An'n 04.09.2010 12:04, hett Happy-melon schreven:
I think that's pretty much the crux of it. You
have been trying to opine
that X is more important than Z, and not, in the general opinion,
succeeding. You certainly make the case that X is important, we generally
all agree on that. Numerous people have explained why various Z, which you
have tried to portray as less important, are in fact either vital for the
Foundation's continued operation, or more closely aligned with the
Foundation's goals and will achieve more for the amount of time and money
which must be spent on them. Ultimately, you haven't provided any concrete
argument why X is *relatively* more important than Y or Z. You won't
achieve that by talking up the merits of X and talking down the merits of Z,
that's not a *relative* comparison. Why is CentralInterwiki more important
*than*, say, LiquidThreads?? I'm not convinced that that's a question which
can be sensibly debated, in either direction; and without it, this thread
isn't really going anywhere interesting.
LiquidThreads:
* what problems need to be solved?
- fixing some dozen bugs
- convincing hundreds of communities and hundred thousands of users that
their current form of communication is inefficient (which will be very
hard, wiki editing sometimes can be hard for newbies, but it's not
"broken" in any way)
* benefits:
- watchable discussion threads
- removing the need to know wiki syntax like signatures or headings to
participate in discussion
- more intuitive handling for people accustomed to forums
Central Datawiki:
* what problems need to be solved?
- review Nikola's existing code
- create a new wiki to host the data and set it up as a transclusion
repository
* benefits:
- articles with basic information on millions of topics like places,
administrative entities, mountains, lakes, rivers, species, stars, etc.
pp. immediately available on any wiki that localizes the datawiki
templates (there are translators for almost all our language versions
registered at translatewiki)
- instead of having to maintain and update data on 280 different
projects you just have to maintain/update the data in one single place
Central interwiki repository:
* what problems need to be solved?
- review Nikola's existing code
- create a new wiki to host the data and set it up as a transclusion
repository
* benefits:
- no more history cluttering by bot edits on smaller projects
- no more need for interwiki bots on the single projects
- no more need for manual interwiki additions (which sum up to several
manhours every day)
- effective way of solving complex interwiki conflicts (at the moment
you need a bot and hours of time to solve a interwiki conflict that
spreads over many wikis and the conflict can return if just one
problematic interwiki link is inserted in any of the wikis)
From the point of view of a person living in California and speaking
English, Wikipedia works fine. All the important topics are covered by
the English Wikipedia and saving 0.3 seconds by improved resource
loading seems a relevant problem. But a Buryat student (Buryat Wikipedia
having 94 articles) would be very willing to wait 20 seconds or more for
a page to load if only there was content he could load. With Datawiki we
could reach out to all the small languages and give them access to a
vast amount of information they don't have access to at the moment.
If the Buryat student wonders how many people live in Ulan-Ude he
hopefully has had lectures in Russian and was an attentive pupil.
Otherwise he won't get the information. With Datawiki he can look up the
information easily and in his native language.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox