In the long run, philosophically, I think you're right. In the short run, we should focus on usability and minimizing seek time -- an area where the site is already weak.
If we're going to force people through a portal, it should be clear how to use it and should load instantly, not in 15 seconds.
+sj+
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:14:46 +0100, Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
S> I singled out the en: wikipedia because anyone using URL shortcuts, or S> posting links to "wikipedia.org" and expecting them to get to the en: S> main page, would have -- until last week -- intended to direct readers S> to en.
And that's why I think they should *not* be redirected automatically. This portal makes people more aware of the existance of other language Wikipedias.
-- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org
Note that, as several people have pointed out but seems to have been lost in the noise: this only affects the main page.
Accesses to www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo are redirected to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo so that existing article links still work. (I just tested this: it does work).
I believe that this is something long past due. While the English wikipedia is still the largest, a number of other languages have reached the point where they are substantial, useable encyclopedias. It is only right that the project's main page be an index of the available Wikipedias.
-Matt
Sj (2.718281828@gmail.com) [050111 05:47]:
In the long run, philosophically, I think you're right. In the short run, we should focus on usability and minimizing seek time -- an area where the site is already weak. If we're going to force people through a portal, it should be clear how to use it and should load instantly, not in 15 seconds.
The load time is problematic, but I think 'how to use it' is pretty damned obvious.
A quick question: does *anyone* whose usual wikipedia is *not* en: like the idea of www redirecting to en?
- d.
I've just given you all more to argue about ;-) at http://www.wikipedia.org
But ''please'' read the Talk page before clicking that "edit" button: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk: Www.wikipedia.org_portal#To_boldly_go_where_one.27s_been_reverted_before .3F
Please don't kill me.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
I would like to object to being called a "nationalist hatemonger" by Brion Vibber: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
Brion also accused me of "nationalist vandalism" and threatened to block me from editing Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
I'm hurt.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 11 Jan 2005, at 03:57, Jens Ropers wrote:
I've just given you all more to argue about ;-) at http://www.wikipedia.org
But ''please'' read the Talk page before clicking that "edit" button: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk: Www.wikipedia.org_portal#To_boldly_go_where_one.27s_been_reverted_befor e.3F
Please don't kill me.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 11 Jan 2005, at 18:47, Jens Ropers wrote:
I would like to object to being called a "nationalist hatemonger" by Brion Vibber: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
Brion also accused me of "nationalist vandalism" and threatened to block me from editing Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
That was supposed to be http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk: Www.wikipedia.org_portal#To_boldly_go_where_one.27s_been_reverted_before .3F
I'm hurt.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 11 Jan 2005, at 03:57, Jens Ropers wrote:
I've just given you all more to argue about ;-) at http://www.wikipedia.org
But ''please'' read the Talk page before clicking that "edit" button: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk: Www.wikipedia.org_portal#To_boldly_go_where_one.27s_been_reverted_befo re.3F
Please don't kill me.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
I would like to object to being called a "nationalist hatemonger" by Brion Vibber: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
Brion also accused me of "nationalist vandalism" and threatened to
block me from editing Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
I'm hurt.
Get therapy.
As far as Brion goes, maybe it wasn't nice, and maybe for him it was (other words come to mind that would have been much more offensive) but you should cut him enough slack to start a slack wholesale company because of the amount of work he's been putting getting mediawiki working.
I also think you just might deserve it. I'm not judging either way. All I know is that your pissed Brion off, you had to be doing something.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Jens Ropers wrote:
I would like to object to being called a "nationalist hatemonger" by Brion Vibber: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
Brion also accused me of "nationalist vandalism" and threatened to block me from editing Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
This is wholly inappropriate on Brion's part. There is a *lengthy* discussion on the talk page over using or not using flags, which is largely reasonable on both sides, and there was no indication on Jens's part that he was adamant about including the flags, or would revert their removal, merely that he thought their inclusion made for a better page than not including them. Brion did not participate in this discussion, and merely came by later calling people names and threatening to abuse his server admin access to block them.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
This is wholly inappropriate on Brion's part.
I did not say it wasn't.
You handle mediawiki 1.5 then, right?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
This is wholly inappropriate on Brion's part.
While his use of language and threat was regrettable, the revert was justified due to the very large amount of opposition to using flags.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Jan 11, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Delirium wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
I would like to object to being called a "nationalist hatemonger" by Brion Vibber: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
Brion also accused me of "nationalist vandalism" and threatened to block me from editing Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=Www.wikipedia.org_portal&diff=88985&oldid=88979
This is wholly inappropriate on Brion's part. There is a *lengthy* discussion on the talk page over using or not using flags, which is largely reasonable on both sides, and there was no indication on Jens's part that he was adamant about including the flags, or would revert their removal, merely that he thought their inclusion made for a better page than not including them. Brion did not participate in this discussion, and merely came by later calling people names and threatening to abuse his server admin access to block them.
As you're aware, I'm a big jerk. However I didn't threaten to abuse my server admin access to block him; if I were going to, I'd have no need to call him names.
I do though predict that the sort of people who do the blocking thing will end up blocking him eventually if he continues to abuse the open editing system on the portal by returning them again after they were correctly removed (again).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
I do though predict that the sort of people who do the blocking thing will end up blocking him eventually if he continues to abuse the open editing system on the portal by returning them again after they were correctly removed (again).
He added flags once, they were removed, he reworked it and added them again, posting a discussion of the changes and the reasons he thinks the new version is better on the talk page. Isn't this how wikipedia editing is supposed to work?
After the first time he added them, three people commented they disliked flags entirely, two people seemed (one facetiously?) to support the idea of an animated gif scrolling through the flags of countries for each language, and one person (Jens) supported the flags as-is. After the reworking, one person called his edits "nationalist hatemongering" and reverted, one person said they were offended by the use of the Union Jack to represent English, and one person said they applaud his changes but consider them not terribly practical.
-Mark
It sounds good to me, and I spend most of my time on the English Wikipedia.
Josh Gerdes (en:User:JoshG)
David Gerard wrote:
Sj (2.718281828@gmail.com) [050111 05:47]:
In the long run, philosophically, I think you're right. In the short run, we should focus on usability and minimizing seek time -- an area where the site is already weak. If we're going to force people through a portal, it should be clear how to use it and should load instantly, not in 15 seconds.
The load time is problematic, but I think 'how to use it' is pretty damned obvious.
A quick question: does *anyone* whose usual wikipedia is *not* en: like the idea of www redirecting to en?
- d.
Sj wrote:
If we're going to force people through a portal, it should be clear how to use it and should load instantly, not in 15 seconds.
I've added some cache control headers, now it should be served from the squid with a cache expiry time of one hour, no automatic purging. So changes will take up to an hour to show up, but it should be fast to load.
-- Tim Starling
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org