Then just add links.
One word: spaghetti. Just because it's a web, it doesn't mean it can't be a cleanly organized web.
Sometimes--in fact frquently--spaghetti is /better/ than structure, because the subject being described really is spaghetti-like. I have no problem with organization per se; I reorganized the policy pages to make things easier to find. But I /don't/ think we should impose structure for its own sake unless there's a real problem.
Just found I'd sent this to one person instead of the whole list. oops!
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Then just add links.
One word: spaghetti. Just because it's a web, it doesn't mean it can't be a cleanly organized web.
Sometimes--in fact frquently--spaghetti is /better/ than structure, because the subject being described really is spaghetti-like. I have no problem with organization per se; I reorganized the policy pages to make things easier to find. But I /don't/ think we should impose structure for its own sake unless there's a real problem.
Yes, that's true. So -- why do we insist on putting pipes in links so readers short-cut past disambiguation pages? I think that browsing a link "pitch" in an article on music and discovering other types of pitch in completely different areas of knowledge is interesting. It adds breadth to the experience of browsing Wikipedia, which I would miss if the link in the article on music was "pitch (music)|pitch". I don't think that an extra page to load is a great price to pay for that. (and I'm on a modem, so I do appreciate the time taken)
As far as the meat-tree goes, I appreciate that it seems like too much structure to people. I do still think we're going to need something like it in the future -- perhaps the presence of my proposal on Meta will inspire better ideas.
I've just discovered http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style , so I'll make pages from there if I feel the need to open any forums to debate points of style & presentation.
tarquin
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
I think that browsing a link "pitch" in an article on music and discovering other types of pitch in completely different areas of knowledge is interesting.
I think its a pain in the ass. If I'm reading about music and click on "pitch" I do *not* want to be told about tar-like substances and places where sport is played. It distracts me from the matter at hand.
If I want to read about other types or meanings of "pitch", I'm fully capable of using the search function (or even editing the URL by hand).
On 8/14/02 11:28 AM, "Gareth Owen" wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
I think that browsing a link "pitch" in an article on music and discovering other types of pitch in completely different areas of knowledge is interesting.
I think its a pain in the ass. If I'm reading about music and click on "pitch" I do *not* want to be told about tar-like substances and places where sport is played. It distracts me from the matter at hand.
If I want to read about other types or meanings of "pitch", I'm fully capable of using the search function (or even editing the URL by hand).
Both of you are right. I think an everything2-like associated links functionality would strengthen the project. Might be more appropriate for a derivative site, though.
Gareth Owen wrote:
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
I think that browsing a link "pitch" in an article on music and discovering other types of pitch in completely different areas of knowledge is interesting.
I think its a pain in the ass. If I'm reading about music and click on "pitch" I do *not* want to be told about tar-like substances and places where sport is played. It distracts me from the matter at hand.
gareth, are you saying that when you look for something in a paper encyclopedia you *never* stop off and read about something else that has caught your eye? That's the huge joy of reference works!
tarquin wrote:
I think its a pain in the ass. If I'm reading about music and click on "pitch" I do *not* want to be told about tar-like substances and places where sport is played. It distracts me from the matter at hand.
gareth, are you saying that when you look for something in a paper encyclopedia you *never* stop off and read about something else that has caught your eye? That's the huge joy of reference works!
No, I think he's saying that if he wants to browse aimlessly, there are better ways to do that in wikipedia than to have strange "blind links" that don't lead where the reader would expect.
If I'm reading an article about music in a paper encyclopedia, and it tells me to "see also Musical Pitch", then I go there to read that. In the wikipedia, of course, we have a more natural way of linking to [[pitch]] within a sentence. But we should linke to [[musical pitch|pitch]], right?
tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
encyclopedia you *never* stop off and read about something else that has caught your eye?
No. Sometimes I do exactly.
But I don't want it forced upon me. I do *not* want to use a work that gives cross references like "See also: something on page 187 or 188, but we're not saying which"
Its not as if we don't have "Random Page" feature for browsing.
That's the huge joy of reference works!
Is *a* huge joy of reference works. Accurate and efficient cross-referencing is also a huge joy of well organised reference works.
There is one feature that I miss from the Search page. It seems to have gotten lost with the software changeover.
When I search for something, and the results are more than the 50 that I have set in my preferences, I would like to have an idea of just how many items contain the search term. That lets me know whether it's worthwhile to look at any more pages for the term.
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is one feature that I miss from the Search page. It seems to have gotten lost with the software changeover.
When I search for something, and the results are more than the 50 that I have set in my preferences, I would like to have an idea of just how many items contain the search term. That lets me know whether it's worthwhile to look at any more pages for the term.
I know what you mean. I miss that option too!
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Just found I'd sent this to one person instead of the whole list. oops!
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Lee, that's happened to me too when I've hit reply to your mailing list posts. Is it your email client setup that's causing it?
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org