[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't appear on <intlwiki-l>. Or perhapse it was posted separately; I'm not sure.]
Gareth Owen wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Okay. Most of the time a portal is defined as a site which is a convergence of various entities. A Web site being useful like starting point, a door open to a world of information.
But usually, in my experience, web portals are a link to external content. This is explicitly listed among the many things that wikipedia is not. Wikipedia's definition of "Web portal" is different again.
Fine, so your experience with portals differs from Anthere's. The fact remains that what Anthere is proposing is a link to several *related* entities: the individual Wikipedias.
(by providing little services, such as emails accounts, news, weather...).
As I understand if, this is orthogonal to wikipedia's aims.
Wikipedia does sort of provide news, in the form of background stories, hence Anthere's proposal to place current events links on the portal. (There has also been past discussion of providing email accounts.)
http://www.agriculture.com/worldwide/index.html
- Just provides a dozen of digested hit news from Reuters.
- links to different partners sites (all ag sites from all over the world)
- and somewhere hidden behind, some more stuff to try to keep people up a
little bit longuer
i.e. Almost no original content. Again, orthogonal to wikipedia's aims.
I don't see how it's a betrayal of Wikipedia's aims to have <www.wikipedia.com> provide no original content if it provides links to all of the <**.wikipedia.com>s that do.
- quick information (characteristics of the project, number of "partners",
when each started, maybe the number of articles we are currently having in the base...)
This bears no resemblance to any of the definitions/examples given above. What that is, is a front page.
This is information about the pages that it links to, which fits in with what Anthere said above.
But who cares if Anthere's proposal is for a bona fide portal or not? Let's consider the proposal itself.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Gareth Owen wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Okay. Most of the time a portal is defined as a
site which is a convergence
of various entities. A Web site being useful like
starting point, a door
open to a world of information.
But usually, in my experience, web portals are a
link to external content.
This is explicitly listed among the many things
that wikipedia is not.
Wikipedia's definition of "Web portal" is different
again.
Fine, so your experience with portals differs from Anthere's. The fact remains that what Anthere is proposing is a link to several *related* entities: the individual Wikipedias.
(by providing little services, such as emails
accounts, news, weather...).
As I understand if, this is orthogonal to
wikipedia's aims.
Wikipedia does sort of provide news, in the form of background stories, hence Anthere's proposal to place current events links on the portal. (There has also been past discussion of providing email accounts.)
http://www.agriculture.com/worldwide/index.html
- Just provides a dozen of digested hit news from
Reuters.
- links to different partners sites (all ag sites
from all over the world)
- and somewhere hidden behind, some more stuff to
try to keep people up a
little bit longuer
i.e. Almost no original content. Again, orthogonal
to wikipedia's aims.
I don't see how it's a betrayal of Wikipedia's aims to have <www.wikipedia.com> provide no original content if it provides links to all of the <**.wikipedia.com>s that do.
- quick information (characteristics of the
project, number of "partners",
when each started, maybe the number of articles we
are currently having in
the base...)
This bears no resemblance to any of the
definitions/examples given above.
What that is, is a front page.
This is information about the pages that it links to, which fits in with what Anthere said above.
But who cares if Anthere's proposal is for a bona fide portal or not? Let's consider the proposal itself.
Thanks Toby.
I did not propose that "portal" page in the first place. I merely proposed to improve/enrich its contents, in case this one should be the final choice. There is no point in defending my proposition for it is clear the mother proposition (www.wikipedia.org) is *not acceptable* to some wikipedians (a minority ;-). The use of fallacious arguments against what I proposed (eg "portal" word) or diversions, is just a way to express rejection of the mother proposition. And indeed, defense, (such as systematic criticism instead of voicing constructive options) is probably the best choice in this case, since what is desired is what is already in place (ie en.wikipedia.org being the central place for the wikipedia project).
I think wikipedia gain from open exchange and flying ideas, rather than use of destructive techniques to break discussion; but, that's probably too classical a technique not be used here :-) See, that works :-))
So, let's drop the matter for now. Some steps were climbed anyway.
Amha, a neutral article is not one where minorities point of view is made proeminent. It is not necessary an article where their point of view is presented as the "right" one for the benefit of "correctness". It is an article where minorities point of view is reported. No ? Yes ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org