Regarding the drip-feed idea:
I intend to drip-feed the finished articles in at a rate of one every 20 minutes, allowing lots of time for human review and assimilation, once I think that there is a consensus that this is OK.
Is there a way to label automatic submissions? If you could somehow fill in the summary field, we could see "(automated upload)" or something similar on the Recent Changes page. Then those of us interested in such articles could see them easily.
Or how about logging in as "Easton Bible Robot" so we could look at its "contributions" page?
We have all sorts of tools for making and viewing an audit trail. Let's use them.
Ed Poor
So much for meta-wikipedia being a quiet corner to work things out... Someone on Wikipedia:Village pump recently wrote "I stumbled across Tarquin's style guide for the layout of contents of these pages".
I haven't had much feedback on this, I'm presuming either a) the list approves and therefore doesn't have much to comment, or b) you're still all baffled by the whole concept.
I don't think I can do much more by way of working out a useful structure in what is effectively Sandbox mode, so I propose to move the pages to the wikipedia: namespace, so we can start actually using it and refine it as we go.
The meta-tree (anyone think of a better name?) will have the following entry points: * wikipedia:naming conventions * wikipedia:WikiProjects * wikipedia:MetaTree
tarquin wrote:
So much for meta-wikipedia being a quiet corner to work things out... Someone on Wikipedia:Village pump recently wrote "I stumbled across Tarquin's style guide for the layout of contents of these pages".
I haven't had much feedback on this, I'm presuming either a) the list approves and therefore doesn't have much to comment, or b) you're still all baffled by the whole concept.
I don't think I can do much more by way of working out a useful structure in what is effectively Sandbox mode, so I propose to move the pages to the wikipedia: namespace, so we can start actually using it and refine it as we go.
You can't have it both ways! Either you'll find a quiet sandbox to build castles, or all the kids will come along and destroy it with their wonder. The lack of feedback is probably because most people haven't noticed yet rather than because of either of your two suggestions.
Apart from my complaint that it should be French "Departments" on the English Wikipedia rather than "Departements", I do find that there is some merit to the general concept. I would suggest moving slowly, probably starting with the "Meta-Wiki - General" page. Lately, since the recent changes page has been listing every time an article changes, I've been finding that page to be overwhelming with its nearly 2,000 entries every day. By putting too many pages at once you may find them all accepted by default, and not as a result of due consideration.
I also think that we do need some mechanism for gauging the level of acceptance that a proposal has. There has been some value to people expressing their view about the acceptability of a particular rule. In many cases acceptance appeared unanimous. In a significant propotion, however, either outright opposition was recorded, or small amendments were suggested to make it more acceptable. The mechanism seemed to be lacking to carry the matter any further. Instead style debates have erupted on the talk pages for specific articles without regard to the presence of a page that discusses the issue in more general terms.
Any ideas on how we can gauge the acceptability of a rule, especially a naming convention?
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Any ideas on how we can gauge the acceptability of a rule, especially a naming convention?
Perhaps if site statistics are available votes could be tallied and normalized against the number of repeat logged in editors in the last 90 days. A percentage count of supporters amongst regulars along with the comments might provide some insight.
For example: If we have 30 regulars in the quorum call period and 10 have registered positive votes and 6 negative ones. We have 30% registered votes for and 20% against.
The percentages could be recalculated once a day or when a vote is registered.
The rules could be sorted based on the ratio of for/against so the listing portrays the level of community consensus, strongest custom at the top to the weakest at the bottom.
Linking to the discussion pages enables an ongoing poll as long as only logged in users can vote.
regards, mirwin
I think the method we've been using since the beginning is pretty good. It is as follows:
1. Propose a convention. 2. Discuss the convention with any interested parties. Note objections and proposed improvements. 3. If most people agree, start using the convention. 4. If it's not working, or if Wikipedians don't find the convention useful, stop using it.
Rules and bureaucracy would just kill the organic development that we have here.
Stephen G.
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Any ideas on how we can gauge the acceptability of
a rule, especially a
naming convention?
Perhaps if site statistics are available votes could be tallied and normalized against the number of repeat logged in editors in the last 90 days. A percentage count of supporters amongst regulars along with the comments might provide some insight.
For example: If we have 30 regulars in the quorum call period and 10 have registered positive votes and 6 negative ones. We have 30% registered votes for and 20% against.
The percentages could be recalculated once a day or when a vote is registered.
The rules could be sorted based on the ratio of for/against so the listing portrays the level of community consensus, strongest custom at the top to the weakest at the bottom.
Linking to the discussion pages enables an ongoing poll as long as only logged in users can vote.
regards, mirwin [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
I think the method we've been using since the beginning is pretty good. It is as follows:
- Propose a convention.
- Discuss the convention with any interested parties.
Note objections and proposed improvements. 3. If most people agree, start using the convention. 4. If it's not working, or if Wikipedians don't find the convention useful, stop using it.
Rules and bureaucracy would just kill the organic development that we have here.
The method proposed merely counted supporters. The use of the word rule was unfortunate. Its intended meaning was similar to the existing guidelines of which one is to disregard guidelines as per personal preference.
Automated information reporting is not bureaucracy.
It is empowerment. The individual user choosing to exercise personal preference has better information to judge potential consequences which may result from the community at large.
To a newcomer a list of 5 or 6 handles may be deceptive if they have perused the Wikipedian list page. Five or six out of hundreds is not terribly influential.
Whereas 10 to 50 percent of active editors or participatory voters taking time to judge the rules is substantial and likely to matter in the stacks.
regards, mirwin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org