MediaWiki:Village pump

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search

Template:WikinfoTabs

Image:Village pump bluesm.jpg

Welcome, newcomers, if you have a question about Wikinfo (Internet-Encyclopedia) policy or content, please place it at the bottom of the list, minding any thread formatting, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. Before asking a question, check to see if it has been answered in the pump's archives (linked below), or the other info pages. Chances are, it has.

Note that questions and answers may not remain on these pages indefinitely. After a period of time with no further activity, information may be moved to other relevant sections of Wikinfo or to the archives. Please title your discussions so as to facilitate easier communication. Sign your comments with ~~~~ (or use the signature button on the edit toolbar).

Archive 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Software (old)


Contents

Wikinfo's Purpose

I've had a helpful "phone meeting" with Fred, and I think we're all in a good position to continue taking in everyone's advice and suggestions. Please, if you have not weighed in on the matter of Wikinfo's future, then please do so, either here, or on the forum pages, or start new ones if you like. Don't be disuaded by the arguments here - heated though they may be - discussion is a good thing ;) -proteus 11:46, 3 Oct 2006 (EDT)

I am all for ending the automatic importing of articles from Wikipedia. I have already begun by not importing anymore. All my recent stuff as been clean starts.
  • What I mean by referencing is that how we attract talent and use. References Required means that we have Trust and people will use us more than Wikipedia.
  • On culture, I like all topics except sexually explicit stuff that they allow on Wikipedia. Wikipedia CAN NOT BE used by schools or homeschoolers. We could advertise on homeschoolers magazines and attract that way. With a "clean" environment, we can attract clientele different than Wikipedia.
  • We need a culture of Scholars. A culture of referencing. We already have "required" login different than Wikipedia. A culture of good clean information for families, children. A culture of completeness, and original research, and personal takes on situations.
  • We need people to fill out their User page with their expertise, education or being a autodidact (like myself) before editing. We have so many people come, log in, do one edit or make a page and then disappear. We have nothing to go on to judge what is credible or not.
I have looked at Bill Thayer's site and many of his articles on Classical Rome can be transported over because they are in the public domain.
Furthermore, I do a lot of advertising for Wikinfo with the Classical definition of republic. Today I want to announce that it has received 5006 hits!!!
I believe that we have good selling points: SPOV, Original Research, Signed Articles, Required Log-in, Article counters; Let's add required footnotes and references, User Page fill out, and a clean environment. Let's suggest this: Let's advertise in magazines. "Online Encyclopaedia is looking for contributors and content builders". These are my thoughts.WHEELER 20:16, 3 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Thanks for contributing - who's paying for the ads? -proteus 11:36, 4 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Hi folks sorry I havent been around for some time now, I am wondering if there is still discussion on the future of "Wikifo"? I personaly believe Wikinfo is a great source of valuble information and hope to see Wikinfo surpass wikipedia and become used as a major source of knowledge.Khaosinfire 23:19, 15 Jan 2007 (EST)

Thinking about Wikinfo in terms of purpose, I think the most important thing we can do is to focus on information that is significant. By significant information I mean information that is important, but not generally realized to be so. Information that is available in a daily newspaper or on Wikipedia is not usually significant in that sense. At any rate, it does not justify effort to make another copy of it here. A link to it, perhaps, or perhaps a reformulation of it which highlights the information contained in it which is significant is all that is appropriate. Mileage may vary, of course, and an effort needs to be made to highlight information which, while generally known, is not universally known. Most important, however, is information which is not known to opinion leaders or not considered important by them, information which will not appear in the New York Times or in Wikipedia. I don't propose we abandon our liberal policies with respect to content; just emphasis on material which is world changing or life changing. Fred 11:59, 20 Jan 2007 (EST)

I like the sound of this. WHEELER and I, among others, have suggested something similar, as in limiting our focus onto "sections" or parts of the wiki, to refine them, etc. We could start with Wikinfo:Topics as a template for how to begin - using that list or modifying it (or doing another in a forum). We could list all the areas and let people work on those, or if that is too "organized", then just clarify to all the sysops what this purpose is about, and what it is not. Everyone should respond to this thread so we know what you think.
Related to this, short of turning off importing altogether, I could modify the import message to be somewhat like the user page import notice, so that it doesn't automatically display the page, but says something like "We're not focusing on importing at this time, but refining existing articles. Do you still want to import this?" -proteus 11:39, 21 Jan 2007 (EST)
Can you tell if there is a Wikipedia article using the software or will it display a link to a blank page? What I was thinking was replacing the language with "There is a Wikipedia article about this subject at [url], if there is, or at least a redirect. Fred 17:59, 21 Jan 2007 (EST)
Can't tell about articles until they're imported. The text at the top of the import page ("This article needs your help. If available, it has been imported from Wikipedia...") can be changed, and the "NOTE" at the bottom of the edit box can be helped with a line "Please feel free to change the imported article", or the like, just to help reinforce the message of "get creative" and "don't worry too much about importing" that we're going for... -proteus 15:57, 23 Jan 2007 (EST)

Vision

Is it the long term vision that Wikinfo might present information which complements Wikipedia? This probably would apply most directly in philisophical areas such as religion, law, government, freedom, and so on, rather than in technical areas. Of course I am thinking of religion and compare the two articles Celebrity Centre and Wikipedia's Celebrity Centre, and created one and had a hand in the other. But the point I ask about is more general. Wikinfo's articles might reference to Wikipedia because the point of view is so different and 'Pedia's might reference to Wikinfo for the same reason. In at least some articles the reader could obtain a breadth which neither alone can provide. My most direct question is, "Okay to link to Wikipedia articles, same article name?" And more generally, it this kind of complementary linking and counter-linking part of the vision of Wikinfo ? Terryeo 14:37, 20 Aug 2006 (EDT)

As we stand for the proposition that there are alternative ways of presenting almost any topic, we should (even if the article is not imported) link to a comparable Wikipedia article. (moved remainder to below) Fred 16:12, 20 Aug 2006 (EDT)

GetWiki: Vehicle of Change

As the guy who's spent hundreds of hours on GetWiki, Fred's many comments over the last year about how Wikinfo needs to follow Wikpedia coding practices exactly have slowly pushed me over the line. Importing articles, as he has otherwise tried to say, is not our priority anyway, remember?? We should be focusing on the SPOV basis of the articles we already have (the recent public relations edits are an excellent illustration of so many overlooked WP biased articles). We should not be copying Wikipedians in every mistake they make, both technical and ideological.

If Fred had really wanted yet another mirror of Wikipedia (with a scant few forked articles), he should have just imported their whole database every few months and got someone else to administer an updated MediaWiki installation (heck, I'm sure the MediaWiki/Wikipedia-biased ibiblio would do it themselves). Why waste our time with these other democratic ideals if we aren't going to follow them where they lead - away from Wikipedia? We need to be distancing ourselves far, far away from Wikipedia, from it's problems, and from its design, software and content, far from anything that looks like a Randroid pseudopedia (as I think of WP). Pop culture is already starting to turn away from WP as a trusted resource, for what should have been obvious reasons all along. We don't want to be lumped in with that, do we?

We need to stop worrying about importing Wikipedia's junk and "borg code" (as Jon aptly puts it), and focus more on the slant of the existing text, the correctness of facts, the relevance of it all to things that matter to people outside the Wikisphere. If we focus on importing, it should be only to fill out key missing articles (based on the policy we're supposed to be refining). Otherwise, Wikinfo will never matter to anyone outside a small group of us, and might was well be a Wikimedia-owned (or "pwned") mirror - which it essentially has been, alas.

The time of floating in this vague state we're in, between copying Wikipedia and struggling for relevance against it, should be brought decisively to a close. Otherwise, I'm ready to move on, away from Wikinfo, to focus exclusively on GetMeta (perhaps renaming it "GetWiki" for simplicity), a wiki which already follows the ideals, and which, unlike Wikinfo, is totally unrestrained from kneeling before Jimbo's Borg. What do you folks think?? -proteus 13:13, 8 Mar 2007 (EST)

I don't think users should have to deal with coding problems. The focus needs to be on content. Importing articles is useful, thats what GFDL is all about. We are a part of a larger Wiki community, really open source community, which moves forward by working together. FJB 13:35, 8 Mar 2007 (EST)
That community predates WP, and much of it still does not use WP coding practices, nor should it. Many wikis do not have images, citations, blacklisting, user preferences, blocking, logging, or other features that we take for granted. Even Wikipedians have coding problems and users there are forced to deal with its ever increasing complexity. Wikipedia has never been, and should never become, the standard for other members of the larger wiki community, and Wikinfo needs to turn toward the real wiki community (not Jimbo's empire built on BS). We need to be getting back to what "wiki" was supposed to be about in the first place - ultra simple webpage editing that anyone can do (not just Wikipedian code experts). As you say, the focus needs to be on content, as in text and its communication value, not bells and whistles that don't matter. The only people who can edit here are Wikipedians who know their way around! ;)
I think GetWiki is pretty advanced and functional software, but it will never be MediaWiki. It is a diverging fork (and 2.0 will be more so, in form and function). If you want to follow Wikpedia over the cliff, then just run MediaWiki here and be another mirror. I can remove GetWiki within the hour if that's what you want (I'm sick of all the whining, anyway). Basically, my long trip has allowed me to see that having this same discussion for the last 3 years is a waste of my time. Wikinfo could be great, but honestly, your dual role frequently compromises us (much to the delight of Wikipedians, I'm sure) in favour of what is good for Wikipedia, not necessarily what is good for Wikinfo over here outside their "Borg". Nothing personal, though: Wikinfo is constrained by Wikipedia, and GetWiki is constrained by Wikinfo. I'm the GetWiki owner/maintainer, and I'm saying it will continue moving farther away from its MediaWiki origins. I said this years ago, when I was encouraged to believe in Wikinfo's ideals (just read the archives), but all I ever hear back is how more like MediaWiki/Wikipedia you and others expect it to be. I'm more interested in true independence, simplicity, and of course, content. Actually, I'd be surprised if Wikipedia doesn't completely kill the concept of "wiki" in the public eye. Perhaps it already has... -proteus 15:44, 8 Mar 2007 (EST)

Reinventing the wheel

Hi. I'm new here, so apologies if I mess up on format. I've read this page and it seems to be a rather grab-bagged discussion anyway.

I've been editing Wikipedia (WP) for exactly a year and have experienced most of the nasty things about it, and I have some ideas for fixing some of them. Which can wait. But I do want to chime in here to say that I think this enterprise will fail if you try to reinvent the wheel. One does not fail to get enough elbow room on your 767 flight across the country and decide that in response you're not only going to start your own competing airline, but first you're going to reinvent the airplane for yourself. Garage, wind-tunnel, and all. This is fun as a hobby, but you're not going to prevail. Successful inventions build on what has gone before.

The place (and the way) to improve Wikipedia is to participate in it and make policy and other suggestions there. I do that as an active member of the "cabal." Wikinfo is about creating a new space with different "rules." We will prevail, if we do, because we build a valuable resource. Fred 09:53, 23 Nov 2006 (EST)

Okay, so WP is continually putting in userboxes and LaTeX and other stuff which make it hard to simply import the latest version of a good article there that you like. See if you can make software that mines text more automatically, even in those situations. I find (for example) that articles on chemical elements aren't importable with GetWiki at all. The last version of most of them is vintage 2003. Many, many improvements in these articles have happened since, and few people are going to import via wordprocessor after manual stripping. Nor is writing from scratch going to happen much-- the failure of Nupedia should have taught everybody that. Many a person will add a brick to a nearly-built house (which is how WP finally sucked in as much expertise as it has), but very few people have the stomach to build one from foundation up. Steve. Nov 21, 06.

Steve, a lot of this stuff will be fixed or otherwise addressed later this year when I'm back from sabbatical. Keep in mind that WP code and programmers are working double time to complicate MW and WP, while I'm working slower to simplify GetWiki. The math codes are an example of that, and soon(ish), the "ref" citations code will be another. Import what you need, and leave the code as they left it, where possible, and I will be looking into it. Thanks for your input! -proteus 11:39, 21 Jan 2007 (EST)
I agree, but, in the first place, doing that involves a lot of hard work for our one volunteer programmer. Even worse, the latest version of their software uses MySQL 5 which we will not have here for a while, so even importing their latest version is impossible. I am beginning to think out best service to a reader would include linking to the latest Wikipedia version of an article, but concentrating on creative work here, not copying. Fred 09:53, 23 Nov 2006 (EST)
JA: Howdy. I'm relatively new here, too, but I haven't noticed much interest in re-inventing square wheels hereabouts. I think that it's probably best to forget that whole "Gospel Of The Borg Religious Order" (GOTBRO) that they preach at Wikipedia. Our main tech guy is on sabbatical, so he can fill in more detail when he gets back. Some of the TeX stuff works and some does not -- I'm still working through the local docs though, at Custom Formulas. I don't use the automatic importer all that much, since most of the Wikipedia articles that I care about have been subjected to serious degradation over the last year or so. Copy and paste works okay when the automatic importer messes up, and it also allows you to grab a version of your own choosing. You have to grab images separately, though, and I haven't got around to doing that yet, so maybe somebody else can fill in the details on that. Many Regards, Jon Awbrey 09:24, 22 Nov 2006 (EST)
That from a great original editor. Somehow intolerable on Wikipedia, but extremely productive and welcome here. Fred 09:53, 23 Nov 2006 (EST)
JA: Ha! More on this biz about NORiginality after Thanksgiving, when I may hope to have an even chance of gaining the better half of a wishbone. 'Cause I just wish it were so easy to be original as they seem think in the Never-Never-Land of Wishipedia. Jon Awbrey 10:32, 23 Nov 2006 (EST)
Writing something outside tradition is easy, writing something significant outside tradition is almost impossible, as likely you have only rephrased something. Fred 13:03, 23 Nov 2006 (EST)
JA: When I used to teach math to undergraduates -- in the time-honored traditions of content and method, I assure you -- it would occasionally happen that I would put some bit of traditional wisdom on the board and some student would exclaim out loud, "But I never heard of that before!" Since I was far more passive than aggressive in those days, I always bit my tongue and grinned. But you know I wanted to say some wiseacre thing like, "Well, that's why you're paying me the big bucks!"
JA: I'm guessing nowadays when some instructor tries to put something on a quiz that the students have "never heard of before" (NHOB), the students have all learned the neo-traditional reflex of screaming bluddy NOR and NPOV and NHOB, so I'm glad I don't have to be there to see that. Jon Awbrey 23:06, 23 Nov 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia article AfD

Someone has nominated the Wikinfo article on Wikipedia for deletion. The reason given is the lack of notability (and verifiability) caused by lack of independent sources. Does anyone here know of any independent coverage of Wikinfo? Stephen B Streater 08:10, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)

This has happened several times before. Applied strictly, Wikipedia's rules preclude more than a brief stub. I stay away from the debate. If you are an active editor here, you should too. FJB 08:56, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
Hi, I do not feel like editing there, but should not be what one gets by http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=wikinfo.org&btnG=Google-Suche&meta= enough ? -StarofLight 08:17, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
Please excuse. That remark was a bit...quick. There indeed seem to be few sources if one looks closer... Thank you for asking, though, maybe somewone else can give a more qualified answer than that by me before... -StarofLight 08:21, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
Could you please explicitly state what are these references "if one looks closer"? Thanks. Mathmo 08:30, 3 Feb 2007 (ET)
What I meant was that the websites which I thought to be important on the first glance where mentioning wikinfo in the form of feeds or mails. E.g. http://www.ub.uni-dortmund.de/listen/inetbib/msg32035.html, (university website, but mailinglist, http://de.indymedia.org/2004/12/101429.shtml which will not help much on wikipedia against delitionists, I guess, and http://www.jurablo.gs/feed/, "just" a blog-feed. Of course, if notability of phenomena is founded only on reports on that phenomena, it is like if nobody reports on you, then you are not there, even if you are waving with both your hands... philosophically interesting, but totally misplace for an encylopedia that started to collect the knowledge of the world... -StarofLight 08:36, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
Our problem is not to maintain an article on Wikipedia, but to do good work. FJB 08:56, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
Am not saying it is! But somebody else on the AfD felt that this would be the best place to find people who would feel kindly towards wikinfo and be knowledgable about information regarding wikinfo. Mathmo 09:12, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
Nothing surprises me anymore about that unethical groupthink. -proteus 10:07, 3 Feb 2007 (EST)
To put Wikinfo in context, consider http://www.wikiknowledge.net/wiki/Wikipedia_Wikinfo_Wikiknowledge:_comparison_table ... Wikinfo is the second largest general reference open wiki in English on the planet. A serious experimental effort. Whether that would make it notable would depend. (Over there, people who are most knowledgeable about a subject are often officially prohibited from contributing, and are thus best off not looking at such articles and discussions. Over here, those who know the most would be particularly welcome to contribute. If I understand aright.)-kethd 17:49, 4 Feb 2007 (EST)

The result. FJB 11:17, 8 Feb 2007 (EST)

I had a Polish friend before the Berlin Wall came down. He said Perestroika was terrible. Before the reforms, the authorities were so ineffective that people could get things done by ignoring the rules. But with the reforms, the authorities became very effective, and nothing could get done because the rules which were being enforced were imperfect. The whole system collapsed shortly after. It looks like Wikipedia is not able to enforce its own rules efficiently yet! Stephen B Streater 17:53, 8 Feb 2007 (EST)

These deletions on WP, and the debates they caused, are perfect illustrations of what's wrong with WP. Many, many editors are aggressively using "notability" as an excuse for deleting entire articles, as if it was an accepted policy, when in fact, it's simply a guideline, and no such consensus exists. But that, and the Deletionist/reductionist Jihad going on over there, is slowly making the encyclopedia sterile. Frankly, notability isn't exactly the right word for them to be using as a standard, it's notoriety. The insistence that everything of value has 1) a lot of Web-linked news articles, and 2) has gained a lot of publicity, means that they have set a standard for popular acceptance of an idea, concept or group that must be met before inclusion. That's not notability, it's popularity, and it's a very poor way to build an encyclopedia. - Nhprman 14:50, 8 Mar 2007 (EST)

Wiktionary is developing similar problems to Wikipedia

I joined Wikionary last December. I made many edits which I feel were useful.

I made one edit of the entry on Viagra. I thought it had useful information on cultural context and how the word is used. ��Viagra are nice purple pillies, do wonders for those floppy willies.� Someone called William Sayers reverted the edit and blocked me. I feel the block is an overreaction. I certainly didn�t intend to vandalize. I am told, �You may contact Williamsayers79 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.� Every time I try and discuss the block I am blocked from doing so.

If this is typical of Wiktionary there may be any number of discontented Wiktionarians who may be interested in joining Wikinfo. (Post by User:Barbara Shack)

Sorry you were so abruptly treated. FJB 10:50, 24 Feb 2007 (EST)
That's too bad, and Wiktionarians are welcome here, as Wikinfo is a dictionary ;) We could even move all our defintions to a separate namespace for easy (non-disambig) linking... -proteus 12:34, 24 Feb 2007 (EST)

Should Wikinfo:Village pump/Software be blanked?

I was about to post a message in Wikinfo:Village pump/Software, when I saw it was blanked. Was this done intentionally? OlavN 04:36, 9 Mar 2007 (EST)

I have restored it. It appears to be a mistake. FJB 11:25, 9 Mar 2007 (EST)





to sysops: proteus on vacation :)

In case you didn't know, I'm on a major, several month vacation (I've been gone a week and a half, but plan to be "on the road" for a long time), touring America, Canada and Mexico (I'm in Ottawa as I type this, having left "the long way" from the Carolinas). I didn't want to make a big deal about it, but recent vandalism I caught made me think to make a note of it for you, as I'm usually the one to clean up such things. All of you who were recently promoted are welcome and authorized to block/rollback and delete vandals (use wisely, please). The new block form can also roll back a vandal's last edit (only one per page) and auto-delete any page they created (when no one else has edited it since). I built it this way to revert spammers/vandals with one click - cool, huh? Anway, I do still check the wiki via wireless hotspots and hotels (using my slick new MacBook), and I will be back eventually (lest you assume I've given up), so at least in the meantime, please help monitor recent changes, familiarize yourself with who's a sysop, and "police" the wiki :) -proteus 14:32, 25 Oct 2006 (EDT)

I will try to do my best. Have a good time on vacation and don't worry about us. We look forward to your return.WHEELER 19:11, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Proteus demoted

Proteus has been removed as a Wikinfo developer due to extremely disruptive interactions with the ibiblio technical staff. I am sorry this occured. Proteus has contributed greatly to Wikinfo. I wish him well in his future endeavors. FJB 10:51, 14 Mar 2007 (EDT)

JA: I think that it would be better to declare a cooling off period. Though I have interacted with Proteus only very intermittently, he appears to be acting in a way that is not characteristic of the person that I used to chat with. Hypothesis 1 is that the real Proteus has been abducted by agents of Jimbo-Larry, Inc. and that they have substituted a changeling sockpuppet in an effort to destroy Wikinfo and GetMeta. Hypothesis 2 is that Proteus is suffering from severe travel fatigue and Time Zone Disorientation � I am guessing that the early DST accentuated the negative impacts of jet lag. Since I just experienced a surprisingly bad bit of jet lag myself, I am leaning toward H2. So I think we should give him a week or two for re-acclimation. Jon Awbrey 12:42, 14 Mar 2007 (EDT)

Even though I had my run-ins with Proteus, this is sad news. He has been very beneficial to Wikinfo. This is very disheartening. Maybe things will get better and a cooling off period. WHEELER 15:30, 14 Mar 2007 (EDT)

JA: Seriously, though, I've seen these sorts of turf-tiffs develop between IT Shoguns many times before, and the best thing is always just for everybody involved to cool off a while, hit the bars to hash it out over beers, go on vacation, or maybe take a holiday to recover from their vacations. Jon Awbrey 08:54, 15 Mar 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to hear about ProteusBarbara Shack 08:27, 17 Mar 2007 (EDT)

Writers' corner & Poets' corner

I've added a [[Writers� corner]] I hope it will be as successful as the [[Poets� corner]].Barbara Shack 09:12, 17 Mar 2007 (EDT)

Archive 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Software (old)

Template:WikinfoTabs

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/MediaWiki:Village_pump"
Personal tools