On Friday 31 January 2003 05:41 pm, Anthere wrote:
it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal essays, sorry, Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for organization.
Ah ? Well, I disagree. Of course permanent deletions of personal essays can only occur after a consensus is reached about that, no ?
I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree with eliminating personal essays from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on meta then where should it go? This will only make it more difficult to keep this stuff out of the encyclopedias.
Meta can and should be many things. Simply create an alternate Main Page for whatever you want to focus on (software for example) and organize everything on that page and the pages linked from it in any way you wish. Heck even create another namespace if you really want to organize things, but I see no reason whatsoever why meta shouldn't be more like a regular wiki with a fairly undefined scope. What really is needed is more integration between topics discussed on the mailing lists and meta.
--mav
I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree with eliminating personal essays from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on meta then where should it go?
Um .. how about just getting rid of it? Why is it within Wikipedia's mission to somehow provide storage space for personal essays? We're an encyclopedia, not a hosting provider.
Taku is correct in that this only makes Meta hard to use, especially for other people who want to help working on the Wikipedia software. While it is possible to better organize meta, the Recent Changes list is cluttered by this stuff. There are literally hundreds of entries like this:
... # diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-symbiosis; 15:25 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:43 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:39 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User:Saprtacus; 15:38 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-etiology; 15:33 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:31 . . Saprtacus ...
Now try to find the critical "How Wikipedia can be really, really fast" development proposal hidden deep within this idiosyncratic nonsense.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree with
eliminating personal essays
from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on meta
then where should it go? Um .. how about just getting rid of it? Why is it within Wikipedia's mission to somehow provide storage space for personal essays? We're an encyclopedia, not a hosting provider.
Taku is correct in that this only makes Meta hard to use, especially for other people who want to help working on the Wikipedia software. While it is possible to better organize meta, the Recent Changes list is cluttered by this stuff. There are literally hundreds of entries like this:
... # diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-symbiosis; 15:25 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:43 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:39 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User:Saprtacus; 15:38 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-etiology; 15:33 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:31 . . Saprtacus ...
Now try to find the critical "How Wikipedia can be really, really fast" development proposal hidden deep within this idiosyncratic nonsense.
Meta is not only about software development, so don't try to restrict his use for that matter.
Besides, you'll have to define what a "personal" essay is. So not only would we need a consensus for removal of pages from the meta, but we'll need a consensus about what a personal essay is, and we'll need to decide whether each and other page a personal essay is.
All that to make a couple of articles more visible (some on software development) or rather some less visible (those you think are trashing meta).
A simpler way could be to implement a little something which would allow a user to hide changes made by another given user.
This was asked on the french wiki btw (not by me). I think it would for example make sense to hide all the automatic generation of bots (after it is checked these are correct). That option sounds to me feasible, and more desirable than just arbitrarily removing other people stuff and upsetting them.
(oh crumbs, another feature to reject...)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Hi Anthere,
I very much appreciate these 'personal essays'. They should be given a proper place (don't remove!). They should however be separated from 'development'.
Software-development and maintainance is a very serious business, please don't call it 'hacking' any longer because Wikipedia is reaching adulthood. :-) (Grown-up software-developers don't call themselves 'hackers': It's all about thinking and mathematics!)
Please keep the 'personal essays', but not mixed with serious development stuff.
Thanks, Pieter Suurmond
Anthere wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree with
eliminating personal essays
from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on meta
then where should it go? Um .. how about just getting rid of it? Why is it within Wikipedia's mission to somehow provide storage space for personal essays? We're an encyclopedia, not a hosting provider.
Taku is correct in that this only makes Meta hard to use, especially for other people who want to help working on the Wikipedia software. While it is possible to better organize meta, the Recent Changes list is cluttered by this stuff. There are literally hundreds of entries like this:
... # diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-symbiosis; 15:25 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:43 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:39 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User:Saprtacus; 15:38 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-etiology; 15:33 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:31 . . Saprtacus ...
Now try to find the critical "How Wikipedia can be really, really fast" development proposal hidden deep within this idiosyncratic nonsense.
Meta is not only about software development, so don't try to restrict his use for that matter.
Besides, you'll have to define what a "personal" essay is. So not only would we need a consensus for removal of pages from the meta, but we'll need a consensus about what a personal essay is, and we'll need to decide whether each and other page a personal essay is.
All that to make a couple of articles more visible (some on software development) or rather some less visible (those you think are trashing meta).
A simpler way could be to implement a little something which would allow a user to hide changes made by another given user.
This was asked on the french wiki btw (not by me). I think it would for example make sense to hide all the automatic generation of bots (after it is checked these are correct). That option sounds to me feasible, and more desirable than just arbitrarily removing other people stuff and upsetting them.
(oh crumbs, another feature to reject...)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--- Pieter Suurmond pieter@kmt.hku.nl wrote: Greetings Pieter,
Personal essays are also serious stuff Wikipedia is not only built on software An empty house, even with no holes in the roof, is still an empty house
Have a good day
Hi Anthere,
I very much appreciate these 'personal essays'. They should be given a proper place (don't remove!). They should however be separated from 'development'.
Software-development and maintainance is a very serious business, please don't call it 'hacking' any longer because Wikipedia is reaching adulthood. :-) (Grown-up software-developers don't call themselves 'hackers': It's all about thinking and mathematics!)
Please keep the 'personal essays', but not mixed with serious development stuff.
Thanks, Pieter Suurmond
Anthere wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree
with
eliminating personal essays
from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on
meta
then where should it go? Um .. how about just getting rid of it? Why is
it
within Wikipedia's mission to somehow provide storage space for personal essays? We're an encyclopedia, not a hosting provider.
Taku is correct in that this only makes Meta
hard to
use, especially for other people who want to help working on the Wikipedia software. While it is possible to better organize meta, the Recent Changes list is cluttered by this stuff. There are literally hundreds of entries like this:
... # diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-symbiosis; 15:25 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:43
. .
Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:39
. .
Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User:Saprtacus; 15:38 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-etiology; 15:33 . . Saprtacus # (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:31
. .
Saprtacus ...
Now try to find the critical "How Wikipedia can
be
really, really fast" development proposal hidden deep within this idiosyncratic nonsense.
Meta is not only about software development, so
don't
try to restrict his use for that matter.
Besides, you'll have to define what a "personal"
essay
is. So not only would we need a consensus for
removal
of pages from the meta, but we'll need a consensus about what a personal essay is, and we'll need to decide whether each and other page a personal
essay
is.
All that to make a couple of articles more visible (some on software development) or rather some less visible (those you think are trashing meta).
A simpler way could be to implement a little
something
which would allow a user to hide changes made by another given user.
This was asked on the french wiki btw (not by me).
I
think it would for example make sense to hide all
the
automatic generation of bots (after it is checked these are correct). That option sounds to me
feasible,
and more desirable than just arbitrarily removing other people stuff and upsetting them.
(oh crumbs, another feature to reject...)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
They should be given a proper place (don't remove!). They should however be separated from 'development'.
Software-development and maintainance is a very serious business, please don't call it 'hacking' any longer because Wikipedia is reaching adulthood. :-) (Grown-up software-developers don't call themselves 'hackers': It's all about thinking and mathematics!)
Insulting nonsense. There are plenty of "grown-up" software developers who call themselves hackers. Ask the people at
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
or the folks working on the Linux kernel:
for example. I wouldn't say that these people are not capable of thinking or do not understand mathematics.
Wikipedia is an open source project, and in the open source community, the term "hacker" has a much different tradition from other development groups. It is a perfectly appropriate term for the development process, unless you see open source itself as "unprofessional" and "not for grown- ups" (in which case you should don your asbestos suit..)
Regards,
Erik
I apologize when I insulted people here. Nevertheless, I would prefer a more neutral, term. The word 'hacker' might scare people and it doesn't sound very 'inviting' to me.
Specification and clear documentation is much more important than implementation!
I personally hate maintaining software, keep adding features forever, updating, debugging, etc. I love 'design'.
Well, sorry for bothering you all. Thanks for correcting me and giving me stuff to read about 'hacking', Erik.
Don't know in which way I can contribute to Wikipedia-software-development for I almost don't know anything about databases and database-locking (which seems to give rise to performance-problems).
Sorry for crying out nonsense here; thank you for always responding; but most of all thanks for making Wikipedia at all possible, in that regard you're really doing a great job!
Pieter Suurmond
Erik Moeller wrote:
They should be given a proper place (don't remove!). They should however be separated from 'development'.
Software-development and maintainance is a very serious business, please don't call it 'hacking' any longer because Wikipedia is reaching adulthood. :-) (Grown-up software-developers don't call themselves 'hackers': It's all about thinking and mathematics!)
Insulting nonsense. There are plenty of "grown-up" software developers who call themselves hackers. Ask the people at
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackersor the folks working on the Linux kernel:
http://www.kernelhacking.org/for example. I wouldn't say that these people are not capable of thinking or do not understand mathematics.
Wikipedia is an open source project, and in the open source community, the term "hacker" has a much different tradition from other development groups. It is a perfectly appropriate term for the development process, unless you see open source itself as "unprofessional" and "not for grown- ups" (in which case you should don your asbestos suit..)
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
At 18:46 02/02/03 +0100, you wrote:
I apologize when I insulted people here. Nevertheless, I would prefer a more neutral, term. The word 'hacker' might scare people and it doesn't sound very 'inviting' to me.
Specification and clear documentation is much more important than implementation!
Users where not coders. Users where nothing to do with code. Users where something to do with features.
A feature without clean documenteion = feature unimplemention.
But this stament: "Specification and clear documentation is much more important than implementation!", Is extreme. Or wrong. Anyway IMHO.
Note:
thanks to all people that design and help wikipedia!!
I personally hate maintaining software, keep adding features forever, updating, debugging, etc. I love 'design'.
Well, sorry for bothering you all. Thanks for correcting me and giving me stuff to read about 'hacking', Erik.
Don't know in which way I can contribute to Wikipedia-software-development for I almost don't know anything about databases and database-locking (which seems to give rise to performance-problems).
Sorry for crying out nonsense here; thank you for always responding; but most of all thanks for making Wikipedia at all possible, in that regard you're really doing a great job!
Pieter Suurmond
Erik Moeller wrote:
They should be given a proper place (don't remove!). They should however be separated from 'development'.
Software-development and maintainance is a very serious business, please don't call it 'hacking' any longer because Wikipedia is reaching adulthood. :-) (Grown-up software-developers don't call themselves 'hackers': It's all about thinking and mathematics!)
Insulting nonsense. There are plenty of "grown-up" software developers who call themselves hackers. Ask the people at
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackersor the folks working on the Linux kernel:
http://www.kernelhacking.org/for example. I wouldn't say that these people are not capable of thinking or do not understand mathematics.
Wikipedia is an open source project, and in the open source community, the term "hacker" has a much different tradition from other development groups. It is a perfectly appropriate term for the development process, unless you see open source itself as "unprofessional" and "not for grown- ups" (in which case you should don your asbestos suit..)
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Just a quick word -- any news on the idea to put a "send this article to a friend" link on every page?
On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 15:12, tarquin wrote:
Just a quick word -- any news on the idea to put a "send this article to a friend" link on every page?
lynx -dump -nolist http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=President_of_the_United_States_o... | mail -s 'President of the United States' e.moeller@fokus.gmd.de
OK, we might want to create a button for that ;-). Preferably that one would offer both plaintext and HTML, and perhaps a comment field for the sender.
Regards,
Erik
tarquin wrote:
Just a quick word -- any news on the idea to put a "send this article to a friend" link on every page?
Sounds like a perfect spamming machine! Go in anonymously, create a new page with your spam message, then have Wikipedia mail that to your "friend". And the next friend, and the next, ...
If only the link (page title) is mailed, create the page [[save big on ink cartridges]], and mail that.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
tarquin wrote:
Just a quick word -- any news on the idea to put a "send this article to a friend" link on every page?
Sounds like a perfect spamming machine! Go in anonymously, create a new page with your spam message, then have Wikipedia mail that to your "friend". And the next friend, and the next, ...
If only the link (page title) is mailed, create the page [[save big on ink cartridges]], and mail that.
hmmm. id not thought of that. but AFAIK spammers need to mail out thousands if not *millions* of emails for it to be effective. they're not going to bother doing it one at a time. secondly, we'd erase a page called [[save big on ink cartridges]] PDQ :-)
I think this would be a useful feature & could help us press-gang ... *cough* I mean invite new contributors ;-)
Lars Aronsson wrote:
tarquin wrote:
Just a quick word -- any news on the idea to put a "send this article to a friend" link on every page?
Sounds like a perfect spamming machine! Go in anonymously, create a new page with your spam message, then have Wikipedia mail that to your "friend". And the next friend, and the next, ...
If only the link (page title) is mailed, create the page [[save big on ink cartridges]], and mail that.
I think we can pretty easily protect against abuse by throttling the system in a variety of ways. That is, a single ip or user can only use the system a maximum of 10 times in one day, 3 times per hour, etc. Such throttles won't be perfect, but it would allow us to have this useful feature with a minimal possibility for abuse.
--Jimbo
Meta is not only about software development, so don't try to restrict his use for that matter.
I did not. But I don't think it's about personal essays either.
Besides, you'll have to define what a "personal" essay is.
That's not so hard to do - anything outside the scope of Wikipedia's / meta's defined mission is, by definition, personal stuff. I still think that it should be deleted, but because people will cry "censorship" if it is, the creation of a Crap:, excuse me, Scratch: namespace might satisfy those who need Meta for mental masturbation, while it still allows us to filter the RC accordingly. (If you think I'm harsh here, read the stuff that Saprtacus puts on meta.)
I would prefer it if Jimbo would just state categorically that Wikipedia is not a hosting provider, and give us authority to clean it up according to the criteria I have outlined in: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-January/008747.html
But if Jimbo wants meta to be our general wiki for everything, then we should at least be able to filter that defined subset.
This was asked on the french wiki btw (not by me). I think it would for example make sense to hide all the automatic generation of bots (after it is checked these are correct).
We already have that feature. See Wikipedia:Bots. Any registered bot is hidden by default from RC. Currently, Brion is our bot-registrar.
Regards,
Erik
(This is a policy discussion and should be on wikipedia-l, not wikitech-l.)
Erik Moeller wrote:
Um .. how about just getting rid of it? Why is it within Wikipedia's mission to somehow provide storage space for personal essays? We're an encyclopedia, not a hosting provider.
Right, but...
It's pretty easy to say, with no insult or offense offered, or taken, that a particular piece is "not encyclopedic". So it's easy to boot stuff out of the article namespace into somewhere else.
But the next step, i.e. we allow meta discussion of some kinds, but not if it's "personal", is problematic. People want to write about their own views of how wikipedia should operate, etc. And that's fine, that's what meta is for. If that tends to allow people to also write about other topics, well, I'm reluctant to get into policing it at that level.
As you've surely noticed, I have a rather full plate just trying to keep the murder rate law around here. :-)
--Jimbo
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org