[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
There has to be a vision though, of something better. Maybe something
that is an actual wiki, quick and easy, rather than the template
coding hell Wikipedia's turned into. - something Fred Bauder just
said on wikien-l.
Our current markup is one of
Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-12-27/Ambassadors
News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean
mayor sues; brief news
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
So, the payoffs could be ridiculously huge: eight times the number of
smart and knowledgeable people even being able to *fix typos* on
material they care about.
Jan Paul Posma's inline editor seems pretty promising. It's
Hi David,
from what I understand, there's a fundamental problem:
There is no formal description of WikiSyntax. Its specification is:
what the MediaWiki parser does.
It seems that it's not very hard to write a WYSIWYG that covers 99% of
all WikiSyntax, the problem is the remaining 1%.
That being
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they are integral part of page markup.
You do not insert infobox template, you
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they are integral part of page markup.
You do not insert infobox
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they
More thoughts.
I always viewed wikitext vs. WYSIWYG dilemma as similar to LaTeX vs.
Microsoft Word one.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge
rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors of
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
e.g. Wikia has WYSIWYG editing and templates. They have a sort of
solution to template editing in WYSIWYG. It's not great, but people
sort of cope. How did they get there? What can be done to make it
better,
How about attacking the problem by using something that already exists...
- The Wikimedia Foundation gets a lot of support from Google,
financially. How about we ask for some technology support as well? Google
has a completely plugin-independant JS-based editor in Google Docs, as well
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephanie writes:
Layouts would be a new form of template, designed to apply as a
block-level outline to an article, providing both a framework to build a
particular type of article, and defining the formatting for that
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier
to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
Perhaps it's time to
Hi Brion,
Thanks for laying out the problem so clearly! I agree wholeheartedly
that we need to avoid thinking about this problem too narrowly as a
user interface issue on top of existing markup+templates. More
inline:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com wrote:
This
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me riff on what you're saying here (partly just to confirm that I
understand fully what you're saying). It'd be very cool to have the
ability to declare a single article, or probably more helpfully, a
single
David Gerard wrote:
Our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation.
[snip]
* Tim doesn't scale. Most of our other technical people don't scale.
*We have no resources and still run on almost nothing*.
($14m might sound like enough money to run a popular website, but
FYI. The first Wikipedia meetup / workshop in Sri Lanka is a
milestone for the entire movement. :)
Yours sincerely,
Anirudh Bhati
00 91 9328712208
Skype: anirudhsbh
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ravishankar ravidre...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Subject:
21 matches
Mail list logo
