There appears to be some confusion about the history and purpose of
meta. This is easy to understand, because meta evolved over time.
In the early days, there was a lot of talk *about wikipedia* *on
wikipedia*. We didn't have user pages in the early software, all
pages were the same kind of page. So it happened that we were having
lots of discussion and debate on the wikipedia about the wikipedia,
and it was clogging up recentchanges and generally getting in the way
of work.
So we decided to move all the 'meta-discussion' (i.e. discussion about
wikipedia) to meta.wikipedia.com. This meant, of course, that meta
allowed for non-NPOV essays, etc.
Later, user pages were invented, and so that became a more sensible
place for SOME non-NPOV essays on meta-topics. But meta is still
useful, as a place for non-user-specific meta-discussion.
Except, as a practical matter, the major meta discussion is now here,
on the mailing lists.
Whatever meta is, it is *not* necessarily the same thing as an
experimental wiki for the running of the latest code. It is a
fine place for discussing the future of the software, I suppose,
although wikitech-l is more important for that right now.
--Jimbo
Hello, everyone
I am not interested in the policy of wikipedia at all. While
it can be better still, I think the current policy (NPOV,
for instance) and the syntax (wiki-markup language) are
adequate and have no intention to discuss them.
My concern is about the administration of wikipedia, or the
server, database stuff and the development of wikipedia. It
seems there is a lot of problems and they are goind to be
even worse.
In theory, yes, CVS of wikipedia code is open for anyone who
is willing to contribute and should be work just like wiki.
Alas! the reality is different, if not totally. As we know,
quite a few of people are actually coding, compared with the
number and diversity of wikipedians. Unlike the article in
wikipedia,
I posted this for responding to the advice by Jimbo.
However, if here is not appreciate place to submit this kind
of mail, please let me know and I will seek another place to
conduct the discussion.
Therefore,
I would like to proposal:
1. Disclose more information
While none of details are hidden, surely strangers have
almost no information to hack. ("How to become a wikipedia
hacker" in meta-wikipedia has a lack of critical information
and is heavliy underused.)
2. Organize the development system
See UseMod. It has a far better developer community then
wikipedia software.
We should stop immediately relying on the individual
efforts. For example, many people simply post a bug to
Brion, knowing he is responsible for the wikipedia software.
Even he encourages people to report a bug to *him*. I don't
blame him as well as others like him but really appreciate
them. But such a case is not ought to be in wikipedia.
3. Make wikipedia software more visible and independent
Maybe we need a nice name for wikipedia software to make it
more recognizable.
-- Therefore, --
the practical solution (I think but should not be limited
to) is probably:
set up hacker.wikipedia.org or sister project dedicated to
development software tools for wikipedia. In additon to the
server software hosting wikipedia, the software programs may
include another useful tools for wikipedians (maybe chat
tools, if someone would like to persuite )
The site can embrace services for the sites hosting
wikipedia software other than wikipedia.org (actually I am
planning to switch the wiki program of my wiki to wikipedia
software).
If you know UseMod and meatball, my proposal is akin to the
relationship among UseMod and meatball.
Yes, there is a meat-wikipedia. But as we know, meta-
wikipedia doesn't work well. There are plenty of dead stuff,
which look weird and make strangers difficult to
participate. There are even non-English stuff. Meta-wiki may
be good place to put a draft, submit a proposal but it is
not suitable for developers.
What do you think?
Best wishes,
Takuya Murata
takusi(a)manjiro.net
>Meta should be about
>
>- meta-project: discussing and formulating project-wide
(i.e. not
>language-specific) policies; organizing events, contests
etc.
>- meta-content: organizing and preparing content, e.g.
templates; language
>files
>- meta-code: coordinating the development process - bugs,
features etc.
If the meta-wikipedia got rid of mess, I don't have any
reason to hesitate to use meta for development of wiki
software.
Takuya Murata
Perusing my paper over lunch, I spotted a nice write up of the project in
todays Guardian.
Highlights :
"perhaps one of the greatest testaments to the generosity on the web"
"What makes the Wikipedia so compelling - and this article so hard to finish -
is the way everything is so massively linked. You read one entry, and before
you know it, you're reading up on Anne Boleyn or Italian greyhounds."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,884666,00.html
or linked from [[Wikipedia:Press_coverage]] (by Rbrwr)
--
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)
Hello . . .
Writing to request sysop status - my motivation is simple : * -based sex
practice
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Scrotum-based_sex_practice&acti…>,
Like This, queef, ulm, Tea bag sex position, teabagging, John Cheese,
Erectile Bone, Cabinet of Canada
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Canada> . . . ad infinitum.
I've no doubt that this kind of nonsense would eventually get caught
with or without me, but what's the point in waiting for someone else to
come along and clean it up if my fair amount of spare time and
T3-and-friendly-boss-equipped day job give me the ample opprotunity to
help keep the 'pedia tidy ? After all, *someone* has to finish
classifying and deleting all those orphaned talk pages . . .
Anyway . . . take a look at the 'votes for deletion' page, and tell me
everyone's life wouldn't be easier if I could just dump garbage like '
Arise Oh Compatriots Nigerias Call Obey ' myself. :' )
~ J.T. ( Tzaquiel )
Vlad from the Open-site project (open-site.org), another free
encyclopedia just starting, answered to my "merger" proposal. I forward
this to the list for discussion.
> We're not waiting for anything. This is in the
> works now.
Hmm... am I not on the list where they're discussing
this? I think this new change of mailing lists has
really left me out of things. :(
Chuck
=====
Interesting fact: Google returns more
results for "Esperanto" than for "Catalan"
----------------------------------------
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Móviles
Personaliza tu móvil con tu logo y melodía favorito
en http://moviles.yahoo.es
What is the plan for setting up The Wikipedia
Foundation? For my volunteer work here at TEJO
(www.tejo.org), I've been researching how foundations
work and perhaps I could be of assistance in setting
one up. Unfortunately all of my experience is dealing
with European foundations, but I hope to learn about
American ones as well.
I bet within a year of setting it up you'd get some
rich guy (or gal) who'd want to give us a million
dollars or more, which of course would pay the full
time salary for several Wikipedians in several
different language projects. So, what are we waiting
for?
Chuck
=====
Interesting fact: Google returns more
results for "Esperanto" than for "Catalan"
----------------------------------------
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Móviles
Personaliza tu móvil con tu logo y melodía favorito
en http://moviles.yahoo.es
> Just don't tell Larry ;-)
Why should Larry mind, since he's the one who said,
"Subpages would be nice, I suppose, for other
namespaces, like the Wikipedia namespace and the User
namespace." I'm also firmly against the use of
subpages in the Talk namespace and I'm not thrilled
about having them in the Wikipedia namespace, but I
don't like how many user pages just get so big!
Chuck
=====
Interesting fact: Google returns more
results for "Esperanto" than for "Catalan"
----------------------------------------
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Móviles
Personaliza tu móvil con tu logo y melodía favorito
en http://moviles.yahoo.es
> Interesting fact: Google returns more
> results for "Esperanto" than for "Catalan"
What about for Catalan, Catalá, Catalán, and Catalana put together?