Anthere wrote:
Do not resign :-) Just take it easy and slowly.
<snip>
But, there is no hurry, having all your issues solved in a month is *not* gonna happen. We are here for a long time anyway :-)
I'm an adherent of uniqueness, diversity and individuality, but the responses here seem to show that there is a status quo on "how a wiki should look and feel" that is maintained and all wikis are forced to conform to, for some reason (with the exception of the Esperanto wiki, and the french logo). I find that repressive and creatively discouraging.
Each wikis is, after all, an independent internet website. I find it really boring and dull that all the wikis look and feel the same. (I sometimes confuse between Wikipedia and Wiktionary because they look so similar).
A basic rule in marketing is to satisfy your audience. Since the audience of, for example, the Hebrew wiki, is not the audience of, say, the Polish wiki. I think each audience should have the right to choose how their website would look and work.
The argument that all wikis should be identical because there is a minority of bilingual pepole who work on more than two wikis is really weak. Here's a better argument: I will design the hebrew site so it will be very intuitive and will take almost no effort to learn how to use it, yes, it would be different but very easy to use.
Wikimedia's wiki sites have hundereds of thousands of different articles and encompass many different subjects and languages, why not let them develop their own unique look and character? There can be a universal Wikimedia logo that each wiki would be required to show, I have to say I would be /proud/ to put that logo on the Hebrew wiki.
Hoping I won't get flamed for this,
Rotem
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Rotem Dan wrote:
I'm an adherent of uniqueness, diversity and individuality, but the responses here seem to show that there is a status quo on "how a wiki should look and feel" that is maintained and all wikis are forced to conform to, for some reason (with the exception of the Esperanto wiki, and the french logo). I find that repressive and creatively discouraging.
I think much of the reason Wikis are so similar is that wiki syntax sets a limit on the design elements you can use - outside the border/skin stuff.
Wiki syntax is essential to the purity of the content. And the purity of the content is essential to most Wiki sites. Especially to Wikipedia, where we want the content to be ready to use in print, on PDAs, for blind people, etc.
I'm not saying you weren't aware of it. :) It's just that I think it's so important, it has to be mentioned every time someone starts talking about design for Wikipedia.
-- Daniel
"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" daniel@copyleft.no writes:
Wiki syntax is essential to the purity of the content. And the purity of the content is essential to most Wiki sites. Especially to Wikipedia, where we want the content to be ready to use in print, on PDAs, for blind people, etc.
If this is your agenda, SGML/XML would be the way to go. The so called wiki syntax without HTML extentions is to limited and worse, it is mostly layout oriented, and with HTML extentions it is the usual chaos.
Don't take me wrong, chaos isn't necessarily bad ;)
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" wrote:
Wiki syntax is essential to the purity of the content. And the purity of the content is essential to most Wiki sites. Especially to Wikipedia, where we want the content to be ready to use in print, on PDAs, for blind people, etc.
If this is your agenda, SGML/XML would be the way to go. The so called wiki syntax without HTML extentions is to limited and worse, it is mostly layout oriented, and with HTML extentions it is the usual chaos.
Don't take me wrong, chaos isn't necessarily bad ;)
I don't think we want to force every contributor to learn SGML or XML. Our list of Wikipedians would shrink rather dramatically.
For the record, someone from the Linux Documentation Project wrote a little utility to convert Wikipedia syntax to DocBook. He orginally wrote it to export wiki documents, but he found it also was much easier to write new documents in wiki syntax and convert them rather than starting with straight DocBook.
Stephen G.
Stephen Gilbert sgilbert@nbnet.nb.ca writes:
I don't think we want to force every contributor to learn SGML or XML. Our list of Wikipedians would shrink rather dramatically.
You cannot prove that claim. HTML is SGML and there are quite some HTML writers. Using SGML is easy. They can separate paragraphs by <p> and they are done. More advanced users can use more tags.
_Many_ editors isn't a good thing per se; we should rather go for _good_ editors.
He orginally wrote it to export wiki documents, but he found it also was much easier to write new documents in wiki syntax and convert them rather than starting with straight DocBook.
It isn't easier, but he is lazy ;) And he obviously enjoys using a cryptic markup language. Cf. my User page. Aditionally, you will never know whether wikipedia software accepts your HTML elements or not.
Lately we discussed fragment idetifiers and I was told they are supported; what must I write to make then work?
[[Garten#Geschichte]] does not seem to do the trick to point to something like <a name="Geschichte"> in the article "Garten".
If someone is seriously interested in uniformity, he should vote for SGML/XML; ignoring using a proper markup language is just a waste of human resources: without a DTD we are force to edit or adjust articles again and again.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Stephen Gilbert sgilbert=Ec9gIrrHw6csA/PxXw9srA@public.gmane.org writes:
I don't think we want to force every contributor to learn SGML or XML. Our list of Wikipedians would shrink rather dramatically.
You cannot prove that claim.
No, I can't, nor do I wish to try it and be proved right. :)
HTML is SGML and there are quite some HTML writers. Using SGML is easy. They can separate paragraphs by <p> and they are done. More advanced users can use more tags.
"Easy" and "difficult" are subjective. What happens when a beginner comes across an article written by an advanced user?
The main point is that it raises the bar for participation. Yu could no longer just drop by and make edits; you would first have to learn about the markup language before doing anything. As it stands, you don't have to know about the wiki syntax to do most things.
_Many_ editors isn't a good thing per se; we should rather go for _good_ editors.
Being able to use a markup language doesn't make you a good encyclopedia contributor. Being knowledgable about what you're writing is key.
He orginally wrote it to export wiki documents, but he found it also was much easier to write new documents in wiki syntax and convert them rather than starting with straight DocBook.
It isn't easier, but he is lazy ;) And he obviously enjoys using a cryptic markup language. Cf. my User page. Aditionally, you will never know whether wikipedia software accepts your HTML elements or not.
He finds it easier, and he doesn't find our wiki syntax cryptic. "Easy" and "difficult" are subjective.
In theory, wiki syntax may be "cryptic". In practice, people from varied backgrounds, many non-technical, find writing articles with it easy.
<snip>
If someone is seriously interested in uniformity, he should vote for SGML/XML; ignoring using a proper markup language is just a waste of human resources: without a DTD we are force to edit or adjust articles again and again.
I think that if Wikipedia ever puts out a "stable" version for distribution, the articles should be structured with XML. That's a job for dedicated editors with a good knowledge of document structure. Forcing it on the live wiki would, in my unproven opinion, by harmful.
- Stephen G.
Stephen Gilbert sgilbert@nbnet.nb.ca writes:
"Easy" and "difficult" are subjective.
:) Yes, you are right.
The main point is that it raises the bar for participation. Yu could no longer just drop by and make edits; you would first have to learn about the markup language before doing anything. As it stands, you don't have to know about the wiki syntax to do most things.
Perhaps. But people destroy lists all the time: adding innocent line break or new line and with a sudden you broke one list into two lists.
Or they write "See [[xxx]]" or "''See also:'' [[xxx]]", etc. Providing appropriate "tags" like "<seealso>" can help for better uniformity.
I think that if Wikipedia ever puts out a "stable" version for distribution, the articles should be structured with XML. That's a job for dedicated editors with a good knowledge of document structure. Forcing it on the live wiki would, in my unproven opinion, by harmful.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, I'd like to give it a try; I'm seriously interested in a Wiki using the TEI DTD as its markup language. Unfortunately, my resources (time, knowlegde in hacking) are too limited to such a project come true on my own.
Or they write "See [[xxx]]" or "''See also:'' [[xxx]]", etc. Providing appropriate "tags" like "<seealso>" can help for better uniformity.
But you will have to end that with an </seealso> tag, too, and that IS already far too difficult for most of the people I consider to be very interesting authors.
XML is *not* meant to be edited by tools, but not directly by humans unless when absolutely needed.
Please leave the section markup as simple as possible. Some naming rules (Always use ==Further Information==; ===See also===; ===Literature===, no matter how ugly it looks right now in our skins!) will fully do. Everyone can learn that easily, it's intuitive (<seealso></seealso> is not!), it's uniform and it can be easily handled automatically to produce true XML when needed.
Uli
Ulrich Fuchs mail@ulrich-fuchs.de writes:
But you will have to end that with an </seealso> tag, too,
No, not necessarily. I'm alway wirting SGML/XML, using SGML with minimization features enabled allows you to leave out end tags at many a lot locations.
and that IS already far too difficult for most of the people I consider to be very interesting authors.
I just think different. But wikipedia is that slow, all these things don't matter at all. In the afternoon it often takes minutes until my Watchlist we be displayed.
I like the idea of a shared logo. *However*, I don't see how we can expect the Hebrew wikipedia to adopt a logo that consists of English text, any more than the English wiki would adopt a logo in Hebrew.
And I like the current English logo _for an English encyclopedia_, which is the project I've been putting my energy into.
But I dreamed about editing Wikipedia last night, so maybe it's time I take a break.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
I like the idea of a shared logo. *However*, I don't see how we can expect the Hebrew wikipedia to adopt a logo that consists of English text, any more than the English wiki would adopt a logo in Hebrew.
well, yeah. that is a problem. We can either have each pedia translated the text, in which cae the logos are different but the same. Or we can have a language-neutral logo.
Rotem Dan wrote:
Each wikis is, after all, an independent internet website.
But whenever we talk about better links between them, people start saying "it's ONE encyclopedia in many languages!". Make up your mind!
The problem is that (YET AGAIN) people are focussing on STYLE OVER CONTENT. You do NOT make the he: pedia good by designing a flashy new logo & a new skin. You make it good by putting your nose to the grindstone and writing ARTICLES. It shouldn't matter what it looks like as long as it's clear and the content is good.
ONE skin, ONE logo, across all wikipedias, running the SAME SOFTWARE please. Let's present a unified front to the world, in many languages, instead of a hotch-potch patchwork of different colours and styles.
-- tarquin (and please pass on to the he: guys that their comments are welcome and indeeed requested on my current work on a new default skin)
tarquin wrote:
Rotem Dan wrote:
Each wikis is, after all, an independent internet website.
But whenever we talk about better links between them, people start saying "it's ONE encyclopedia in many languages!". Make up your mind!
The problem is that (YET AGAIN) people are focussing on STYLE OVER CONTENT. You do NOT make the he: pedia good by designing a flashy new logo & a new skin. You make it good by putting your nose to the grindstone and writing ARTICLES. It shouldn't matter what it looks like as long as it's clear and the content is good.
ONE skin, ONE logo, across all wikipedias, running the SAME SOFTWARE please. Let's present a unified front to the world, in many languages, instead of a hotch-potch patchwork of different colours and styles.
-- tarquin (and please pass on to the he: guys that their comments are welcome and indeeed requested on my current work on a new default skin)
Actually I am more focused in completing the articles about Mathematics and Set theory I'm currently working on. Taking care of style/logo/administration/embassy stuff is just something no one on the Hebrew wiki is doing, and as I said before, I am really not interested in these things so I thought I would quickly kill those last language transition bugs, tune the layout and help oragnizing the logo votes.
I was really surprised in the amount of opposition I got on the mailing lists for my request for permission to make simple, non-harmful modifications to he-pedia's layout (and I gave the exact details, see previous posts on Wikitech-l).
If you say it's complicated, then you probably know what you're talking about, to me it looks like changing a few HTML tags (all modifications I wanted to do can be overwritten quickly in an update from CVS). I am getting truely disgusted from talking about this any longer.
Rotem
Rotem-
Each wikis is, after all, an independent internet website.
Wrong. Each wiki is part of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia project and has to follow some rules and conventions that are largely identical for each of them. All wikis are based on a common codebase; changes to the individual codebase of a single wiki are not allowed for the reasons I have given on wikitech. Each and every Wikipedia is governed by Jimmy Wales of Bomis.com as "benevolent dictator".
If you want an "independent internet website", set up your own one. However, I doubt that the majority of the Hebrew users shares your feelings.
I find it really boring and dull that all the wikis look and feel the same.
In usability, "boring and dull" can be a good thing. It avoids unnecessary surprises. With 20 or so websites, having a different look and feel for each of them will be confusing and annoying. If you want better skins, make one. Every user can experiment with skins if they are tired of the default look.
A basic rule in marketing is to satisfy your audience. Since the audience of, for example, the Hebrew wiki, is not the audience of, say, the Polish wiki. I think each audience should have the right to choose how their website would look and work.
"Each audience" should have the right to participate in a vote to determine the default skin for the project as a whole. Once we have improved the standard skin to be somewhat nicer looking, all wikis should use it, including Esperanto. That's why it's called the "standard skin".
The argument that all wikis should be identical because there is a minority of bilingual pepole
Bilingual people are hardly a minority given how the international school system is set up. Almost anyone who had another language in school can understand it on a basic level, which is sufficient to do stuff like interlanguage link insertion. Furthermore, this is hardly the only argument you have already been given for not having a different look and feel for every Wikipedia.
Here's a better argument: I will design the hebrew site so it will be very intuitive and will take almost no effort to learn how to use it, yes, it would be different but very easy to use.
No. Here's what you can do: Design a skin that you and your readers like. It will then be a user preference for all wikis. If an international majority approves it, it can be made the international default.
What you most certainly WILL NOT do is make changes to the Hebrew wiki without these changes going through the standard Wikipedia code approval process. I have explained this before and I will not explain it again.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Every user can experiment with skins if they are tired of the default look.
I hope in the future we can have more skins, so users have more choice.
The argument that all wikis should be identical because there is a minority of bilingual pepole
Bilingual people are hardly a minority given how the international school system is set up.
Bilingual people are the glue that binds the different language pedias together! they are vital to the project!
-- tarquin
Erik Moeller wrote:
If you want an "independent internet website", set up your own one. However, I doubt that the majority of the Hebrew users shares your feelings.
I am sick of discussing this. But that was actually proposed, not by myself (by another user, because of lag and time zone problems, mostly).
Yes be surprised as I strongly support being a part of Wikimedia, I strongly support all articles to be released under GFDL, and written, hopefully from NPOV. I strongly encourage users of the Hebrew 'pedia to read and post on the mailing lists.
I do support having (some) uniform Logo for all languages, but I don't think that all wiki users feel good about Hobbes' quote. And by the way, I declared I will not vote for any specific logo.
From the Hebrew pedia's [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] page I wrote (translated from hebrew):
"These users should not be seen as any authority on this site, decisions that relate to policies, site-wide issues etc. are done democratically, with an emphasis on consensus from all users. Administrators will only engage in keeping the site from vandalism and deleting inappropriate content (such as gibberish articles, dictionary definitions, copyright infrigiments etc.)"
from http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9...
Please stop mischaracterizing my intentions every time I say something you don't agree with, and yes I do think different wikis should be allowed to have a unique personality.
Rotem
Rotem-
If you want an "independent internet website", set up your own one. However, I doubt that the majority of the Hebrew users shares your feelings.
I am sick of discussing this.
Then don't. I am quoting your own words above. Express yourself better if you do not want to be misunderstood.
Yes be surprised as I strongly support being a part of Wikimedia, I strongly support all articles to be released under GFDL, and written, hopefully from NPOV. I strongly encourage users of the Hebrew 'pedia to read and post on the mailing lists.
Having a common codebase is associated with being part of Wikimedia. You have still not acknowledged that simple rule, or even made clear that you understand why it is important.
Regards,
Erik
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Rotem Dan wrote:
I do support having (some) uniform Logo for all languages, but I don't think that all wiki users feel good about Hobbes' quote.
That's an issue that nl: has already taken up - nl: uses a very similar logo, but with a different text in it (to be exactly, a text from "Max Havelaar", probably the most influential work of Dutch literature).
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org