On 11/4/05, wikitech-l-request@wikimedia.org wikitech-l-request@wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to wikitech-l@wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikitech-l-request@wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikitech-l-owner@wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again (Ray Saintonge)
- still active: www.tocatch.info (?? ???)
- Re: rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads) (Rowan Collins)
- Re: rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads) (Rowan Collins)
- Re: Edit bailouts (Tim Starling)
- Re: Fwd:Shock site bot (Brian)
- Re: Re: LiquidThreads (David Reynolds)
- Re: still active: www.tocatch.info (Brion Vibber)
- Re: Re: Edit bailouts (Angela)
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:05:15 -0800 From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 436A6D7B.4010609@telus.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
David Gerard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
I still prefer a 0-10 range of ratings. I think a decimal normalization would be easier to work with in any subsequent analysis of results.
One can set the range for each topic individually.
Mmm. See discussion at [[m:En validation topics]] and its archive - too many choices of rating is probably a bad thing, because it's hard to agree what a given value means. The test plan so far includes probably far more variables than we'd want in any case ...
The only variable is the individual subjective valuation of the article. The number of points in the range are not different variables, but different values for the same variable. To a large extent the size of the range is arbitrary because one range can be changed to another by a simple multiplication with a constant. What's the difference between a value of 3 on a 1-5 scale and a value of 5 on a 0-10 range?
Since the value which an individual gives to an article is essentially subjective there is no reliable way to define the ratings that can be given. Statistical results tend to be self-normalizing.
Ec
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:08:45 +0900 (JST) From: ?? ??? wikiwatcher@yahoo.co.jp Subject: [Wikitech-l] still active: www.tocatch.info To: wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 20051103070845.15521.qmail@web3108.mail.bbt.yahoo.co.jp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Hello again,
I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info" is still active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a live mirror (proxy).
Please, if this is the wrong place to report this, where can I report it?
On Sunday 30 October 2005 17:00, 田中 万太郎 wrote:
Hello
a www.tocatch.info appears to be mirroring various Wikipedias live, examples:
http://www.tocatch.info/en/Special:Recentchanges.htm (ENGLISH) http://www.tocatch.info/ja/Special:Recentchanges.htm (JAPANESE)
Thankyou
TANAKA
Yahoo! Mail - supported by 10million people http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/10m/
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:23:13 +0000 From: Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads) To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 9f02ca4c0511031523x1ba42fcev@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
te:On 03/11/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Mindspillage wrote:
On 11/2/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
Might I suggest an additional feature for mediawiki? How about [{here}] which becomes a difflink to the edit where that tag was inserted? People could add that to their signatures and thus every post of their would be equipped to a handy difflink to an original version.
I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link , actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't add more to the standard sig.
Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is going to be while it's saving?)
I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
- and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL for the autoincrement field to autoincrement.
But having spent ages looking at that, I remember that we have functions for doing diffs based on "next revision after this". So, it's not pretty, but presumably a pre save transform (e.g. a signature) could embed a link to a diff between the revision *before* itself and "whatever revision comes next" - which in all but the oddest cases will be the revision you're in the middle of saving... So, sort of like "/index.php?oldid=$lastrevision&direction=next" where $lastrevision is the latest revision actually *saved* of that page.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:36:42 +0000 From: Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads) To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 9f02ca4c0511031536h3601a1e5x@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 03/11/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/3/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared after every comment.
Hm, I admit I hadn't thought of that...
I agree that difflinks are long an ugly. Perhaps it's come time for a special difflink syntax which is nice and compact?
Well, they could be made pretty compact just using templates (or, more sanely, a built-in "variable"). It seems you need the article name when using relative diffs (see my previous message), so a template "nextdiff" of the form:
[{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|diff=next|oldid={{{1}}}}} {{{2}}}]
(first parameter is the pre-change revision, the second the text to display as the link) could appear in the wikisource as:
{{nextdiff|21221469|Diff}}
Make this an inbuilt variable for portability and performance, and combine it with the idea someone mentionned of linking the date in the signature (or part of it?) and it ought not to be too intrusive, I think.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
Message: 5 Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:37:20 +1100 From: Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au Subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts To: wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: dkeafq$mi9$1@sea.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Evan Prodromou wrote:
I guess there's not an easy way to find out how many people are bailing out of edits that they really want to make... except maybe to ask them. Perhaps a pop-up poll for folks who navigate away from an edit page in some way besides saving? Kind of intrusive but it might have interesting results.
You could tell the difference between red link clicks and edit tab clicks by checking the referrer, or by adding an extra parameter to the URL. Detecting when the user starts typing with javascript could be another measure, although some might consider that sort of thing to be an invasion of privacy. It would certainly be an invasion of privacy to send text from the edit box to the server before the user clicks "save", unless they are warned in advance.
-- Tim Starling
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:18:33 -0500 From: Brian brian0918@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd:Shock site bot To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Cc: brett.gustafson@gmail.com, Wikitech-L wikitech-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 43699DA9.1040205@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I do know of one anon that has refused to start an account and has contributed extensively to evolution/species-related articles. He has turned his user page into a detailed watchlist (linked below; each of those dots is a watched page). He also appears to grasp policy and guidelines more than most Wikipedians. Check out an old copyedit of his: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913&diff...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:68.81.231.127
Several people have pleaded on his talk page for him to start an account.
SJ wrote:
Forwarded from Wikien-l.
I wonder if it would be useful to have an index of external URLs that supports throttling of the # of times per day a given base URL can be added to WP sites...
SJ
PS - this is my favorite part -- "I'm a regular wikipedia user although i don't have an account here" I wonder how many people consider themselves 'regular uers' -- and how many of those actually read user and policy pages...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brett Gustafson brett.gustafson@gmail.com Date: Nov 2, 2005 7:22 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
I recently recieved this message from a user: "I'm a regular wikipedia user although i don't have an account here. I think this site is great and it really helps me with my college work. But I recently heard of these people that were talking about wikipedia that they were all programming a hack for it. So after a little while I found it was a spider to hunt down all the pages links and change them to shocks site links or something along those lines. I didn't know who to tell so I just thought I'd tell an administrator as they might know who to tell or what to do. Just giving an advanced warning so you might be able to do something to protect this wonderful resourse. Apparently they permenantly change their ip address using some thing (a bit beyond me). Something like that. I just didn't know what to do. I hope I didn't embaress myself here. Thanks for your time."
Brett _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ++SJ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:21:06 -0600 From: David Reynolds naeblis@kc.rr.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: LiquidThreads To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 436AA972.6080100@kc.rr.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Ivan Krstic wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Secondarily I want to be able to fix spellings, in the faint hope that it will help some people learn better spelling. Again, the only people who would object to this would be people who can't spell and are therefore unsuitable for writing an encyclopedia anyway.
Totally broken reasoning.
I've heard many reasons for maliciously changing an article. Yet articles on Wikipedia tend to get better. Interesting, innit?
That's an irrelevant non-answer to Ryan's question.
No, the purpose of this was to test your reaction. You fell right for it exactly the way I expected: you picked up only on the emotional side of the paragraph (taking it as an insult)
Do you understand how conceited this makes you sound?
And this highlights what I mean: you (and many other people) only object to being able to edit comments because it somehow "feels" wrong. You can't really say why it *is* wrong.
You need to relax, and start spending less time writing borderline-offensive e-mail to people who are trying to reason constructively, and more time thinking about what they're saying. I can tell you exactly why it *is* wrong: comments are not Wikipedia articles, even if you seem to be constantly confounding the two.
A Wikipedia article isn't signed by a single person's name. It doesn't represent the views of an individual, but tries to become an objective reflection of its topic. As Brion puts it, a wiki is a place where you let wackos edit your site, and with luck, the good wackos outnumber the bad. The iterative editing process is a good way to ensure eventual NPOV conformance.
Comments are absolutely different. They are written and signed by a single person, represent only that person's views, have no requirement of adherence to a NPOV, and that means that essentially none of the reasons that Wikipedia articles are editable by everyone apply to them. If allowing comment cross-editing was in any way beneficial, the popular web-based discussion forums with tens of millions of posts would have, without a doubt, adopted such a model quite a while ago. There's a reason they haven't done it.
I am not interested in continuing this discussion further, so please refrain from writing a snide reply that questions my intelligence so as to "test my reaction".
Agreed. This discussion has degenerated, on Timwi's side at least, to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Why do you persist in saying that opinions on talk pages have the same ownership/POV claims as articles in mainspace?
David, new but dismayed
Message: 8 Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:09:32 -0800 From: Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] still active: www.tocatch.info To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 436AB4CC.1020004@pobox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
田中 万太郎 wrote:
Hello again,
I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info" is still active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a live mirror (proxy).
Killed it.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org