On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Happy-melon <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Chad" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Aryeh Gregor >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Happy-melon <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> FlaggedRevs? Rollback? I guess the real position is neither black nor >>>> white, and neither of our blanket statements are valid. My original >>>> point >>>> was that this is a particularly bad time to do this, because this is a >>>> point >>>> of contention on enwiki in particular. A better way of phrasing it >>>> would be >>>> to say that the communities' opinions are relevant but not binding on >>>> sysadmin actions; where the area is more contentious, the community's >>>> thoughts should be given a greater prominence. >>> >>> I'd put it differently: we don't have to *consult* the communities to >>> change the software, but we should set the defaults to what most of >>> them would *want* anyway, as far as we can tell (and subject to >>> Wikimedia's mission). If we have reason to believe that some change >>> (whether adding, removing, or modifying a feature) would tick off a >>> particular community, that weighs against making the change, although >>> not conclusively. So it might sometimes be reasonable to say "You >>> shouldn't do that because most communities wouldn't want it", but not >>> to say "You shouldn't do that because you haven't asked the >>> communities about it". IMO. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> >> At this point, all I see is a discussion between two technologies that are >> about equally difficult to implement for MediaWiki, provide roughly the >> same benefits, varying largely in the semantics of how it's presented. In >> any case, I'm inclined to agree with Happy-Melon on this issue, and I >> think >> we're going about it in the wrong way. >> >> If we've got access to this metadata, then sure, it should be distributed >> in >> as many formats as people show a desire to consume. This could be RDFa, >> Microdata, or anything. Right now though, we do not have this metadata. >> All we have is templates. Trying to extract this data from templates (or >> by extension, parser/tag functions) is approaching the problem from the >> wrong >> direction. It still relies on input of wikitext into the edit form. We >> need to >> remember that wikitext is a markup language designed with presentation >> in mind, not semantic data. This sort of page metadata (licenses, >> categories, >> etc) needs to be kept out of the edit page entirely. >> >> -Chad >> > > I think you got your threads in a twist... :-D > > --HM > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >
Whoops. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
