Larry Sanger | 22 Jan 01:02 2001

Wikipedia rocks!

Welcome, o ye five initial members of wikipedia-l, to wikipedia-l!

Actually, the point of this post is to put something in the archives.

On the assumption that all wikipedia articles have the letter "e" in
them, there are now 184 Wikipedia articles.  I added a "best of" page
you might be interested in:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?BrilliantProse

Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far, and that's great.

Larry

Larry Sanger | 26 Jan 07:51 2001

Wikipedia--pootified

http://www.pootpoot.com/poot/pootify?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipedia.com&
options=none

Jason Richey | 26 Jan 21:27 2001

test, please disregard

This is only a test, please disregard this message.

--

-- 
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr@...>

Timothy Shell | 27 Jan 09:09 2001

A few comments about Wikipedia

I was playing with Wikipedia this evening and became aware of the
following issues:

1.  If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page.  See for
example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of the
concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description.  If a
discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard discussion
page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to from the
subject page.

2.  Often the wiki links for noun and adjective forms of a word should
point to the same subject page.  For example, SkI and SkiinG are
essentially overlapping concepts.  We could say, on the SkI page, "To
engage in SkiinG".  This is not elegant, but it works, I suppose.  I see
on the WhichWikiShouldWeUse page that there are different versions of wiki
that might allow for different ways of linking.  Do one of these
alternative ways offer a solution to this problem, allowing for different 
links to point to the same subject page?

Tim

Bryce Harrington | 27 Jan 09:02 2001
Picon

Re: A few comments about Wikipedia

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Timothy Shell wrote:

> 
> I was playing with Wikipedia this evening and became aware of the
> following issues:
> 
> 1.  If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
> appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page.  See for
> example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of the
> concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description.  If a
> discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard discussion
> page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to from the
> subject page.

I disagree; in fact I think it is healthy that there is discussion on
subject pages, and a normal thing that will arise naturally when a
subject is written with inappropriate amounts of bias.  Once the
discussion has achieved concensus (this can take a non-trivial amount of
time), someone will be compelled to go back and summarize up the
discussion.  The resulting subject, IMHO, will be much the stronger for
the discussion, because it will account for multiple viewpoints.

If it helps, imagine a bunch of old professors sitting around a library
table discussing one of the esteemed fella's submissions to the
encyclopedia.  If you've ever heard professors discuss their areas of
passion with one another, you'll know that it can be anything but
gentlemanly at times.  ;-)

Anyway, I believe it will be self-correcting.  This is part of the
reason wiki's work so well.  I don't think any rules need to be made.
(Continue reading)

Jimmy Wales | 27 Jan 21:14 2001

Re: A few comments about Wikipedia

Timothy Shell wrote:
> 1.  If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
> appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page.  See for
> example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of the
> concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description.  If a
> discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard discussion
> page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to from the
> subject page.

There is already a cultural tradition in the wiki world called
"refactoring".  The idea is that there is a "discussion mode" and
a "document mode".  In discussion mode, people have a threaded discussion,
with many different issues being raised.

Then, some WikiMaster comes through after the discussion has died
down, and "refactors" the page.  This involves editing/rewriting/
rearranging, so that all points of view are presented fairly.

> 2.  Often the wiki links for noun and adjective forms of a word should
> point to the same subject page.  For example, SkI and SkiinG are
> essentially overlapping concepts.  We could say, on the SkI page, "To
> engage in SkiinG".  This is not elegant, but it works, I suppose.  I see
> on the WhichWikiShouldWeUse page that there are different versions of wiki
> that might allow for different ways of linking.  Do one of these
> alternative ways offer a solution to this problem, allowing for different 
> links to point to the same subject page?

I don't think there is any automated solution to this and similar
problems.

(Continue reading)

Larry Sanger | 27 Jan 20:45 2001

Re: A few comments about Wikipedia

From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@...>
> Timothy Shell wrote:
> > 1.  If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
> > appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page.  See for
> > example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of
the
> > concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description.
If a
> > discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard
discussion
> > page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to
from the
> > subject page.
>
> There is already a cultural tradition in the wiki world called
> "refactoring".  The idea is that there is a "discussion mode" and
> a "document mode".  In discussion mode, people have a threaded
discussion,
> with many different issues being raised.
>
> Then, some WikiMaster comes through after the discussion has died
> down, and "refactors" the page.  This involves editing/rewriting/
> rearranging, so that all points of view are presented fairly.

Well, I'm not sure that the history of wiki is relevant here, because we
are, after all, making an attempt at creating an encyclopedia, and
therefore we're making some attempt at being unbiased in our entries.
This is especially crucial in that this is a collaborative endeavor.
How can a collaborative endeavor *not* have a nonbias policy?

(Continue reading)

Clifford Adams | 27 Jan 23:59 2001
Picon

Hello, "FreeLinks" work, and redirected pages.

    Hello to all of my fellow WikiPedia fanatics! :-)

    I'm the author of the UseModWiki software currently running the WikiPedia.
While I was skeptical at first, I think the wiki approach could work very well
for a collaborative encyclopedia.  I've decided to focus most of my near-term
efforts on new features and supporting tools for WikiPedia (most of which will
also help the other UseModWiki sites).

    If any of the readers of this list have any questions about the wiki
software, I'd be glad to try to answer them.  My "permanent" email address is
caadams@..., but this frontiernet.net address should work for awhile
(I'm not planning on moving).

-----

    I've done a lot of thinking about WikiLinking recently, and I'm not sure
that the WikiName (capital letters) convention is a good fit for the
encyclopedia.  The AccidentalLinking is a nice feature, but it has a price in
harder-to-read links and confusing conventions.

    For instance, when I recently wanted to link to "democracy", I first did a
search to see if someone else had linked the name (I thought someone might
have already used "DemoCracy").  I found that nobody else had linked that
name, so I made the link "DemocracY" (to follow the new convention of
last-letter-capitalized).  In short, it took me far more time to make that
link than it would have to just type [[democracy]].  Someone unfamiliar with
the local wiki conventions might guess otherwise on another page and link to a
separate "DemoCracy" or even "DeMocracy".  Ick.

    To make a longish story short, I added code (about 150 new lines of Perl)
(Continue reading)

Larry Sanger | 28 Jan 00:23 2001

Re: Hello, "FreeLinks" work, and redirected pages.

Hi Cliff,

Wow!  Thanks for doing all this for us.  The changes you're making are
very groovy.

This will handily remove name ambiguities due to differing placements of
the second capital letter.  We'll still have to deal with the problem of
different names for closely-related concepts (e.g., "communism" and
"communist"), but the redirection feature seems to take care of that
pretty well...

A great feature would be something that would instantaneously,
automatically, rename both a page and all the links to it.

Larry

Bryce Harrington | 28 Jan 07:10 2001
Picon

Re: Hello, "FreeLinks" work, and redirected pages.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Clifford Adams wrote:

>     Hello to all of my fellow WikiPedia fanatics! :-)
> 
>     I'm the author of the UseModWiki software currently running the WikiPedia.
> While I was skeptical at first, I think the wiki approach could work very well
> for a collaborative encyclopedia.  I've decided to focus most of my near-term
> efforts on new features and supporting tools for WikiPedia (most of which will
> also help the other UseModWiki sites).
> 
>     If any of the readers of this list have any questions about the wiki
> software, I'd be glad to try to answer them.  My "permanent" email address is
> caadams@..., but this frontiernet.net address should work
for awhile
> (I'm not planning on moving).

Well, since we've got the ear of a this wiki's maintainer, I'll withdraw
my suggestion to change to TWiki.  Instead, I'll describe some things I
liked about other wiki's I've used...

* In other wiki's, I've seen *bold* and _italic_ done that way, rather
than using multiple single-quotes.  I dare say I prefer it that way, but
it appears that <b>this</b> and <i>this</i> seem to work, so that's ok.

* We definitely need some way to distinguish headers.  I've been making
them bold, but that's not really enough to distinguish between different
levels of headers.

* We really need an upload functionality, so that we can easily submit
images for the site.  So far, I've just been including src links
(Continue reading)


Gmane