Everything else is too complex for authors anyway.
Clearly people want features in the software that the developers are too busy or unmotivated to implement. The barrier to becoming a Mediawiki developer is high, but the barrier to creating a conditional template is not. Authors/editors/endusers *don't need* to edit the complex templates; they need to edit the articles, which are becoming more and more daunting the more features are added to the syntax. If the intermediately-skilled programmers can make editing simpler and easier for the end users, isn't that a good thing?
Of course, the best solution would be to implement infoboxes and the like directly in the Mediawiki software, in a way that doesn't require end users to code anything. But until that happens, people are going to use as many shortcuts as they can to make it easy on newcomers.
What the **** is that? We don't need geek-features but a simple solution.
(warning: obscene code alert).
Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.
Do they unnecessarily load down the servers? Fine. Then they should be killed, for now. (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass about it.) Is the code obscene? Fine, but don't call it "obscene". These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or unwilling to do. Be nice.
Jon B wrote:
Everything else is too complex for authors anyway.
Clearly people want features in the software that the developers are too busy or unmotivated to implement. The barrier to becoming a Mediawiki developer is high, but the barrier to creating a conditional template is not. Authors/editors/endusers *don't need* to edit the complex templates; they need to edit the articles, which are becoming more and more daunting the more features are added to the syntax. If the intermediately-skilled programmers can make editing simpler and easier for the end users, isn't that a good thing?
Of course, the best solution would be to implement infoboxes and the like directly in the Mediawiki software, in a way that doesn't require end users to code anything. But until that happens, people are going to use as many shortcuts as they can to make it easy on newcomers.
Certainly the passion which some prople have for creating yet another template should be seriously controlled. Knowing which template to use under what circumstances can be intimidating to the newcomer. It can even be frustrating for long term users. People shoulkd be encouraged to replace templates with plain text whnever it works.
What the **** is that? We don't need geek-features but a simple solution.
(warning: obscene code alert).
Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.
Do they unnecessarily load down the servers? Fine. Then they should be killed, for now. (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass about it.) Is the code obscene? Fine, but don't call it "obscene". These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or unwilling to do. Be nice.
I agree. "Obscure" would be a much nicer term than "obscene"
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Moin,
On Monday 02 January 2006 20:55, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jon B wrote:
[snipalot]
Stop being so hostile to people trying to improve the Wikipedia.
Do they unnecessarily load down the servers? Fine. Then they should be killed, for now. (But don't call it "killing" and don't be an ass about it.) Is the code obscene? Fine, but don't call it "obscene". These people are just trying to help, in ways that you are unable or unwilling to do. Be nice.
I agree. "Obscure" would be a much nicer term than "obscene"
As a programmer, I have to disagree. This code can only be called obscene or worse things.
A frozen, glittering turd is still a turd, even though you use it for-whatever because you got nothing else handy.
(Read: This doesn't imply anything about the people using these templates except that instead of working towards a real solution they use (albeit clever, one must admit) hacks. Read whatever you want into that :-)
So, we either throw these templates out and replace them with something simpler something mere mortals can understand, or we risk a maintance nightmare. If the template system isn't sufficient enough to that now, that means:
* people overengeneer things, and/or do things that wikipedia isn't meant to provide (read: E.g. it is a Enceclopedia, not a programming language with a Web-IDE and embedded documentation system tacked on, nor a database where you can represent arbitrarily complex data structures) * OR, the software behind the scenes need to be improved to provide what people want
It is usualy a combination of the two, but by tackling stuff like the aforemention template code on top of the system you do not solve the underlying problem - instead, you create new issues like maintainance, security, stability etc).
The complexity of wikipedia is reaching enourmous levels and anyone unfamiliar with it will be quickly lost. I wouldn't even know which templates to use or even exist, less alone be able to find my self in a sea of recursive, conditional templates with a programming logic behind them.
So, I have to repeat myself:
* Wikipedia is an enceclopedia. It is not meant to be a database. * Mixing code and data is the number #1 of all-times No-Nos.
My 0.02€.
Happy new Year to all, btw,
Tels
- -- Signed on Mon Jan 2 21:22:18 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"I can imagine what you're thinking though: this girl keeps her brains in her backside! But actually only the more primitive parts of my brain are in my butt. The more interesting parts are kept in a PC - my spinal cord is actually an RS232 lead!" - Lucy, the OrangUtan Robot Girl http://tinyurl.com/3fv6z
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org