Sorry, Magnus, but your counter-proposal changes the runtime behavior of the system and is /far/ too complicated. Let's not shoot the golden goose here: Wikipedia works because it is SIMPLE. Article title space should be flat (whether or not we add typing conveniences).
Also, disambiguation isn't the problem we're trying to solve here. That can be done easily enough manually. There are already great disambiguating pages like "Java", and we should allow the software to do those automatically because we want human judgment and creativity to apply to making them.
The issue really is just one of typing convenience. When I write about Texas Hold'em strategy, I might say something like "A raise from late position on the flop will often cause an opponent to check to you on the turn, giving you the chance to check behind him and take a free card." In that sentence, I might want to link words like "raise", "position", "flop", "free card" and such, and typing "[[Raise (Poker}|raise]]" for every one of them is a pain. But I /want/ to do the right thing semantically and make sure that the link actually does go to the "Raise (Poker)" page, and not just to a disambiguating "Raise" page that will interrupt and confuse the reader.
Of course, when I /want/ links to be ambiguous to encourage "accidental" discovery, I can still do that too. In my "See also" lines, for example, I'll probably just link to simple titles, hoping that accidental links do interesting things. So there /will/ be an "Elves" page with pointers to other contexts, as well as "Elves (Tolkein)", or whatever. The author should have the choice, and the power. The software should support what theauthor wants to do, not enforce its ideas or structure upon the author. 0
I think I agree 100% with Lee Crocker. The "problem" is not disambiguation, which is a problem requiring human cognition, but "typing inconvenience".
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
There are already great disambiguating pages like "Java", and we should allow the software to do those automatically because we want human judgment and creativity to apply to making them.
I am almost certain that Lee meant to write: "...we should NOT allow the software to do those automatically"
--Jimbo
I must agree with that. We shouldn't add non-intuitive features to Wikipedia mark-up. In particular, I don't see any substancial difference between [[Elrond (Middle Earth)]] and [[Middle Earth/Elrond]] (The former looks more aesthetical to me, though), and if Wikipedia software itself does not recognize subpages, we shouldn't add subpage-like features.
Unlike most others encyclopedias, Wikipedia is about ease of editing too, and editing is made harder by the abiguity in the convert-links-once solution. What I like in the idea of aliases is the total control of the author over what he links to. This won't be possible if Wiki software is the thing that decides about the conversion.
Uri Yanover
----- Original Message ----- From: lcrocker@nupedia.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] yet another modest proposal to address subpage-like behavior
Sorry, Magnus, but your counter-proposal changes the runtime behavior of the system and is /far/ too complicated. Let's not shoot the golden goose here: Wikipedia works because it is SIMPLE. Article title space should be flat (whether or not we add typing conveniences).
Also, disambiguation isn't the problem we're trying to solve here. That can be done easily enough manually. There are already great disambiguating pages like "Java", and we should allow the software to do those automatically because we want human judgment and creativity to apply to making them.
The issue really is just one of typing convenience. When I write about Texas Hold'em strategy, I might say something like "A raise from late position on the flop will often cause an opponent to check to you on the turn, giving you the chance to check behind him and take a free card." In that sentence, I might want to link words like "raise", "position", "flop", "free card" and such, and typing "[[Raise (Poker}|raise]]" for every one of them is a pain. But I /want/ to do the right thing semantically and make sure that the link actually does go to the "Raise (Poker)" page, and not just to a disambiguating "Raise" page that will interrupt and confuse the reader.
Of course, when I /want/ links to be ambiguous to encourage "accidental" discovery, I can still do that too. In my "See also" lines, for example, I'll probably just link to simple titles, hoping that accidental links do interesting things. So there /will/ be an "Elves" page with pointers to other contexts, as well as "Elves (Tolkein)", or whatever. The author should have the choice, and the power. The software should support what theauthor wants to do, not enforce its ideas or structure upon the author. 0
I must agree with that. We shouldn't add non-intuitive features to Wikipedia mark-up. In particular, I don't see any substancial difference between [[Elrond (Middle Earth)]] and [[Middle Earth/Elrond]] (The former looks more aesthetical to me, though), and if Wikipedia software itself does not recognize subpages, we shouldn't add subpage-like features.
Unlike most others encyclopedias, Wikipedia is about ease of editing too, and editing is made harder by the abiguity in the convert-links-once solution. What I like in the idea of aliases is the total control of the author over what he links to. This won't be possible if Wiki software is the thing that decides about the conversion.
Uri Yanover
----- Original Message ----- From: lcrocker@nupedia.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] yet another modest proposal to address subpage-like behavior
Sorry, Magnus, but your counter-proposal changes the runtime behavior of the system and is /far/ too complicated. Let's not shoot the golden goose here: Wikipedia works because it is SIMPLE. Article title space should be flat (whether or not we add typing conveniences).
Also, disambiguation isn't the problem we're trying to solve here. That can be done easily enough manually. There are already great disambiguating pages like "Java", and we should allow the software to do those automatically because we want human judgment and creativity to apply to making them.
The issue really is just one of typing convenience. When I write about Texas Hold'em strategy, I might say something like "A raise from late position on the flop will often cause an opponent to check to you on the turn, giving you the chance to check behind him and take a free card." In that sentence, I might want to link words like "raise", "position", "flop", "free card" and such, and typing "[[Raise (Poker}|raise]]" for every one of them is a pain. But I /want/ to do the right thing semantically and make sure that the link actually does go to the "Raise (Poker)" page, and not just to a disambiguating "Raise" page that will interrupt and confuse the reader.
Of course, when I /want/ links to be ambiguous to encourage "accidental" discovery, I can still do that too. In my "See also" lines, for example, I'll probably just link to simple titles, hoping that accidental links do interesting things. So there /will/ be an "Elves" page with pointers to other contexts, as well as "Elves (Tolkein)", or whatever. The author should have the choice, and the power. The software should support what theauthor wants to do, not enforce its ideas or structure upon the author. 0
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org