On 22 December 2010 07:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 December 2010 00:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Actually, I often see things that need fixing, but I'm in look up
mode and using Wikipedia as a starting point for finding some
information I'm after, and
The single best way to improve usability of Wikipedia would be to
scale back the use of jargon.
if you look at early discussions in those days they were usually held
in plain English, with very little jargon. I've tried to keep up that
style, but it is now quite rare.
I don't see why this
On jargon, I still think Neutral point of view was a terrible name
that confused neutrality with lack of bias. You cannot sum up a policy
like NPOV in a single phrase, so in that case, I think NPOV is better
than saying neutral something. Sometimes a Wikipedia term of art
can be misleading and the
Liquid threads is an interesting idea in principle, but the reality is
at best unfortunate. I've pretty much stopped editing on the Strategy
Wiki because of it - I have broadband and a reasonably fast machine
but I don't have the patience to wait for Liquid threads to load even
when it works.
It
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:15 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
It is also a pain that one can't just quickly alter one's talkpage
comments even to strike out a resolved point.
Some bulletin board software allows you to do this, leaving a note
that the post was edited
I see where you're coming from Tony, but ultimately, you can't herd cats. A
campaign against jargon is only going to make minimal headway.
The are some structural things that Wikipedia needs to do:
1) WYSIWYG would be fantastic, but I've no idea what that would meet in
practice.
Sticking to the
On 22 December 2010 12:29, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
1) WYSIWYG would be fantastic, but I've no idea what that would meet in
practice.
It's been desperately wanted for years and is no closer now than it ever was.
Just some thoughts. I suspect to solve these problems would need
On 22 December 2010 12:15, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Liquid threads is an interesting idea in principle, but the reality is
at best unfortunate. I've pretty much stopped editing on the Strategy
Wiki because of it - I have broadband and a reasonably fast machine
but
on 12/22/10 7:42 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I have on occasion thought the best thing to do about the Wikipedia
community would be for it to implode as fast as possible. I've thought
this since about 2006 and the encyclopedia has vastly improved in that
time, so I might be
I think that the wikipedia should allow dictionary articles (actually
encyclopedic dictionary articles), but mark them as such and have
different policies for them.
On 22/12/2010, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I
On 21/12/2010 04:19, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Joseph Reagle's book on Wikipedia culture reviewed by Cory Doctorow
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/20/good-faith-collabora.html
Could be useful if you still haven't worked out what to get the
internet nerd in your life for Christmas.
All AGF, not
On 22 December 2010 12:29, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
5) I see the growing use of {{talkback}} templates. Personally, I hate them.
However, the assumption that everyone masters watchlists and knows how to
find discussions - and sees replies people make to them in any one of 27
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:42 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 December 2010 12:29, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
1) WYSIWYG would be fantastic, but I've no idea what that would meet in
practice.
It's been desperately wanted for years and is no closer now than it ever
On 22 December 2010 09:53, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
I do think there are fewer opportunities for such easy edits on
Wikipedia now. Typos seem to be far less common thanks to
semi-automated tools such as AWB, and most articles are generally more
mature.
I had an
I have to disagree strongly with the calls for WYSIWYG editing, not
that it's likely to materialize anytime soon. Wikipedia needs to
encourage people to concentrate on meaningful content, not dick around
with cosmetic matters.
Inline citations seriously hamper editing, however, and ways of
While i am not happy with the current status of liquidthreads i still
see it as a way forward. Its far from perfect but it solves some huge
communication problems that exist with large busy talk pages. Right
now we tend to address those issues with agressive archiving, which i
have seen some major
If we decide we want a bulletin board discussion instead of a talk
page it would not be difficult to do this from scratch (actually we'd
probably want to import code from existing licence-compatible open
source BBS projects--many BBS packages seem to be coded in PHP, which
would make integration a
I would honestly say that the existing markup has long outlived its
usefulness. Editors should not only be free from dealing with
intricate markup, they should actually lack the tools and markup to do
such complex formatting because it is detremental to writing an
encyclopedia.
Instead of wysiwyg
Right. The issue is, in practice large talk pages in threadmode are as
much or more of a mess. Archives dont solve it because they break
conversation flow and bury conversations. Refactoring would but its a
lost art that seems to be at odds with a culture that treats a signed
comment as invioably
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the article they do, but only if you give them your name
and address and then let a professional verify your edit. Also you
can only edit for free for the first 24 months, then you have to pay
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Always_leave_something_undone
Whenever you write a page, never finish it. Always leave something
obvious to do: an uncompleted sentence, a question in the text (with a
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Of further concern to me is that we have far exceeded the limits of a
wiki as an effective collaboration platform. Collaboration at small
scale remains possible but talk pages dont scale well at all to tens
of
22 matches
Mail list logo
