You'll have to forgive me as I've been off overseas for so long and missed the adjustment period.
2 questions: are there any new editing features in the new software? I dimly remember there being something about a ~~~ trick in the first version of meta.
Following on from that - are these features documented anywhere?
I went through "How to edit a page" and noticed that it hasn't been updated in a while - it still says "click on the ? mark to create a new page". Obviously I can fix that one myself, but are there other things I should be aware of?
Manning
hi all.
there's a new story about the pedia waiting in the kuro5hin.org moderation queue. nothing really new is said
but it helps to spread the word. so if you're a member have look and vote on it.
story title: can an open content encyclopedia thrive?
regards.
wojpob
<wojtek[at]seti23[dot]org>
what burns twice as bright, burns half
as long, and you have burnt so very,
very brightly roy.
On the homepage, we claim to seek to write 100,000 articles. We have
nearly 30,000. As '24' pointed out the other day, with 30,000
articles we don't have one on the Amazon Rain Forest. I also just
noticed that we don't have one on Real Estate Investment Trusts. And
we don't have one on 'Corgi', which is a breed of dog, nor do we have
articles on many other dog breeds.
The way we arrived at that 100,000 number was extremely unscientific.
Britannica claims to have 66,000 articles. And we wanted to have
more. :-)
I would never have thought that someone would interpret the 100,000
figure as the _maximum_, as part of a critique of us that we are
nearly 1/3 of the way "done" and yet don't cover X, Y, and Z.
I wonder how many articles we really should expect to have. Obviously,
we'll never be "done". But the largest dictionaries of English list
around 500,000 words.
--Jimbo
The Cologne Blue is very nice - but where is the logo? The Cunctator special...
OK - If I'm retreading old ground, I'm sorry. But hey - I've been away for a long time (nice to be back in civilisation).
Manning - firmly back in Sydney.
>I wonder how many articles we really should expect to have.
>Obviously,
>we'll never be "done". But the largest dictionaries of English list
>around 500,000 words.
I would expect us to still be reasonably incomplete even at that; I
think we'll have over a million articles easily. There /should/ be
far more articles than simple English words, because we'll carry at
least an article for each sense of each word, and carry far more
detail than a dictionary. After all, we also cover events, people,
things, movements, etc. Of our present 30,000, for example, there
are about 10 on "chess", 20 on "poker", and 20 on "The Simpsons".
Britannica can get away with a mere 60,000 because many of them are
large and comprehensive, and there are many subjects they don't cover
that we will.
0
>> Maybe the best thing to do is to "sign" the comments _for them_.
>> I.E., add an identifier to what people have written, primarily to keep
>> the comments straight.
>>
>That sounds like an excellent idea.
I've done that, especially when revisiting a talk page where I've contributed but it's not clear who said what. I've also gone back and found old (but still relevant) dialogue and put lines or indentations between unsigned paragraphs and my own--most recently, on [[talk:Mumia Abu Jamal]]. I did not write the first paragraph; and I think making that clear is both acceptable & preferable.
kq
0
Yes, he is very annoying--all the more so because he's
obviously well-educated and therefore hard to dismiss as
an ordinary crackpot. He hasn't been too terribly
destructive. He just cranks out reams and reams of
subjectivist rants with quality inversely proportionate
to their quantity. But one or two sentences out of every
page he writes actually has some interesting insight worth
keeping, and he does put up with my abuse pretty well, so
I haven't yet been tempted to suggest any action.
Besides, his anonymity will always serve to minimize his
credibility, so he'll lose a lot of arguments on those
grounds alone. I know I've suggested in the past that
perhaps only logged-in users should be allowed to edit,
but I think I'm more inclined to leave things as they are,
and just have a social norm here that anonymous editors
should simply suffer the consequences to the credibility
and lose arguments by default.
You Wrote:
>
>Hi all -- just wanted you to know that I might be around more on the
>list than the Pedia for a bit (unless something egregious comes up
and
>needs editing). I'm teaching two new classes this quarter, so
time's a
>bit short...and frankly, I'm finding 24's rants somewhat
disquieting. I
>know this probably sounds dumb, but I've come to think of us as a
>community of nice people -- or at least people with whom I feel safe
in
>revealing my name, etc. (more info is no longer on my page). 24's
>comments on meta make me wish I hadn't. I don't know if it's in
>earnest, or if it's just its unpleasant way of playing games, but
>without trying to sound paranoid, do we have any systems in place to
>discourage the frighteningly anti-social types? Anyway, maybe it's
just
>me being paranoid... JHK
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>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
>0
Two more things...
* We have to figure out where to put the link to "This user's
contributions" that in the current scheme occurs in the upper left
of user: pages.
* Similarly, the link "Redirected from..." on redirected pages needs
to find a home.
Axel
One more...
* regarding the modification date at the bottom: either leave out the
time, or add the timezone. As is, the information content of the
time is zero.
Axel
>Please have a look at
>http://www.ds.fh-koeln.de/~marian/wikipedia/template.html and test it
>with all browsers on earth.
It is a beauty indeed. Four little things:
* the "Recently changed pages" shouldn't extend over two lines. Either
put it in one line, or go back to "Recent Changes" as Magnus
prefers.
* In the bottom line, you have "Wikipedia Home" and "About Wikipedia".
That could be streamlined a bit.
* How about a link in the bottom line saying "Edit this page"? Just to
drive the point home. Most new arrivals won't click on a boring
"About" link, but "Edit this page" sure sounds interesting...
* Similarly, in the side bar, I'd change "Edit page" to "Edit this
page", because that's the real surprising part. Not only can you
edit *a* page, like you can on many sites, but you can edit *this
very* page.
Axel