-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/2008, Mohamed Magdy wrote: I think most people create links as they go along, using their judgement as to which links would be helpful and which would not (i.e. which concepts might need further explanation). If you can write an article (decide what information is important and how much explanation to give), you should be able to choose the links as you write. They are the same skill. The suggestor would not be intelligent and couldn't judge which links are related and which would be appropriate to suggest. I see no advantage over just going through the article and placing double square brackets around particular concepts, words and phrases. - -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/2008, Oldak Quill wrote: To clarify: in this last paragraph, when I use the word "suggestor" (as in, "suggestor would not be intelligent"), I meant the tool--as the suggestor--would not be intelligent (as it is a non-intelligent MediaWiki extension). I did not mean the poster of this idea (who, on it being pointed out, could be interpreted as "the suggestor"). -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

2008/2/24, Ben <chuwiey(a)gmail.com>om>: One that I have been thinking of is basing the suggestions on existing links - if you go through Wikipedia, almost all pages on which the word 'Einstein' occurs will also have this word as a link (or part of a link). Thus, if "Einstein" or "Albert Einstein" occurs on a page without links, it's likely to be a term that is useful to link. On the other hand, the word "never" will occur unlinked on many pages, so it is not a good word to suggest as a link either. I haven't tried it out, but it does have the advantage of working for redlinks, disambiguation etcetera as well. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

On 2/24/08, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most "people" or most "skilled editors"? Sure, those of us who have spent hundreds of hours know what we're doing, but the average editor, and particularly the average beginner would really benefit from some help. I suspect there are some good heuristics which could make good guesses. You could start with rare words and phrases, then look at the frequency of a certain word within "similar articles" etc. Don't interpret the existence of a tool as somehow preventing the user doing something. Of course you "should be able to choose the links as you write'. Wouldn't be? Couldn't be? Really? I see lots. It would be much faster, for a start. It would be one less task to have to worry about. I would love to be able to quickly whip up a stub, see a proposed list of links, then be able to click OK or finetune them. The less cognitive load required to edit, the better for everyone. Steve

Ben wrote: There was such a tool at the toolserver, mostly for fun, because it linked almost every word and thus was useless. Magnus, was it yours? I thought so but it isn't on your tool list.