The colour coding of the "diffs" don't serve much of a purpose.
How I'd like them to work (and IIRC, how they used to work), is for the
colours to highlight much smaller
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original text:
Gareth Owen is a short fat Welshman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised
Gareth Owen is a short thin Welshman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
only the words "fat" and "thin" would be highlighted (making it much easier to
locate altered text in long paragraphs.)
Anyone who's used 'M-x ediff' in emacs will know what I'm talking about.
--
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)
Magnus -- I don't mean to offend, but you don't speak
customer -- and I don't expect you to. But to
demonstrate my point, you just suggested I start a
page (article?) with wikipedia: -- as if I know what
that means! Are you saying that, if I do that, it
will create a special page and show up in the bar at
the side? I know you went to the FAQs and added
stuff, but I really think you and the others are so
closely involved in the programming side that you
assume that we all get what you're talking about.
There are lots of people out there who have
programming backgrounds -- but lots more who don't.
You also seem to think users are intelligent beings.
Sorry, but years in customer service and training
(including training in DSL, telco processes and an
online SQL-based transaction coordination package)
have taught me that you have to teach to the lowest
common denominator. Even people who are really bright
about most things have trouble getting their heads
round computer stuff. SO honestly, suggesting I go do
something that I've offered to do isn't helpful -- I
can't do it until someone takes the time to explain it
to me. Also, I am still unaware of what constitues
admin-only creation and all-user creation rights.
Fortunately, Mark has answered some of those
questions.
So, my questions to you all are:
1)How do I create a special page (New system
features?) that will show up on the sidebar?
2)Can we place a link at least on the recent changes
page and the homepage (could it be in a different
color and blink?) and how does inserting a link to a
special page differ from inserting a link to a regular
page?
3)Is a namespace the same as an article and/or a page?
4) Mark mentioned using parentheses rather than a
slash in an article title to indicate what used to be
a subpage (I think). Does this mean that the article
is independent, or that the parentheses associate it
with a main article in a similar manner? How does this
relate to the talk page generated with each article?
(and for my own sanity, are they related at the same
level or do sublevels even exist?)
5)If the system still functions in a way that says
"subpage" to the users, is there any reason to even
dicuss functionality? It seems to be that the UI may
still look like a duck and walk like a duck -- even if
it doesn't talk like a duck behind the scenes -- so
why not let the users think it is in fact a duck?
And by the way -- I do realize that the corollary to
programmers don't speak user and don't like to
document things is that users haven't got a clue about
how much work has gone into any particular piece of
software -- and don't care, as long as it works! All
I'm asking is for some help and understanding so that
I can do what I do well -- be the middleman. OR, I
can butt out completely. I just figure I should try
to become part of the process and help make things
better, rather than just whinge about not liking the
things I (and many others) clearly don't get! [[JHK]]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
I have recently run my head up against the limitations of the conversion
script several times.
It can be very helpful to see if the talk comments refer to the current
version of an article, or to a previous version. Sometimes, this is
difficult to determine unless one can see the article history.
So, I'd like to see if we couldn't get old.wikipedia.com up and running, as
it does not seem like we are making much progress on importing the old
history into the new mySQL database.
Yours
Mark Christensen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@bomis.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:43 PM
> To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] History of pages, author issues.
>
>
> Magnus Manske wrote:
> > * As Wikipedia articles have no author, there's no authorship.
>
> Well, there was a good bit of useful data there. There is
> authorship in some
> sense, and we do like to keep the history.
>
> > * AFAIK, the UseModWiki only stored the changes of the last
> two weeks (or
> > something like that).
>
> It was previously two weeks, but I extended it, I forget how
> long, but our
> intention is to keep the history more or less permanently,
> subject to disk
> space constraints. (But disk space is cheap.)
>
> > * AFAIK, there will be "old.wikipedia.com", with a patched
> UseModWiki that
> > doesn't allow to edit/save articles, only view them, with
> the contents from
> > before the switch.
>
> That's right. But we should still see about getting the old
> history into the new
> database if it isn't impossible.
>
> > * The reason why I didn't convert the article history as well as the
> > "current" versions is simply that I didn't figure out how
> to read the
> > UseModWiki history format. I asked several times, even on
> the 'pedia, for
> > help, but...
>
> *nod* I don't know the answer to this. I've tried it myself
> and did not succeed.
>
> Maybe Clifford Adams could help us?
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> 1)How do I create a special page (New
> system features?) that will show up on the
> sidebar?
Right now this can only be done by changing the PHP code that runs the
wikipedia.
>2)Can we place a link at least on the recent
> changes page and the homepage (could it be in a
> different color and blink?) and how does inserting a
> link to a special page differ from inserting a link
> to a regular page?
Editing the special pages is something which can only be done
programatically, or by a sysop. I think we can and should make
the link a different color, but I'm sure a blinking link will
become distracting very quickly.
> 3)Is a namespace the same as an article and/or a page?
A namespace is a separate section of the site, which can have
any number of articles. The part before the colon is
the namespace, and the part after is the name of a page.
We call them namespaces because they allow you to use
the same page names in multiple places. For example
there is a page called "main page," and also a page in
the talk namespace called "main page." So people know
which namespace they are in, all namespaces other than
the main article namespace are prefaced by Talk: or
User: or whatever the title of their namespace happens
to be. This means that what used to be "Main Page/Talk"
should now be "Talk:Main Page." This is not a subpage
of "Main Page" but a page in a separate section of the
wikipedia site devoted to talking about the main page.
The conversion script automatically changed all of
the zzz/talk pages into Talk:zzz for us.
> 4) Mark mentioned using parentheses rather than a
> slash in an article title to indicate what used
> to be a subpage (I think). Does this mean that
> the article is independent, or that the parentheses
> associate it with a main article in a similar manner?
> How does this relate to the talk page generated
> with each article?
> (and for my own sanity, are they related at the same
> level or do sublevels even exist?)
Subpages automatically linked back to their root page
(the page before the /) and the software does not do
this anymore. Subpages are no longer a part of
wikipedia.
> 5)If the system still functions in a way that says
> "subpage" to the users, is there any reason to even
> dicuss functionality? It seems to be that the UI may
> still look like a duck and walk like a duck -- even if
> it doesn't talk like a duck behind the scenes -- so
> why not let the users think it is in fact a duck?
Because Larry, and others have argue strongly that
subpages are a bad idea. Perhaps we need to post
a summary of why they believe this to be true.
We want people to stop thinking that they can
use the software to create a fixed hierarchy of
ideas in the wikipedia, or else we might end up
not being able to find an article on George
Washington because it is actually:
"Presidents/Washington,"
"Famous Generals/George Washington,"
"George Washington/Biography"
We can still set up hierarchies by using regular pages
with links, but we shouldn't be allowed to force the
use of a particular hierarchy on everybody...
I hope this helps.
I agree it is important to make clear what has changed. But, I must say I'm
not exactly clear about what's _not_ clear. I take it from your message
that the concept of namespaces is not clear, as is the concept of not using
subpages.
Basically I'd explain the namespace issue as follows:
Talk and user articles are now in separate "namespaces" though I'm not at
all certain we should try to explain namespaces. So, I'd say talk and user
articles are now in separate parts of the wikipedia, in order to make it
less likely to confuse these items with real encyclopedia articles. On the
link bar, at the bottom is a talk link, this takes you over to the portion
of the wikipedia devoted to the discussion of that particular wikipedia
article. When you are looking at the talk page, in the same space is a link
back to the article which that talk page discusses. There's no need to
create /talk pages any more, as this new system allows for a cleaner
separation of wikipedia articles and the other pages which we need to have,
but don't count as encyclopedia articles.
And I'd explain the subpages issue as follows:
The new wikipedia software allows us to use parentheses markers to
distinguish between different kinds of article. Before we had this for
example, we'd have had an article "Poker/stud," but now the same article is
"Stud (poker)." This means that we are now expecting "Stud (poker)" to be
an entire article, not just a simple addition to the main poker article.
Right now you can use /'s in article names, but we recommend against it
because it isn't as clear as the (poker) notation (there are a number of
different ways to understand the / in a title). On the other hand, on pages
like TCP/IP, where the / is part of the name of the article, you can and
should still use the /.
Another use people had for the "XXX/yyy" style page names was to break up
longer articles into chunks. This can still be done by creating articles
with titles like "World War II battles," rather than making a page "World
War II" with a subpage "World War II/Battles."
************************
However, the above text simply explains the things I've guessed are not
clear, and it intentionally ignores both the complexities of the argument
against subpages, and the complexities involved in explaining namespaces to
a newbie as well as the particular implementation of namespaces in the
wikipedia software.
If we need a summary of the argument against subpages, I can try to boil
down some points from the extensive debate on the subject. If we need a
technical explanation of namespaces and how they work in the wikipedia, I
think we can provide that as well. But the keys to getting adequate
documentation in the hands of users who need it are 1) to understand where
people need additional help, and 2) to make available clear links to that
documentation at precisely the places where this confusion will be
experienced.
Yours
Mark Christensen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julie Hofmann Kemp [mailto:juleskemp@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:06 PM
> To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Plea for help
>
>
> Larry, I have to apologize --
>
> I've been so wrapped up trying to keep my course on track
> that I didn't
> respond at all to your letter. I was frankly just glad you were still
> going to be around! I'll help any way I can.
>
> Also, (since I'm hoping lots of people are still reading
> this) we still
> have NO ACCEPTABLE INFORMATION on how some of the programming changes
> affect day to day use. I've offered to write something up -- given an
> explanation, but have been repeatedly ignored or blown off (partially
> because I seem to have offended some delicate programmer sensibilities
> by saying that they were acting exactly like programmers --
> good at what
> they do, but less interested in making it clear to the user through
> documentation).
>
> Whether or not people want to hear it, the new site is not all that
> user-friendly as far as explaining subpages and namespaces
> goes (or how
> to report bugs, for that matter -- why isn't there a bug
> report link?).
> People are still trying to create /Talk pages and /whatever subpages.
> All we need is a carefully placed announcement or two -- I suggest
> adding a special page (changes to the system) and links on the home
> page, on how to edit a page, and on recent changes. I know that Lars
> added some stuff on namespaces under the article, but what is
> needed is
> a primer -- something that says...where one did x in the old version,
> please do y in the new. I'd do this myself, but am pretty sure I
> can't create a special page (guessing it's an admin thing)
> and I'm still
> not clear on it. It appears that, instead of subpages, we should be
> creating link pages (maybe) and that each page is generated with an
> associated talk page.
>
> JHK -- feeling very resentful that no one actually seems to think this
> is worth their time.
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:45:37 -0800 (PST)
> From: Larry Sanger <lsanger(a)nupedia.com>
> To: <wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com>
> cc: <intlwiki-l(a)nupedia.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Plea for help
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
>
> This is an unusual plea for help. It's possible I'm going out of my
> mind--I mean, I guess I don't think so, but sometimes it
> seems like it.
> :-)
>
> Occasionally in the past, controversy has erupted that has occupied
> unfortunately large amounts of my time. Sometimes the controversy is
> definitely worth the time, but just as often it seems it isn't, not at
> all. Most recently, in the wake of my announcement that I am
> no longer
> a paid employee, that I will still be working though as a
> volunteer, and
> that we might (if we can) start selling ads and soliciting
> donations to
> help pay for me once again, apparently some people reacted not by
> saying, very kindly, "Oh, poor Larry, whatever will we do
> without him?"
> but instead, "Huh? There was a paid employee? And they might sell
> ads?! Someone was making money?! This must be a greedy capitalist
> exploitative project. This shouldn't be! We've got to do something
> about it!"
>
> Well, I and sometimes Jimbo then spend a lot of time putting
> out fires.
> In the present case, we inform the newcomers that, yes, I did do a few
> useful things for the projects oh maybe occasionally; yes, the idea of
> fees for viewing content is absolutely ludicrous and has never been
> considered; yes, we *really, really are* committed to making
> and keeping
> the content always completely free forever; and yes, we have been
> considering making a nonprofit foundation for Wikipedia and
> Nupedia for
> a long time now; it's mainly a matter of getting enough time
> to actually
> start us formally down the road. (We can start with a "OK now, we're
> really going to do it, it's official, we're asking for pro bono legal
> help to set it up" kind of announcement, but we don't want to do that
> until we have the time to follow through properly. "We" in this case
> mainly means
> Jimbo.)
>
> I think some people just sit back and enjoy the show, and
> figure that I
> can hold my own well enough.
>
> Well, er, not exactly. I can, usually, if I spend the time. But I
> don't have the time anymore. I literally *don't have the
> time* for this
> kind of nonsense. I've spent, I don't know, three hours so far today
> working on various Wikipedia stuff, and it's not even 1 PM yet. I
> should instead have been, er, looking for a job, or a lot of other
> things my wife wants me to do. :-)
>
> So, please, critics, have mercy--be gentle--and, non-critics, if you
> support my cause and think you can supply the correct response to an
> e-mail that, you can predict, I will want to have answered, please do
> that. Don't hold back waiting for me to do it. I'll be very
> grateful.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikipedia-l Digest
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
In addition to the addition of more explanatory text, and -- most
importantly -- making that information far more prominent. I'd really like
to see a light background, of whatever color, added to each of the
different subspaces.
This will make it possible to see at a glance which subspace you are in. I
am very confident that this UI improvement will be of tremendous value in
making the namespaces issue clear to new users, without the requiring them
to read a complex explanation of the concept of namespaces to them in a FAQ.
Yours
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@bomis.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:17 PM
> To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Plea for help
>
>
> Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
> >(partially
> > because I seem to have offended some delicate programmer
> sensibilities
> > by saying that they were acting exactly like programmers --
> good at what
> > they do, but less interested in making it clear to the user through
> > documentation).
>
> Oh, I'm not offended by that -- it's accurate. :-)
>
> > Whether or not people want to hear it, the new site is not all that
> > user-friendly as far as explaining subpages and namespaces
> goes (or how
> > to report bugs, for that matter -- why isn't there a bug
> report link?).
> > People are still trying to create /Talk pages and /whatever
> subpages.
> > All we need is a carefully placed announcement or two -- I suggest
> > adding a special page (changes to the system) and links on the home
> > page, on how to edit a page, and on recent changes. I know
> that Lars
> > added some stuff on namespaces under the article, but what
> is needed is
> > a primer -- something that says...where one did x in the
> old version,
> > please do y in the new. I'd do this myself, but am pretty sure I
> > can't create a special page (guessing it's an admin thing)
> and I'm still
> > not clear on it. It appears that, instead of subpages, we should be
> > creating link pages (maybe) and that each page is generated with an
> > associated talk page.
>
> I think this is a great idea. In fact, I think that we
> should link to a
> "changes to the system" page directly from the edit page.
> "Need help with
> the new system? Click here for a few short tips."
>
> --Jimbo
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
Larry, I have to apologize --
I've been so wrapped up trying to keep my course on track that I didn't
respond at all to your letter. I was frankly just glad you were still
going to be around! I'll help any way I can.
Also, (since I'm hoping lots of people are still reading this) we still
have NO ACCEPTABLE INFORMATION on how some of the programming changes
affect day to day use. I've offered to write something up -- given an
explanation, but have been repeatedly ignored or blown off (partially
because I seem to have offended some delicate programmer sensibilities
by saying that they were acting exactly like programmers -- good at what
they do, but less interested in making it clear to the user through
documentation).
Whether or not people want to hear it, the new site is not all that
user-friendly as far as explaining subpages and namespaces goes (or how
to report bugs, for that matter -- why isn't there a bug report link?).
People are still trying to create /Talk pages and /whatever subpages.
All we need is a carefully placed announcement or two -- I suggest
adding a special page (changes to the system) and links on the home
page, on how to edit a page, and on recent changes. I know that Lars
added some stuff on namespaces under the article, but what is needed is
a primer -- something that says...where one did x in the old version,
please do y in the new. I'd do this myself, but am pretty sure I
can't create a special page (guessing it's an admin thing) and I'm still
not clear on it. It appears that, instead of subpages, we should be
creating link pages (maybe) and that each page is generated with an
associated talk page.
JHK -- feeling very resentful that no one actually seems to think this
is worth their time.
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:45:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Larry Sanger <lsanger(a)nupedia.com>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com>
cc: <intlwiki-l(a)nupedia.com>
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Plea for help
Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
This is an unusual plea for help. It's possible I'm going out of my
mind--I mean, I guess I don't think so, but sometimes it seems like it.
:-)
Occasionally in the past, controversy has erupted that has occupied
unfortunately large amounts of my time. Sometimes the controversy is
definitely worth the time, but just as often it seems it isn't, not at
all. Most recently, in the wake of my announcement that I am no longer
a paid employee, that I will still be working though as a volunteer, and
that we might (if we can) start selling ads and soliciting donations to
help pay for me once again, apparently some people reacted not by
saying, very kindly, "Oh, poor Larry, whatever will we do without him?"
but instead, "Huh? There was a paid employee? And they might sell
ads?! Someone was making money?! This must be a greedy capitalist
exploitative project. This shouldn't be! We've got to do something
about it!"
Well, I and sometimes Jimbo then spend a lot of time putting out fires.
In the present case, we inform the newcomers that, yes, I did do a few
useful things for the projects oh maybe occasionally; yes, the idea of
fees for viewing content is absolutely ludicrous and has never been
considered; yes, we *really, really are* committed to making and keeping
the content always completely free forever; and yes, we have been
considering making a nonprofit foundation for Wikipedia and Nupedia for
a long time now; it's mainly a matter of getting enough time to actually
start us formally down the road. (We can start with a "OK now, we're
really going to do it, it's official, we're asking for pro bono legal
help to set it up" kind of announcement, but we don't want to do that
until we have the time to follow through properly. "We" in this case
mainly means
Jimbo.)
I think some people just sit back and enjoy the show, and figure that I
can hold my own well enough.
Well, er, not exactly. I can, usually, if I spend the time. But I
don't have the time anymore. I literally *don't have the time* for this
kind of nonsense. I've spent, I don't know, three hours so far today
working on various Wikipedia stuff, and it's not even 1 PM yet. I
should instead have been, er, looking for a job, or a lot of other
things my wife wants me to do. :-)
So, please, critics, have mercy--be gentle--and, non-critics, if you
support my cause and think you can supply the correct response to an
e-mail that, you can predict, I will want to have answered, please do
that. Don't hold back waiting for me to do it. I'll be very grateful.
Larry
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
End of Wikipedia-l Digest
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This is an unusual plea for help. It's possible I'm going out of my
mind--I mean, I guess I don't think so, but sometimes it seems like it.
:-)
Occasionally in the past, controversy has erupted that has occupied
unfortunately large amounts of my time. Sometimes the controversy is
definitely worth the time, but just as often it seems it isn't, not at
all. Most recently, in the wake of my announcement that I am no longer a
paid employee, that I will still be working though as a volunteer, and
that we might (if we can) start selling ads and soliciting donations to
help pay for me once again, apparently some people reacted not by saying,
very kindly, "Oh, poor Larry, whatever will we do without him?" but
instead, "Huh? There was a paid employee? And they might sell ads?!
Someone was making money?! This must be a greedy capitalist exploitative
project. This shouldn't be! We've got to do something about it!"
Well, I and sometimes Jimbo then spend a lot of time putting out fires.
In the present case, we inform the newcomers that, yes, I did do a few
useful things for the projects oh maybe occasionally; yes, the idea of
fees for viewing content is absolutely ludicrous and has never been
considered; yes, we *really, really are* committed to making and keeping
the content always completely free forever; and yes, we have been
considering making a nonprofit foundation for Wikipedia and Nupedia for a
long time now; it's mainly a matter of getting enough time to actually
start us formally down the road. (We can start with a "OK now, we're
really going to do it, it's official, we're asking for pro bono legal help
to set it up" kind of announcement, but we don't want to do that until we
have the time to follow through properly. "We" in this case mainly means
Jimbo.)
I think some people just sit back and enjoy the show, and figure that I
can hold my own well enough.
Well, er, not exactly. I can, usually, if I spend the time. But I don't
have the time anymore. I literally *don't have the time* for this kind of
nonsense. I've spent, I don't know, three hours so far today working on
various Wikipedia stuff, and it's not even 1 PM yet. I should instead
have been, er, looking for a job, or a lot of other things my wife wants
me to do. :-)
So, please, critics, have mercy--be gentle--and, non-critics, if you
support my cause and think you can supply the correct response to an
e-mail that, you can predict, I will want to have answered, please do
that. Don't hold back waiting for me to do it. I'll be very grateful.
Larry
I've been away for a while as I've been setting up my new personal
server, but I had to interject a bit of very good news for those who
may not have heard or may not have understood the whole
ramificiations of this:
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of "Eldred v.
Ashcroft" (originally Eldred v. Reno), which seeks to challenge the
Sonny Bono copyright term extension act (an act of Congress intended
to encourage dead authors to write more :-) as unconstitutional, and
indeed seeks to overturn _all_ such term extensions. This is not a
ruling--the court has merely agreed to hear the case; but that in
itself is a big step. The court hasn't heard a major copyright case
since 1985, and the fact that they took this one on is evidence that
they think it will set important precedents. If they do rule
favorably, _thousands_ of older out-of-print works from dead authors
may become available to us and to other Internet projects. Cross
your fingers.
0
Is someone working on making this useful again. I decided to try refreshing
the page, despite
the warning at the top, and got the following message:
(The page was last refreshed just -154694 minutes ago; please wait another
154699 minutes and try again.)
That was in italics; the parentheses are from the original. Requiring five
minutes between refreshes
seems entirely reasonable, even generous--except that its clock is clearly off.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org