I personally think the interwiki wiki is the best idea... it's been
2009/2/7 Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 7:24 AM, David Gerard
Or working WYSIWYG that hides the syntax escape
from the casual editor.
AFAIKWYSIWYGINWAF. David do you think we can we get a WYSIWYG editor
that doesn't leave a bunch of unduly bloated and redundant code for
the next user who tries to edit manually?
Anyone who's ever tried to use Inkscape to fix a spelling error in an
SVG map label or used PageMill for just about anything (then wondered
where the hell "text-decoration:none; font-weight:normal;" came from
or how the table attributes changed from "width:200px;" to
"width:199.99729px;" when you know you didn't accidentally click the
corner of it) will share my skepticism.
I think the best bet for these sites might be to require an explicit
"interwiki:" prefix, that is to use (and train interwiki updater bots
to use) [[interwiki:en:foo]] to link to [[foo]] on the english site,
with the assumption that [[en:foo]] could potentially be the correct
way to spell some word native to whichever language(s) Mark is talking
Obviously this would have to generalize so that the long-form syntax
would be optional on other sites, but allow certain languages to opt
out of the short form interwiki syntax (and thus opt out of automatic
redirection or bad-title error or whatever would otherwise happen when
you try to edit a local page with this title).
Or we could come up with something even more esoteric which requires
all interwiki links to use a template.
Or create a completely new wiki (or possibly a sub-section of meta or
commons) to track the equivalency relationships of articles on various
sites, so that no human or bot needs to edit 125 different pages to
ensure that every other project knows that the 126th translation of
[[George W. Bush]] has been posted to the Old Church Slavonic "cu:"
Wikipedia (which hasn't happened yet but they might as well be the
Wikipedia-l mailing list