
WikiSyntax page (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-
bin/mb.pl?WikiSyntax). There's tons of wiki *design* experience
over there. From the look of things, however, I don't think there is a
common text format for all wikis.
>
> btw, I will have a demo of some Wikipedia articles on my LDP mirror
> soon, and after that passes LDP staff inspection, it will go live on
> the LDP site! Woo Hoo! That should get Wikipedia some good publicity,
> and it will sure help the LDP as well. Thanks again to all of you for
> your wonderful spirit of cooperation.
No sir, thank you! As a rank-and-file Wikipedian, I'm absolutely
delighted at the cooperation between our two projects, and I'm
hoping that many other people use Wikipedia in various creative
ways. I'm looking forward to the day that our encyclopedia is a
standard inclusion for Linux distributions.
- Stephen Gilbert (STG)
As I noticed some people being confused about how to do what in the new
software (watchlist etc.), I ask everybody to visit
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=wikipedia:PHP+script+new+features
that gives an initial (though incomplete) overview of the new features.
Please help me completing this, as I don't remember all features I
implemented ;)
Magnus
Congratulations on the move to the new software. No, it wasn't
completely smooth, but things like this *never* are. All in all it
went pretty damned well.
And the new software is just plain schweeet.
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david(a)lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
Windows is an utter kludge, the ultimate tar baby, sucking you in, making
things harder and harder, until you are hopelessly snagged and stuck,
exhausted from fighting with it, resigned to despair. It is an inscrutable,
god-awful mess, a disaster waiting to happen, a bonehead botch-job jammed
with you-can't-get-there-from-here idiocy. They could train soldiers to
kill by forcing them to struggle with this.
--Paul Somerson, PC Computing