Some ideas: 
* Add topical forums to Wikipedia, by a rough count around eighty different 
topics. The encyclopedia article (primarily the one in the current global 
common language of American English) is the central document which contains the 
facts around any particular issue, and forums serve not just as a centralized 
discussion place around the article, but serve as more general discussion 
places and a way of coordinating article development. Currently discussion 
about article development tends to be spread out across too many talk pages and 
WikiProject pages tend to be too development oriented. * Integrate Wiktionary 
and Wikidata entries in Wikipedia searches. As a technical idea where the 
problem is one of "'this particular data belongs in an encyclopedia, while this 
other nuancedly-different set belongs in a dictionary." Specifically dealing 
with Wiktionary and Wiktionary because together with Wikipedia these should 
cover the whole Semantic Field.* Similar to above: Clicking on links is like 
doing a specific search.. deliver similar Wikidata and Wiktionary entries at 
top in addition to going to article. Clicking on links has that pidgeon-holing 
problem as well, of this topic (a link is basically a search entry already 
filled-out for you). Solution.. show a little related metadata at the top, and 
as a consequence.. continued:* Formalize the way disambiguation links are 
handled. An approach to developing Wikipedia is simply covering all possible 
topics. Including Wiktionary and Wikidata entries in Wikipedia searches is a 
technical idea that helps develop these other two projects and also lets them 
and their different handling help Wikipedia build and integrate articles, and 
Wikidata allows the idea of including.. continued:* Categorical language to 
cover the whole Semantic Field of ideas (building a dictionary of ideas, in 
term and phrase forms, which formalize "talking generally"): Talking about a 
thing might receive suppression (from either or both governments in the World) 
because talking about a thing along would (or in some legalistic arguments 
"might") reveal secrets about people. But news and history still have to be 
documented based on a reporting of events, and talking categorically is a way 
to say what's going on without being "defaming," because we aren't being 
specific. * Update opinion/policy regarding Machine translation-transformation 
and its implementation. The idea of each language getting its own wiki was the 
open ended approach, and was successful even though it has had some drawbacks 
the other is using the big languages to receive users into more and more 
assisted arenas, where machine translation (contract with Army/Google) is 
mature enough to integrate into the editing and discussion form. * Political: 
Fortify against the slippery slope that lets defamation arguments receive 
automatic or near-automatic legal suppression. The standard cartoon is where 
the lawyers argue that something a nation state does in the way of a crime has 
to be suppressed from news and history "because" its of a "defamation" to the 
unelected or elected leaders.  The idea of "suppression" (was called 
"oversight," really..) as permissible gets to that issue much debated about 
what kind of world are we going to have.. does it have too much suppression in 
it, such that there are things which we are categorically forbidden from 
reporting, even though we in the United States and other non-monarchial regions 
do not live by an anti-democratic philosophy of government.
Steven Cooneyfrom 2002

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to