So, it seems (if I interpret Jimbo's mail on wikitech and the discussion
here correctly) that most of us would like *some kind* of category
scheme in wikipedia. I do, too! But, we seem to differ on the details
So far, I saw three concepts:
1. Simple categories like "Person", "Event", etc.; about a dozen total.
2. Categories and subcategories, like
"Science/Biology/Biochemistry/Proteomics", which can be "scaled down" to
#1 as well ("Humankind/Person" or something)
3. Complex object structures with machine-readable meta-knowledge
encoded into the articles, which would allow for quite complex
queries/summaries, like "biologists born after 1860".
1. Easy to edit (the wiki way!)
2. Still easy to edit, but making wikipedia browseable by category,
fine-tune Recent Changes, etc.
3. Strong improvement in search functions, meta-knowledge available for
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
For a wikipedia I'd have to write myself, I'd choose #3, but with
respect to the wiki way, #2 seems more likely to achieve consensus (if
there is such a thing;-)
I was wondering if anyone wanted to give their thoughts on the
applicability of [[m:Wiki is not paper]] to Wikipedia.
In the section headed "No size limits", someone says it should be okay to
have pages for every "Simpsons" character, and even pages for every
episode. This is followed by Jimbo saying, "I agree with this one
I take this to mean that there is barely any limit on the triviality of a
subject that could be allowed to have its own Wikipedia article. With
apologies to "Simpsons" fans if this is blasphemy... ;) As I interpret it,
it's saying that pretty much any subject could be covered - within the
usual constraints of NPOV and verifiability, of course.
So we could include people and events that have not had significant impact
on a global or even a national level, but which maybe only affected a
small group of people. As long as there is some coverage in published
sources, somewhere, we could use that to make an article on the subject.
If this is all terribly wrong, can we come up with a more definite policy,
saying what the criteria are for an article to be allowed, and amend
[[m:Wiki is not paper]] and the policy pages accordingly?
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
How to search C++ ?
Searching "C++" I have got the following results :
For query "C"
For more information about searching Wikipedia, see Searching Wikipedia.
Badly formed search query
We could not process your query. This is probably because you have attempted to search for a word fewer than three letters long,
which is not yet supported. It could also be that you have mistyped the expression, for example "fish and and scales". Please try
I hacked a small function that automatically shows what might be disambiguation pages below the page subtitle. This works for all pages with a " (" in the title.
This function was requested (on the German mailing list, IIRC). It is running on the test wiki. Try
for an example (currently standard skin only!).
The feature has to be enabled for each language, so the Chinese won't suffer from bogus links :-)
I won't commit that to the CVS until Lee says the feature freeze is over...
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail anmelden = 1qm Regenwald schuetzen! Helfen
Sie mit! Nutzen Sie den Serien-Testsieger. http://user.web.de/Regenwald
Lee Daniel Crocker < lee(a)piclab.com > wrote:
The use of...
> fragment id in the default text is really one of style; I'm inclined to > just drop it.
My choice would be to display Article: fragment, but always use the existing convention that if the Wikipedian write a display to use that. So the display makes sense if written as [[Article:fragment|Displayed link]].
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
----- Forwarded message from Lori Winslow <lori(a)affero.com> -----
From: "Lori Winslow" <lori(a)affero.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:49:15 -0700
Subject: Wikipedia to be featured in Affero's Newsletter
Hello, My name is Lori Winslow and I am one of the founders of Affero (http://www.affero.net). We publish a
monthly community newsletter called Random Hacks of Kindness - Each month we feature an innovative project or
cause that is open source.
In our last edition (April 2003 - see that here: http://www.affero.net/nl/apr03.html), we featured Xaraya
which is a Content Management Solution.
For our May edition, Wikipedia will be the featured project. I will provide a brief summary with a link to the
sourceforge page and use some "about" text from the Wikipedia website. Once the newsletter is published -
target is by the end of the week - I will send you a copy.
If you want to promote this anywhere or have suggestions where we should do so, please let me know. I would
love to get more recognition and awareness out about Wikipedia. What a great project!
Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks so much.
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and
cats." - Albert Schweitzer
Give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves:
----- End forwarded message -----
Oliver Pereira wrote:
> Clearly I don't have Erik's attention span. :) But do we *really* want
> articles that are over 10,000 characters long? And if so, why? I'm sure
> I'm not the only one who finds it a daunting task to try to edit long
> articles, especially if there is major restructuring to be done. If we
> want Wikipedia to be open to everyone, and easy to edit, I think we should
> seriously consider aiming for shorter articles everywhere. A reader who
> wants to read 30K of information about a subject would still be able to;
> they'd have to read three articles instead of one, maybe, but it would
> only involve two clicks of the mouse...
I agree that the 20,000 - 30,000 size is a bit much for most situations. IMO
we should aim to have articles in the 10,000 to 20,000 range unless they are
a "history of" or similar daughter article where detail is expected. This, of
course, excludes tables (which can often add 5,000 or more bytes to an
So in general, any article above 20,000 bytes of prose should be broken-up
into more digestible bits and pieces.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> Also, deleting temp pages that are eventually adopted is wrong,
> since it destroys the edit history.
> If nothing is being worked on anymore, then redirect.
Well I do this whenever I was the only one who edited the /Temp page but
whenever other people contributed to the /Temp page then I go through the
hackish process to merge the /Temp edit history with the parent page's edit
It would /really/ be nice to have a "combine page histories" option for
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Wednesday 28 May 2003 05:00 am, wikipedia-l-request(a)wikipedia.org wrote:
> I hacked a small function that automatically shows what might be
> disambiguation pages below the page subtitle. This works for all pages with
> a " (" in the title.
> This function was requested (on the German mailing list, IIRC). It is
> running on the test wiki. Try
> for an example (currently standard skin only!).
> The feature has to be enabled for each language, so the Chinese won't
> suffer from bogus links :-)
> I won't commit that to the CVS until Lee says the feature freeze is over...
Change "see also" to "Alternate meanings:" and place it directly below "Other
languages:" and I would be very happy.
IMO the current implementation looks a bit ugly and hackish (just like our
current way of replacing the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." with
the redirect notice).
Also, would this be a default setting?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
To sum up the current state of the deletion topic.
Several users think it is a good idea that every user
be able to see a deleted page.
The reasons given are 1) transparency (as we claim
Wikipedia respects) and 2) possibility to reuse some
edits in deleted pages.
As already mentionned, it so happens that some banned
users edits are deleted very quickly, without going
through the process of vfd. However, I read several
times (or saw it myself) that parts of the edits of
banned users were good and might be of interest to
(see for example for Lir
I suggested that edits of banned users be kept for a
temporary time, either in a boilerplate, or in a
blanked page history...but for the reasons given by
Eloquence and others, I see this proposition is not
good (too much strain on sysop cleaning, not fitting
the requirements of either soft and hard banning). So,
this option can not be kept. And even if the edits
might be good, it is probably better to wait for a
while until picking the stuff up (until the vandal is
gone) and perhaps to put it back under another author
Consequently, because of the good arguments given
against keeping stuff in the article space for longer
than necessary, the only option left, is, to permit
users to see the content of a deleted article.
In short, I think if Wikipedia wants to stay open and
transparent, the deleted stuff should be visible. That
is part of a feedback control which is important in
Three persons expressed negativity toward this
Jimbo and JeLuf indicated it was not a good idea
because copyrighted material should not be seen from
outsiders. Eloquence indicated it was not good -
probably for this copyright reason, as well as for the
reason it has been already discussed ad nauseum (where
As far as copyrighted material is concerned, I plainly
agree it should not been seen by others than trusted
people (hence, developers and sysops). I agree it
would be potentially very damaging for Wikipedia that
such an information be visible by others, as it could
lead to legal troubles.
Then, I agree it is not a good idea that non-sysop
users see material that has been deleted because of cp
However, as Toby mentionned, copyrighted material is
*not* the only material deleted. Far from it. No good
reasons were, till now, given to justify other-than-cp
deleted pages not to be seen by non-sysop users.
Besides, quite a number of people, including Toby,
Martin, Brion, Oliver, and I, think it would be good
that users see deleted pages
Consequently, I think the solution is that somehow,
deletions for cp issues and for other issues are just
separated in the big black void (sorry, the deletion
area of the db).
This could be made possible if, when deleting the
page, the sysop was somehow proposed to check a little
box (say), which would automatically classify the
deleted page in the cp category.
Then, the deletion log would be grossly separated in
two types, cp stuff and other stuff.
(I also think it would nice to separate per namespaces
: deletion of encyclopedia article, deletion of users
pages, deletion of meta pages).
When accessing the special:page undeleted, all the
stuff with cp material will be invisible (as now) from
non-sysop users, while other stuff (non copyrighted)
On top of that, I also think it is quite weird to keep
forever in this deletion db, all this copyrighted
material (or porn pictures perhaps :-)).
Such a separation might give the developer the
possibility to run a deletion query from time to time
(such as "deletion of all copyrighted articles been in
the deletion db for more than 2 months"). Hence,
Wikipedia liability toward cp, would be reduced.
(see also on similar topic
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).