Hello
I asked sometime ago about the possibilities to add some Thread functionality to the discussion pages and I was pointed out that there exists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiquidThreads.
However it seems to me not a very vivid project. Are there any other plans to add such a functionality?
Thanks
Uwe Brauer
Uwe Brauer wrote:
Hello
I asked sometime ago about the possibilities to add some Thread functionality to the discussion pages and I was pointed out that there exists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiquidThreads.
However it seems to me not a very vivid project. Are there any other plans to add such a functionality?
There's a submission to implement this during Google's Summer of Code.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Uwe Brauer wrote:
Hello
I asked sometime ago about the possibilities to add some Thread functionality to the discussion pages and I was pointed out that there exists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiquidThreads.
However it seems to me not a very vivid project. Are there any other plans to add such a functionality?
There's a submission to implement this during Google's Summer of Code.
Good to hear! Do you already have a mentor for it as well?
I just saw that Tax Almanac, a MediaWiki customized by Intuit software, has a very interesting integrated discussion system:
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion_Forum_Index
It uses normal wiki pages in the "Discussion:" namespace to store the threads, and stores the comments themselves as parametrized templates within these pages. But the user interface looks like any ordinary bulletin board.
I don't see any links to source code and don't expect that it is available. Has someone talked to them about whether they'd be willling to open source it already?
Erik
Erik Moeller-3 wrote:
I just saw that Tax Almanac, a MediaWiki customized by Intuit software, has a very interesting integrated discussion system:
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion_Forum_Index
It uses normal wiki pages in the "Discussion:" namespace to store the threads, and stores the comments themselves as parametrized templates within these pages. But the user interface looks like any ordinary bulletin board.
I don't see any links to source code and don't expect that it is available. Has someone talked to them about whether they'd be willing to open source it already?
That looks very interesting, and kind of similar to an idea I had myself. I haven't seen the interface yet because I didn't bother creating an account and whilst IPs can view source on locked pages, they can't edit unlocked pages (which is an interesting way round to have it :-).
They seem to be using an extension to provide the "most recent discussions" view, sourced from a particular namespace JOINed with a given category.
I was wondering whether it would be possible to arrange that a given namespace could be set up to work like this from the ground up, rather than spatchcocking it into existing pages...I have no idea, for example, how they manage to prevent ordinary wikicode from messing up their nice orderly conversations.
On May 5, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
Erik Moeller-3 wrote:
I just saw that Tax Almanac, a MediaWiki customized by Intuit software, has a very interesting integrated discussion system:
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion_Forum_Index
It uses normal wiki pages in the "Discussion:" namespace to store the threads, and stores the comments themselves as parametrized templates within these pages. But the user interface looks like any ordinary bulletin board.
I don't see any links to source code and don't expect that it is available. Has someone talked to them about whether they'd be willing to open source it already?
That looks very interesting, and kind of similar to an idea I had myself. I haven't seen the interface yet because I didn't bother creating an account and whilst IPs can view source on locked pages, they can't edit unlocked pages (which is an interesting way round to have it :-).
They seem to be using an extension to provide the "most recent discussions" view, sourced from a particular namespace JOINed with a given category.
I was wondering whether it would be possible to arrange that a given namespace could be set up to work like this from the ground up, rather than spatchcocking it into existing pages...I have no idea, for example, how they manage to prevent ordinary wikicode from messing up their nice orderly conversations.
I contacted the person who developed that system, may be able to get the source code and start working on it; perhaps I can even get him involved in this list! (-;
"Phil Boswell" wrote:
That looks very interesting, and kind of similar to an idea I had myself. I haven't seen the interface yet because I didn't bother creating an account and whilst IPs can view source on locked pages, they can't edit unlocked pages (which is an interesting way round to have it :-).
Yes, the same was to me. So i used the &action=raw instead of action=edit. It doesn't seem to send proper Conetn-Type but downloading is ok too.
They use special extensions Special:Newthread (not listed at specialpages) and probably the edit form is tweaked too.
They format it through several templates:
{{ForumThreadHeading|title|title}} {{ForumNewPost|UserID=Foo|Date=29 February 2006|Text= .......}} {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Joe|Date=30 February 2006|Text=....}}
They seem to be using an extension to provide the "most recent discussions" view, sourced from a particular namespace JOINed with a given category.
Yes: <recentpages> namespace=Discussion |category=User_Introductions |limit=50 |template=DiscussionsOnIndex |top=sticky </recentpages>
I was wondering whether it would be possible to arrange that a given namespace could be set up to work like this from the ground up, rather than spatchcocking it into existing pages...
Sure.
I have no idea, for example, how they manage to prevent ordinary wikicode from messing up their nice orderly conversations. -- Phil
I guess they do it with the templates. Don't know wat would happen if we started writeng there invalid wiki syntax and closing the template mark. ;)
Erik Moeller wrote:
I just saw that Tax Almanac, a MediaWiki customized by Intuit software, has a very interesting integrated discussion system:
http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion_Forum_Index
It uses normal wiki pages in the "Discussion:" namespace to store the threads, and stores the comments themselves as parametrized templates within these pages. But the user interface looks like any ordinary bulletin board.
That is indeed interesting; however from a software engineering point of view it is extremely hacky and probably hard to maintain. I strongly recommend against using this in official MediaWiki.
Timwi
Hi, Uwe. I've been working on a consensus building tool for this purpose, but if you're just looking for something that will thread conversations it's probably a bit too industrial for your tastes. The primary problem with threaded message bases is that they encourage completely off-topic conversations under the assumption that people can readily ignore the bits that aren't to their interest. This assumption is somewhat falacious because the end result is a convoluted conversation structure where finding the on-topic threads becomes increasingly difficult, and important points get burried pretty quickly.
On 5/4/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
Hello
I asked sometime ago about the possibilities to add some Thread functionality to the discussion pages and I was pointed out that there exists http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiquidThreads.
However it seems to me not a very vivid project. Are there any other plans to add such a functionality?
Thanks
Uwe Brauer
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
" " == Robert Rapplean mythobeast@gmail.com writes:
> Hi, Uwe. I've been working on a consensus building tool for > this purpose, but if you're just looking for something that will > thread conversations it's probably a bit too industrial for your > tastes. The primary problem with threaded message bases is that > they encourage completely off-topic conversations under the > assumption that people can readily ignore the bits that aren't > to their interest. This assumption is somewhat falacious > because the end result is a convoluted conversation structure > where finding the on-topic threads becomes increasingly > difficult, and important points get burried pretty quickly. Hi Robert,
Well yeah could be. However right now, I find the wikipedia talk pages very messy, because sometimes people even sign their messages it is not clear to whom the respond etc. That is partially caused by the lack of discipline of the users partially by the lack of tools which enforces the use of signature and reply-prefix etc.
So even a simple tool, like the CSS entry in the french wikipedia page, is a first step to get the talk pages better organised.
Your tool is an experiment? Is intended to be included in media wiki?
Regards
Uwe
On 5/8/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
Your tool is an experiment? Is intended to be included in media wiki?
Experiment is the right word for it. I've identified a lot of uses for it, and the talk pages on Wikipedia are an ideal typification of why it would be valuable. Like most online communication tools it's designed to facilitate communication between individuals, but has no built in facilities for the organization of thoughts, nor for the aggregation of the participant's ideas into a single central consensus.
This is especially true for the wikipedia, where one discussion page is being used to determine the consensus on a myriad of ideas presented in any single entry. I think it would be an excellent proving grounds for the tool.
I'm not sure about anyone else following this conversation, but I applied to this project for the Google Summer of Code. It sounds like you put a lot of thought into the subject and I would be pretty interested to hear some of your ideas (or a see demo).
Come to think of it, the stereotypical forum software doesn't do anything to reach consensus, except maybe for polls. Compare that to Wikipedia, where talk pages are rarely used for conversations. Having a conversation and arguing have always been very different. Designing this feature to facilitate "conversations" might be a mistake.
If you would like, I encourage you to post your thoughts on this somewhere. Perhaps along with LiquidThreads or simply link to information from there. If I am not selected or the project is not picked up for summer of code, it could still be incorporated in whatever is developed some day.
- Phil Harnish
On 5/9/06, Robert Rapplean mythobeast@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
Your tool is an experiment? Is intended to be included in media wiki?
Experiment is the right word for it. I've identified a lot of uses for it, and the talk pages on Wikipedia are an ideal typification of why it would be valuable. Like most online communication tools it's designed to facilitate communication between individuals, but has no built in facilities for the organization of thoughts, nor for the aggregation of the participant's ideas into a single central consensus.
This is especially true for the wikipedia, where one discussion page is being used to determine the consensus on a myriad of ideas presented in any single entry. I think it would be an excellent proving grounds for the tool. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 5/9/06, Phil Harnish philharnish@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure about anyone else following this conversation, but I applied to this project for the Google Summer of Code. It sounds like you put a lot of thought into the subject and I would be pretty interested to hear some of your ideas (or a see demo).
Always happy to explain it to people. I've submitted an abstract to the Wikimania conference for a 30 minute presentation, will be releasing a podcast explaining the idea some time around the beginning of next month, and have quite a bit of design work done in a wiki at http://www. consensusengine.org/wiki
I already dropped a rather long description of it on this list, so I'll send you more details in person. I really need to update the base content of the main site, too, and will probably do that as I build the content for the podcast.
-Robert
"Robert" == Robert Rapplean mythobeast@gmail.com writes:
Hello
Robert> Always happy to explain it to people. I've submitted an Robert> abstract to the Wikimania conference for a 30 minute Robert> presentation, will be releasing a podcast explaining the Robert> idea some time around the beginning of next month, and have Robert> quite a bit of design work done in a wiki at http://www.consensusengine.org/wiki
I tried to log in there, but for some reason, I don't get the usual form for creating an account, (my cookies are enabled and I use mozilla 1.7.2)
Robert> I already dropped a rather long description of it on this Robert> list, so I'll send you more details in person. I really Robert> need to update the base content of the main site, too, and Robert> will probably do that as I build the content for the Robert> podcast.
May be this is off topic, but would it be possible to add Talk Pages, a nntp interface, so that they could be displayed with a newsreader?
Uwe
I've replied to Uwe in private. If anyone else is interested in the consensus engine, please let me know and I'll send instructions on how to check out the wiki.
On 5/12/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
May be this is off topic, but would it be possible to add Talk Pages, a nntp interface, so that they could be displayed with a newsreader?
Is this in relation to the consensus engine, or in regard to Media Wiki?
"Robert" == Robert Rapplean mythobeast@gmail.com writes:
Robert> I've replied to Uwe in private. If anyone else is Robert> interested in the consensus engine, please let me know and Robert> I'll send instructions on how to check out the wiki.
Robert> On 5/12/06, Uwe Brauer Robert> oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
May be this is off topic, but would it be possible to add Talk Pages, a nntp interface, so that they could be displayed with a newsreader?
Robert> Is this in relation to the consensus engine, or in regard Robert> to Media Wiki?
Well both in principle
Uwe
On 5/16/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
On 5/12/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
May be this is off topic, but would it be possible to add Talk Pages, a nntp interface, so that they could be displayed with a newsreader?
Robert> Is this in relation to the consensus engine, or in regard Robert> to Media Wiki?
Well both in principle
In principle, all things are possible *grin*. I'll add this to the list of things that should be kept in mind when developing it. I'd also like to see Atom RSS feeds attached to the conjectures. This might get sticky, though, because these tools aren't designed to convey any of the systems that the engine will be using to sort the input by significance, so there would be a lot more wading through chafe.
For those of you who have been following this, Wikimania declined my presentation submission. The search goes on...
On 5/16/06, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
"Robert" == Robert Rapplean mythobeast@gmail.com writes:
Robert> I've replied to Uwe in private. If anyone else is Robert> interested in the consensus engine, please let me know and Robert> I'll send instructions on how to check out the wiki.
Robert> On 5/12/06, Uwe Brauer Robert> oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
May be this is off topic, but would it be possible to add Talk Pages, a nntp interface, so that they could be displayed with a newsreader?
Robert> Is this in relation to the consensus engine, or in regard Robert> to Media Wiki?
Well both in principle
Uwe
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org