What if "http:" was a namespace like "user:", you would use [[namespace:<data>]] for all sorts of links and that would be it. No more bare URLs and no [URL] with single brackets.
Hmm. That might work too, and would be even simpler. Thanks for the suggestion--I solicit comments on that as well. I don't think it would be too bad, though, to have an "external/internal" separation between one-bracket and two-bracket links if your idea has some technical problem I don't see right now. That's pretty simple to understand an use.
On 8/9/02 7:38 PM, "lcrocker@nupedia.com" lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
What if "http:" was a namespace like "user:", you would use [[namespace:<data>]] for all sorts of links and that would be it. No more bare URLs and no [URL] with single brackets.
Hmm. That might work too, and would be even simpler. Thanks for the suggestion--I solicit comments on that as well. I don't think it would be too bad, though, to have an "external/internal" separation between one-bracket and two-bracket links if your idea has some technical problem I don't see right now. That's pretty simple to understand an use.
Just wondering: when did LDC become in charge of determining what Wikipedia's syntax should be?
WRT to the double/single bracket issue: We're suffering from a legacy problem, since the double-bracket syntax was originally uncommon (as opposed to CamelCase), it was okay that it was more tedious than single-bracket.
The best thing from a usability standpoint to do would be to switch from double brackets to single brackets.
The Cunctator wrote:
Just wondering: when did LDC become in charge of determining what Wikipedia's syntax should be?
When he got the gumption to do most of the programming work. As has been pointed out before, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy.
WRT to the double/single bracket issue: We're suffering from a legacy problem, since the double-bracket syntax was originally uncommon (as opposed to CamelCase), it was okay that it was more tedious than single-bracket.
The best thing from a usability standpoint to do would be to switch from double brackets to single brackets.
Single brackets are regularly used for things that _aren't_ links (phonetic transcriptions, programming snippets, etc); making them links would mean a horrible nightmare of <nowiki>s. If such a terrible thing did come to pass, do NOT forget to do automatic conversion on the database to add in the thousands of necessary <nowiki>s.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 8/10/02 1:52 PM, "Brion VIBBER" brion@pobox.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Just wondering: when did LDC become in charge of determining what Wikipedia's syntax should be?
When he got the gumption to do most of the programming work. As has been pointed out before, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy.
That's been asserted. It's not a truism.
I believe it's a valid assertion within the WikiWiki context, where the playing field for making edits is level (Be bold in updating pages, etc.).
I don't think it's valid in terms of the backend software.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 8/10/02 1:52 PM, "Brion VIBBER" brion@pobox.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Just wondering: when did LDC become in charge of determining what Wikipedia's syntax should be?
When he got the gumption to do most of the programming work. As has been pointed out before, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy.
That's been asserted. It's not a truism.
I believe it's a valid assertion within the WikiWiki context, where the playing field for making edits is level (Be bold in updating pages, etc.).
I don't think it's valid in terms of the backend software.
Perhaps you can prove it incorrect; don't do anything, and see whether things go the way you want them to. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 8/10/02 2:13 PM, "Brion VIBBER" brion@pobox.com wrote:
Perhaps you can prove it incorrect; don't do anything, and see whether things go the way you want them to. ;)
Or maybe we can have guidance come from consensus, not fiat.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 8/10/02 2:13 PM, "Brion VIBBER" brion@pobox.com wrote:
Perhaps you can prove it incorrect; don't do anything, and see whether things go the way you want them to. ;)
Or maybe we can have guidance come from consensus, not fiat.
Guidance and consensus are lovely and good, but nothing gets _done_ until somebody's willing to _do_ it. If the _doer_ doesn't consent to the consensus, you need to find another one.
Ergo, Lee (as the person most likely to be implementing any changes to the wiki syntax) is an important factor in any discussion about changing the wiki syntax.
<sarcasm>Shame on him for making suggestions on the mailing list about how he'd prefer to do it, to which you and other interested parties may reply, converse, and attempt to reach a consensus acceptable to all!</sarcasm>
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Hmm. That might work too, and would be even simpler. Thanks for the suggestion--I solicit comments on that as well. I don't think it would be too bad, though, to have an "external/internal" separation between one-bracket and two-bracket links if your idea has some technical problem I don't see right now. That's pretty simple to understand an use.
The internal/external could be a point, but is [[de:<German phrase>]] really an internal or external link? And ISBN: is clearly an external link, so should that be in single brackets? I think the colon is what marks an external link. A separate namespace is as foreign as an external website (or set of websites, as in the ISBN: case).
In my own wiki, I have been experimenting with various namespace:word combinations as a shorthand for external links. This always fails when "word" needs to be a "phrase". You need that closing bracket, whether single or double.
PhpWiki (the software at http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/) uses single brackets for everything. I don't know why UseModWiki started with double brackets.
So, I was browsing in dmoz's open content encyclopedia section (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/), and what did I see? The Fact Factory: http://the-fact-factory.com/
Someone has copied a fist-full of Wikipedia content and started his own "collaborative project to create a complete encyclopedia from scratch". This one is loaded with ads. It's been very poorly done; many of the edit links are broken and things like the Wikipedia FAQ have been left unchanged.
Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from doing this, so long as they comply with the GFDL. However,I'm not convinced that The Fact Factory is in compliance. It mentions on the front page that the content was originally from Wikipedia, "but has now taken on a life of its own". The article pages, however, do not mention the original sources of the articles.
So, do we want to do anything about this? Looking at the site, I don't think it's going to do any harm, especially considering the shoddy feel of the place. I thought maybe Jimbo would want to contact the webmaster and ask him what his intentions are.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
At 07:19 PM 8/10/02 -0700, Stephen G. wrote:
So, I was browsing in dmoz's open content encyclopedia section (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/), and what did I see? The Fact Factory: http://the-fact-factory.com/
Someone has copied a fist-full of Wikipedia content and started his own "collaborative project to create a complete encyclopedia from scratch". This one is loaded with ads. It's been very poorly done; many of the edit links are broken and things like the Wikipedia FAQ have been left unchanged.
Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from doing this, so long as they comply with the GFDL. However,I'm not convinced that The Fact Factory is in compliance. It mentions on the front page that the content was originally from Wikipedia, "but has now taken on a life of its own". The article pages, however, do not mention the original sources of the articles.
So, do we want to do anything about this? Looking at the site, I don't think it's going to do any harm, especially considering the shoddy feel of the place. I thought maybe Jimbo would want to contact the webmaster and ask him what his intentions are.
Well for one thing the copy was made a few months ago and you can't edit the pages, despite a link to do so. All the ads remind me of Netscape.com. Looks like it's going to fall of it's own weight.
Fred Bauder
|From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net |Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:34:37 -0600 | |At 07:19 PM 8/10/02 -0700, Stephen G. wrote: |>So, I was browsing in dmoz's open content encyclopedia |>section |>(http://dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/), |>and what did I see? The Fact Factory: |>http://the-fact-factory.com/ |> |>Someone has copied a fist-full of Wikipedia content |>and started his own "collaborative project to create a |>complete encyclopedia from scratch". This one is |>loaded with ads. It's been very poorly done; many of |>the edit links are broken and things like the |>Wikipedia FAQ have been left unchanged. |>
<snip>
| |Well for one thing the copy was made a few months ago and you can't edit |the pages, despite a link to do so. All the ads remind me of Netscape.com. |Looks like it's going to fall of it's own weight. | |Fred Bauder | |
I looked up Louis Armstrong, which I wrote much of in wikipedia, and found no article, but ads for ten different Louis Armstrong books, and ads for a bunch of other books. It seems to be an attempt to get people to go to Amazon. Makes me think twice about the proposal to make the wikipedia's ISBN links go to a bookstore, even though it is really not the same.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
At 01:27 AM 8/11/02 -0400, Tom Parmenter wrote:
I looked up Louis Armstrong, which I wrote much of in wikipedia, and found no article, but ads for ten different Louis Armstrong books, and ads for a bunch of other books. It seems to be an attempt to get people to go to Amazon. Makes me think twice about the proposal to make the wikipedia's ISBN links go to a bookstore, even though it is really not the same.
Making the ISBN links go to a book store search engine giving you comparative prices is very different from Amazon links which usually are quite a ways down the list if you search for comparative prices especially if you add shipping. I think Addall or ABE search links are pretty helpful since they can return enormous amounts of useful information. Amazon and BN live off book buyers ignorance.
Fred Bauder
|X-Sender: fredbaud@mail.ctelco.net |From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net |Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com |X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 |Precedence: bulk |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Help: mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=help |List-Post: mailto:wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Subscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=subscribe |List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com> |List-Unsubscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe |List-Archive: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ |Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:49:10 -0600 | |At 01:27 AM 8/11/02 -0400, Tom Parmenter wrote: |> |>I looked up Louis Armstrong, which I wrote much of in wikipedia, and |>found no article, but ads for ten different Louis Armstrong books, and |>ads for a bunch of other books. It seems to be an attempt to get |>people to go to Amazon. Makes me think twice about the proposal to |>make the wikipedia's ISBN links go to a bookstore, even though it is |>really not the same. | |Making the ISBN links go to a book store search engine giving you |comparative prices is very different from Amazon links which usually are |quite a ways down the list if you search for comparative prices especially |if you add shipping. I think Addall or ABE search links are pretty helpful |since they can return enormous amounts of useful information. Amazon and |BN live off book buyers ignorance. | |Fred Bauder
Well, maybe, but BN/Amazon are a well of information for Wikipedia writers too. I usually get my ISBN numbers there, check book titles, etc.
Tom P.
On 11-08-2002, Tom Parmenter wrote thusly :
|At 01:27 AM 8/11/02 -0400, Tom Parmenter wrote: |>I looked up Louis Armstrong, which I wrote much of in wikipedia, and |>found no article, but ads for ten different Louis Armstrong books, and |>ads for a bunch of other books. It seems to be an attempt to get |>people to go to Amazon. Makes me think twice about the proposal to |>make the wikipedia's ISBN links go to a bookstore, even though it is |>really not the same. |Making the ISBN links go to a book store search engine giving you |comparative prices is very different from Amazon links which usually are |quite a ways down the list if you search for comparative prices especially |if you add shipping. I think Addall or ABE search links are pretty helpful |since they can return enormous amounts of useful information. Amazon and |BN live off book buyers ignorance. Well, maybe, but BN/Amazon are a well of information for Wikipedia writers too. I usually get my ISBN numbers there, check book titles, etc.
Interestingly a site (e-zine?) called "Write away" for internet writers recommends "The Fact Factory" as "Great Free Online Encyclopedia" See for yourself: http://www.heislerink.com/cgi-bin/MaxWebPortal_V10
Regards, kpjas
Fred Bauder wrote:
Making the ISBN links go to a book store search engine giving you comparative prices is very different from Amazon links which usually are
I just learned that Amazon.com has some new web services stuff, that might be interesting. You can download their kit, and write your own applications on your own website. I haven't checked it out yet, but the info is on http://www.amazon.com/webservices
I guess they are not placing their reviews under GFDL, though... that would have been a great service! Is it OK to put book reviews in Wikipedia (on an Amazon scale)? Do we know how many book reviews are already in Wikipedia? Or should there be a separate wiki for this?
On 12-08-2002, Lars Aronsson wrote thusly :
Fred Bauder wrote:
Making the ISBN links go to a book store search engine giving you comparative prices is very different from Amazon links which usually are
I just learned that Amazon.com has some new web services stuff, that might be interesting. You can download their kit, and write your own applications on your own website. I haven't checked it out yet, but the info is on http://www.amazon.com/webservices I guess they are not placing their reviews under GFDL, though... that would have been a great service! Is it OK to put book reviews in Wikipedia (on an Amazon scale)? Do we know how many book reviews are already in Wikipedia? Or should there be a separate wiki for this?
I think a superb idea for a separate Wiki.
Regards, kpjas
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote:
Is it OK to put book reviews in Wikipedia (on an Amazon scale)? Do we know how many book reviews are already in Wikipedia? Or should there be a separate wiki for this?
I think a superb idea for a separate Wiki.
--- Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Making the ISBN links go to a book store search
engine giving you
comparative prices is very different from Amazon
links which usually are
I just learned that Amazon.com has some new web services stuff, that might be interesting. You can download their kit, and write your own applications on your own website. I haven't checked it out yet, but the info is on http://www.amazon.com/webservices
I guess they are not placing their reviews under GFDL, though... that would have been a great service! Is it OK to put book reviews in Wikipedia (on an Amazon scale)? Do we know how many book reviews are already in Wikipedia? Or should there be a separate wiki for this?
There is a fairly new wiki dedicated to books called BookShelved (http://bookshelved.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl). It sounds like just the place for book reviews.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
Lars Aronsson wrote:
I just learned that Amazon.com has some new web services stuff, that might be interesting. You can download their kit, and write your own applications on your own website. I haven't checked it out yet, but the info is on http://www.amazon.com/webservices
I guess they are not placing their reviews under GFDL, though... that would have been a great service! Is it OK to put book reviews in Wikipedia (on an Amazon scale)? Do we know how many book reviews are already in Wikipedia? Or should there be a separate wiki for this?
Of course copying Amazon's reviews would carry too much copyright violation risks.
Wikipedians have sporadically written about their favorite books, and that does represent some kind of book review even if it's called something else. Since we're not in the book selling business we can give equal treatment to old classics as to the latest best seller. It's been developping even better in the movies area. This all has been functioning quite well, so there's no need for changes.
Eclecticology
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
So, I was browsing in dmoz's open content encyclopedia section (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/), and what did I see? The Fact Factory: http://the-fact-factory.com/
Someone has copied a fist-full of Wikipedia content and started his own "collaborative project to create a complete encyclopedia from scratch". This one is loaded with ads. It's been very poorly done; many of the edit links are broken and things like the Wikipedia FAQ have been left unchanged.
"Today is Thursday, August 16, 2001, servertime (Pacific Standard Time)." Looks like this has been around for a while now...
Dreadful as it is, it's still a wiki; I've added a link back to www.wikipedia.com on the main page. RecentChanges shows no other edits in the last 90 days; I suspect it's quite moribund.
Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from doing this, so long as they comply with the GFDL. However,I'm not convinced that The Fact Factory is in compliance. It mentions on the front page that the content was originally from Wikipedia, "but has now taken on a life of its own". The article pages, however, do not mention the original sources of the articles.
In that particular regard, that's not much different than enciclopedia.us.es (which is quite active and doesn't run advertisements).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Brion VIBBER brion@pobox.com wrote:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
So, I was browsing in dmoz's open content
encyclopedia
section
(http://dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Encyclopedias/),
and what did I see? The Fact Factory: http://the-fact-factory.com/
Someone has copied a fist-full of Wikipedia
content
and started his own "collaborative project to
create a
complete encyclopedia from scratch". This one is loaded with ads. It's been very poorly done; many
of
the edit links are broken and things like the Wikipedia FAQ have been left unchanged.
"Today is Thursday, August 16, 2001, servertime (Pacific Standard Time)." Looks like this has been around for a while now...
Dreadful as it is, it's still a wiki; I've added a link back to www.wikipedia.com on the main page. RecentChanges shows no other edits in the last 90 days; I suspect it's quite moribund.
Another stupid thing is all of the user pages from that time have been copied as well. I edited my to say that I am not a contributor to the Fact Factory. Everybody else should check to see if they are listed as well.
Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from
doing
this, so long as they comply with the GFDL. However,I'm not convinced that The Fact Factory is
in
compliance. It mentions on the front page that the content was originally from Wikipedia, "but has
now
taken on a life of its own". The article pages, however, do not mention the original sources of
the
articles.
In that particular regard, that's not much different than enciclopedia.us.es (which is quite active and doesn't run advertisements).
It's my understanding the the Spanish project did not copy the whole Spanish database, but contributors who left Wikipedia took the content that they wrote and copied it over. I'm not totally sure, however.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
So, do we want to do anything about this? Looking at the site, I don't think it's going to do any harm, especially considering the shoddy feel of the place. I thought maybe Jimbo would want to contact the webmaster and ask him what his intentions are.
I noticed that major sections are missing so it is obviously a fork from way back.
I think it emphasizes that what makes Wikipedia work is the active community of contributors, not the database or the software. Since they are a clone that forked from Wikipedia, we know they had a somewhat viable starting point from the standpoint of working software and some initial data.
Perhaps we should take care to maintain and grow our community of contributors while we attempt to improve the software and database.
I must say that I found the dramatic improvement in Wikipedia since the fork date very encouraging!
regards, mirwin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org