On Saturday 29 June 2002 12:01 pm, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Candy worms, sure, but I can easily imagine writing an article about something computery and referring simply to "worms" within it because the "computer" context is already clear to the reader of the article. Why make the editor check every link to be sure that it doesn't lead to some completely irrelevant article that just happens to have a name in common with what you really wanted?
Why would [[computer worm]] be anything else? Why wouldn't [[worm]] be about the most common usage? This is why we have naming conventions that aim to naturally disambiguate terms from each other using the least complex naming scheme.
The context here is a hypertext, cross-linked encyclopedia -- not some limited jargon file on computers. Using the word "worm" by itself is jargon when you mean "computer worm" (which <is> the term used in news reporting and anywhere else where context must be established by the term itself -- such as in a hyperlinked encyclopedia).
If we can't assume at least some intelligence from our contributors to naturally disambiguate terms then we might as well turn [[Paris]] into a non-article disambiguation page to catch those pitiful souls who expect to link to an article on Paris, Texas by typing [[Paris]] -- just because the article they were writing in was in the context of Texas history.
There are higher level contexts we are dealing with here.
--maveric149
At 02:13 PM 6/29/02 -0700, you wrote:
On Saturday 29 June 2002 12:01 pm, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Candy worms, sure, but I can easily imagine writing an article about something computery and referring simply to "worms" within it because the "computer" context is already clear to the reader of the article. Why make the editor check every link to be sure that it doesn't lead to some completely irrelevant article that just happens to have a name in common with what you really wanted?
Why would [[computer worm]] be anything else? Why wouldn't [[worm]] be about the most common usage? This is why we have naming conventions that aim to naturally disambiguate terms from each other using the least complex naming scheme.
The question of what's the "most common usage" is a matter of opinion, however. Wikipedia is on the Internet, so naturally there's going to be a lot of computer-oriented people accessing it. I know that when I'm in a conversation specifically about computer security, I never say "computer worms" or "computer viruses"; I just say "worms" and "viruses," and the people I'm talking to know what I'm talking about. Likewise, when I'm talking about genetics and I mention "viruses", there's usually no ambiguity there either. I don't think it's good to hard-code an assumption about what the subject of the linked-from articles will be about.
I recall briefly debating about whether the planet/greek god pages should be disambiguated or whether the page should belong to the god with a "see also:" for the planet, and this was another case where I felt that it was far too opinion-dependant deciding whether the greek god or the planet should have "precedence." When I hear "Venus" I think "planet" first, but I'm sure there are plenty of less astronomically-oriented people out there who think "god" first and would be put off by having their links lead to the "wrong" article.
I guess that's my main point, really; I am much less disturbed by clicking on [[blah]] and getting an article containing a list of alternate meanings than I am by clicking on [[blah]] and getting a full article about the _wrong_ meaning ("wrong" in this case simply meaning "not the meaning I had in mind when I clicked on the link").
If we can't assume at least some intelligence from our contributors to naturally disambiguate terms then we might as well turn [[Paris]] into a non-article disambiguation page to catch those pitiful souls who expect to link to an article on Paris, Texas by typing [[Paris]] -- just because the article they were writing in was in the context of Texas history.
It's a rather extreme example, but yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that. :) At least it makes Paris, France's article title more standardized with the other city titles when the reader gets to it.
I think it's a bad idea to assume some kind of universal context when writing articles, because everyone has a slightly different idea of what the universal context is.
-- "Let there be light." - Last words of Bomb #20, "Dark Star"
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org