Mailing List Archive

Can anyone really edit Wikipedia?
I tried to correct a sentence on the article MySpace in the English
Wikipedia today. Well, I never got around to doing it.

Here is what I'm hit with when I click the edit button. I really tried
to change the stuff I wanted. I gave up.

====Beginning of madness======

{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}
{{Infobox Dotcom company
|company_name = MySpace
|company_slogan = A Place for Friends
|owner = [[Fox Interactive Media]]
|company_logo = [[Image:MySpace logo.svg|225px]]
|company_type = [[Subsidiary]]
|foundation = 2003
|location_city = [[Beverly Hills, California|Beverly Hills]], [[California]]
|location_country = U.S.
|key_people = [[Tom Anderson (MySpace)|Tom Anderson]],
President<br>[[Chris DeWolfe]], CEO
|num_employees = 300
|url = [http://www.myspace.com/ MySpace.com]
|registration = Required
|launch_date = August, 2003
|current_status = Active
|language = [[MySpace#International sites|15 languages]]
|advertising = [[Google]], [[AdSense]]
|website_type = [[Social network service|Social networking]]
}}
[[Image:Foxinteractivemediaheadquarters.jpg|thumb|260px|Fox
Interactive Media headquarters, 407 North Maple Drive, [[Beverly
Hills]], California, where MySpace is also housed]]

'''MySpace''' is a popular [[social network service|social
networking]] [[website]] offering an interactive, user-submitted
network of friends, personal profiles, blogs, groups, photos, music
and videos for teenagers and adults internationally. Its headquarters
are in [[Beverly Hills]], [[California]],
[[USA]],<ref>[http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2006/08/my_space_is_not_thei.php
My Space is not their space anymore] - Article on the move to
[[Beverly Hills]]. Retrieved March 16, 2007.</ref> where it shares an
office building with its immediate owner, [[Fox Interactive Media]];
which is owned by [[News Corporation]], which has its headquarters in
[[New York City]]. In June 2006, MySpace was the most popular social
networking site in the [[United
States]].<ref>[http://mashable.com/2006/07/11/myspace-americas-number-one/
MySpace, America's Number One<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
According to [[comScore]], MySpace has been overtaken by main
competitor [[Facebook]] in April 2008, based on monthly unique
visitors.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Facebook_Largest_Fastest_Growing_Social_Network/551-92134-643.html
|title=Facebook: Largest, Fastest Growing Social Network
|accessdate=2008-08-14 |author=Techtree News Staff |date=2008-08-13
|work=Techtree.com |publisher=ITNation |doi= |archiveurl=
|archivedate= |quote= }}</ref>
The company employs 300 staff<ref name="CNNMoney-MyspaceCowboys">{{cite news
| url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/09/04/8384727/index.htm
| publisher=CNN
| title=MySpace Cowboys
| last=Sellers
| first=Patricia
| date=2006-08-24
| accessdate=2006-08-28
}}</ref> and does not disclose [[revenue]]s or [[profit]]s separately
from News Corporation. The 100 millionth account was created on August
6, 2006<ref name="MySpace100Millionth Profile">{{cite news
|url=http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=100000000
|publisher=MySpace
|title=100,000,000th Account
|date=2007-02-25
|accessdate=2007-02-21
}}</ref> in the [[Netherlands]]<ref name="Murdochcomments">{{cite news
| url=http://internet.seekingalpha.com/article/15237
| publisher=SeekingAlpha
| title=Rupert Murdoch Comments on Fox Interactive's Growth
| last=Murdoch
| first=Rupert
| date=2006-08-09
| accessdate=2006-09-12
}}</ref> and approximately 106 million accounts on September 8,
2006,<ref name="ElReg-MySpaceMusic">{{cite news
| url = http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/08/myspace_threatens_record_labels/
| title = MySpace music deal poses multiple threats
| date= 2006-09-08
| accessdate = 2006-09-08
| publisher = The Register
}}</ref> and the site attracts 230,000 new users per day.<ref>{{cite
news|last=Sellers|first=Patricia|title=MySpace
cowboys|url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/09/04/8384727/index.htm|work=[[Money
(magazine)|Money]]|publisher=CNN.com|date=2006-09-04|accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref>

=======End of madness======

If we're really to bring knowledge to the world, it's becoming urgent
that we work on accessibility, because even experienced users (I
consider myself one) just can't do it.


In any case, if anyone wants to (can?) make the change, here is what I
wanted to change:

Change the sentence "The 100 millionth account was created on August
6, 2006[5] in the Netherlands[6] and approximately 106 million
accounts on September 8, 2006,[7] and the site attracts 230,000 new
users per day.[8]"

Which does not make sense, to something like:

"The 100 millionth account was created on August 6, 2006 [5] in the
Netherlands [6] and the site counted approximately 106 million
accounts on September 8, 2006 [7]. MySpace.com attracts 230,000 new
users per day. [8]"

Which actually makes sense.


Delphine

--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Your emails will get lost.
Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>:
> If we're really to bring knowledge to the world, it's becoming urgent
> that we work on accessibility, because even experienced users (I
> consider myself one) just can't do it.

We can for example the code you posted is just an infobox, a picture
and some refed text. Something you will find in most articles although
the opening para tends not to be that heavily refed.

Still yes more normal users do have a problem. Most implementable
solution at this point is probably syntax highlighting with as default
everything other than straight article text being grayed out.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
> In any case, if anyone wants to (can?) make the change, here is what I
> wanted to change:

Done. So I guess you could edit it, but indirectly!

You're right, the way we currently do references results in a complete
mess. It requires some development work to make any progress, I think
- I'll take a look at the relevant code and see if it can be done
easily.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right, the way we currently do references results in a complete
> mess. It requires some development work to make any progress, I think
> - I'll take a look at the relevant code and see if it can be done
> easily.


One solution would be to define references at the bottom of the
article, and use them in the text. (This is possible with the current
implementation, but only messily.) Then the code above would look
something like below.

The infobox is a separate problem, but fixing the inline references
will be a huge improvement.

######################################
The 100 millionth account was created on August 6, 2006<ref
name="MySpace100Millionth" /> in the [[Netherlands]]<ref
name="Murdochcomments" /> and approximately 106 million accounts on
September 8, 2006,<ref name="ElReg-MySpaceMusic" /> and the site
attracts 230,000 new users per day<ref name="PatriciaSellers" />.

==References==
<ref name="MySpace100Millionth Profile">{{cite news
|url=http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=100000000
|publisher=MySpace
|title=100,000,000th Account
|date=2007-02-25
|accessdate=2007-02-21
}}</ref>

<ref name="Murdochcomments">{{cite news
| url=http://internet.seekingalpha.com/article/15237
| publisher=SeekingAlpha
| title=Rupert Murdoch Comments on Fox Interactive's Growth
| last=Murdoch
| first=Rupert
| date=2006-08-09
| accessdate=2006-09-12
}}</ref>

<ref name="ElReg-MySpaceMusic">{{cite news
| url = http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/08/myspace_threatens_record_labels/
| title = MySpace music deal poses multiple threats
| date= 2006-09-08
| accessdate = 2006-09-08
| publisher = The Register
}}</ref>

<ref name="PatriciaSellers">{{cite
news|last=Sellers|first=Patricia|title=MySpace
cowboys|url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/09/04/8384727/index.htm|work=[[Money
(magazine)|Money]]|publisher=CNN.com|date=2006-09-04|accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref>

<references />
######################################

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
Well, we can change the way refs are done, sure, but I think we want to
watch how we downplay them. We don't want to make them less present, we
want to make them more comprehensible to the layman. Refs are an intrinsic
part of an article, and it doesn't necessarily help an article to make them
easier for contributors to ignore.

--Ford MF


On 9/25/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In any case, if anyone wants to (can?) make the change, here is what I
> > wanted to change:
>
> Done. So I guess you could edit it, but indirectly!
>
> You're right, the way we currently do references results in a complete
> mess. It requires some development work to make any progress, I think
> - I'll take a look at the relevant code and see if it can be done
> easily.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
<pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're right, the way we currently do references results in a complete
>> mess. It requires some development work to make any progress, I think
>> - I'll take a look at the relevant code and see if it can be done
>> easily.
>
>
> One solution would be to define references at the bottom of the
> article, and use them in the text. (This is possible with the current
> implementation, but only messily.) Then the code above would look
> something like below.
>
> The infobox is a separate problem, but fixing the inline references
> will be a huge improvement.
>
> ######################################
> The 100 millionth account was created on August 6, 2006<ref
> name="MySpace100Millionth" /> in the [[Netherlands]]<ref
> name="Murdochcomments" /> and approximately 106 million accounts on
> September 8, 2006,<ref name="ElReg-MySpaceMusic" /> and the site
> attracts 230,000 new users per day<ref name="PatriciaSellers" />.
>
> ==References==
> <ref name="MySpace100Millionth Profile">{{cite news
> |url=http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=100000000
> |publisher=MySpace
> |title=100,000,000th Account
> |date=2007-02-25
> |accessdate=2007-02-21
> }}</ref>
>
> <ref name="Murdochcomments">{{cite news
> | url=http://internet.seekingalpha.com/article/15237
> | publisher=SeekingAlpha
> | title=Rupert Murdoch Comments on Fox Interactive's Growth
> | last=Murdoch
> | first=Rupert
> | date=2006-08-09
> | accessdate=2006-09-12
> }}</ref>
>
> <ref name="ElReg-MySpaceMusic">{{cite news
> | url = http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/08/myspace_threatens_record_labels/
> | title = MySpace music deal poses multiple threats
> | date= 2006-09-08
> | accessdate = 2006-09-08
> | publisher = The Register
> }}</ref>
>
> <ref name="PatriciaSellers">{{cite
> news|last=Sellers|first=Patricia|title=MySpace
> cowboys|url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/09/04/8384727/index.htm|work=[[Money
> (magazine)|Money]]|publisher=CNN.com|date=2006-09-04|accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref>
>
> <references />
> ######################################


I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
some reason we don't do this?

-- phoebe


--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right, the way we currently do references results in a complete
> mess. It requires some development work to make any progress, I think
> - I'll take a look at the relevant code and see if it can be done
> easily.

Some kind of syntax highlighting might be good (we obviously have
syntax highlighting extensions already installed, the trick now is
just making it work in the edit window). Syntax folding might be a
nice addition too, but I've never seen that in a working web
interface. WYSIWYG is obviously the ultimate goal, but progress on
that has been understandably slow. There are some interesting helpful
editing extensions available, maybe some of them need to be evaluated
and good cross-platform features could be folded into MediaWiki's core
eventually.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
> I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
> references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
> Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
> more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
> reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
> refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
> the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
> some reason we don't do this?

The problem at the moment is that you would end up with links to each
ref at the bottom of the article and each ref would have an extra
letter linking back to those links. I'm looking at the code now to see
how easy it would be to allow hidden refs - it should be doable.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
> reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
> refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
> the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
> some reason we don't do this?
>
> -- phoebe
>

I cannot see anything positive in that refname system. It is
complicated to the user and invites people to indicate less thoroughly
were the information comes from (dropping page numbers, because it's
the same book). There is absolutely no problem to copy the full
reference information into the ref, making it independent from other
refs and from "Literature".

Ziko

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 17:37, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're right, the way we currently do references results in a complete
>> mess. It requires some development work to make any progress, I think
>> - I'll take a look at the relevant code and see if it can be done
>> easily.
>
> Some kind of syntax highlighting might be good (we obviously have
> syntax highlighting extensions already installed, the trick now is
> just making it work in the edit window). Syntax folding might be a
> nice addition too, but I've never seen that in a working web
> interface. WYSIWYG is obviously the ultimate goal, but progress on
> that has been understandably slow. There are some interesting helpful
> editing extensions available, maybe some of them need to be evaluated
> and good cross-platform features could be folded into MediaWiki's core
> eventually.

For what it's worth, I think WYSIWYG is evil. But there is probably a
middle path between cluttered text and Word-like unstructuration.

To some extent, I am thinking that this difficult in editing might
prompt vandalism (It's all gibberish anyway, so who cares") and
prevent participation ("I seriously tried to edit this page to make
this grammatical mistake go away, but I just couldn't".)

Delphine
--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Your emails will get lost.
Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
Don't waste your time, it has already been
done<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Cite/Cite.php#Variation_for_refs_in_the_final_references_block>,
just not implemented.

2008/9/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>

> > I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
> > references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
> > Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
> > more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
> > reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
> > refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
> > the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
> > some reason we don't do this?
>
> The problem at the moment is that you would end up with links to each
> ref at the bottom of the article and each ref would have an extra
> letter linking back to those links. I'm looking at the code now to see
> how easy it would be to allow hidden refs - it should be doable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Jon Harald Søby
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
> I cannot see anything positive in that refname system. It is
> complicated to the user and invites people to indicate less thoroughly
> were the information comes from (dropping page numbers, because it's
> the same book). There is absolutely no problem to copy the full
> reference information into the ref, making it independent from other
> refs and from "Literature".

The problem is that it results in the source of the article being a
complicated mess than new users don't stand a chance of understanding.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think WYSIWYG is evil. But there is probably a
> middle path between cluttered text and Word-like unstructuration.

What has WYSIWYG ever done to you? :)

What about some kind of separation? We put together a gadget that
reads the text when you open an edit window and moves all the
complicated stuff (refs, complicated infobox templates, etc) out of
the main edit window and into a secondary edit window? When you click
"Save" the javascript reinserts the data before sending it off to the
server. This idea is off the top of my head and is obviously not
perfect, but does this kind of concept address your concerns?

--Andrew Whitwoth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>:
> I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
> references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
> Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
> more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
> reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
> refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
> the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
> some reason we don't do this?
>
> -- phoebe
>

Basically it results in a high maintenance cost with a fairly high
chance of errors. It means you have to keep the article text and the
end section in sync rather than just keeping all the stuff in one
place.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>:

> For what it's worth, I think WYSIWYG is evil. But there is probably a
> middle path between cluttered text and Word-like unstructuration.


It shouldn't be worse than wikitext - wikitext isn't any more
structured than Word. It's a display markup code that translates into
HTML, not a document structure code.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
>> references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
>> Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
>> more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
>> reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
>> refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
>> the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
>> some reason we don't do this?
>
> The problem at the moment is that you would end up with links to each
> ref at the bottom of the article and each ref would have an extra
> letter linking back to those links. I'm looking at the code now to see
> how easy it would be to allow hidden refs - it should be doable.
>

I wrote code to create a <refdefine> tag to do that literally years
ago. There wasn't much interest in it at the time.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
>>> references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
>>> Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
>>> more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
>>> reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
>>> refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
>>> the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
>>> some reason we don't do this?
>>
>> The problem at the moment is that you would end up with links to each
>> ref at the bottom of the article and each ref would have an extra
>> letter linking back to those links. I'm looking at the code now to see
>> how easy it would be to allow hidden refs - it should be doable.
>>
>
> I wrote code to create a <refdefine> tag to do that literally years
> ago. There wasn't much interest in it at the time.

I've got a patch written now, didn't take long at all. I've just added
an attribute to the existing ref tag. <ref name="foo"
hidden="true">text</ref> won't appear inline and won't be linked back
to. It seems a much simpler approach to the others I've seen. I've put
it on the bugtracker
(https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15724), I suggest
implementing it and just giving people to option of using it, see what
happens.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2008/9/25 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>:
>> I was going to say as well, what happened to that proposal to define
>> references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
>> Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
>> more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
>> reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
>> refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
>> the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
>> some reason we don't do this?
>>
>> -- phoebe
>>
>
> Basically it results in a high maintenance cost with a fairly high
> chance of errors. It means you have to keep the article text and the
> end section in sync rather than just keeping all the stuff in one
> place.

If a reference is used more than once, it's not all in one place
anyway. It actually solves the issue of someone accidentally deleting
the text for the ref not realising it is used elsewhere. For refs only
used once, it makes maintenance of the ref a little harder, but
maintenance of the rest of the article much easier.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> If a reference is used more than once, it's not all in one place
> anyway. It actually solves the issue of someone accidentally deleting
> the text for the ref not realising it is used elsewhere. For refs only
> used once, it makes maintenance of the ref a little harder, but
> maintenance of the rest of the article much easier.

There are areas where articles are likely to rack up a lot of single
use refs. But such a system already exists. Doesn't help a huge
amount. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Bolton_and_Bury_Canal#Work_begins



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
It is not only the references that could benefit from being moved away from
the start of the article. The first thing a user sees in the edit field is
usually an infobox. These too can get quite big and don't obviously enough
correspond to the article itself. How obvious is it anyway that the content
of the second column is defined ahead of the first?

A possibility to move the definition of the infobox out of the way would
present a reasonably recognisable text to the user. I believe both new and
old users would benefit.

Hans A. Rosbach
(Haros)

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:41 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/9/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> > If a reference is used more than once, it's not all in one place
> > anyway. It actually solves the issue of someone accidentally deleting
> > the text for the ref not realising it is used elsewhere. For refs only
> > used once, it makes maintenance of the ref a little harder, but
> > maintenance of the rest of the article much easier.
>
> There are areas where articles are likely to rack up a lot of single
> use refs. But such a system already exists. Doesn't help a huge
> amount. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Bolton_and_Bury_Canal#Work_begins
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 17:48, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/25 Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com>:
>
>> For what it's worth, I think WYSIWYG is evil. But there is probably a
>> middle path between cluttered text and Word-like unstructuration.
>
>
> It shouldn't be worse than wikitext - wikitext isn't any more
> structured than Word. It's a display markup code that translates into
> HTML, not a document structure code.

Maybe not, but it mostly forces some kind of structure if you want it
to look "pretty". Which WYSIWYG doesn't. You can just bold up stuff
and make it size 40 and it looks like a header, but isn't one. That's
what I mean with "structure", if that make sense.

Delphine

--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Your emails will get lost.
Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
Yeah, that seems far more friendly for all involved. I wonder how feasible
it is to change format incrementally - add it as a simple fix in AWB for
example?

Mike



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
Cite templates are against wiki-text philosophy.

Nemo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
2008/9/25 Nemo_bis <nemowiki@gmail.com>:
> Cite templates are against wiki-text philosophy.

Would you care to elaborate? Wiki-text doesn't really have a
philosophy, it's just what developers felt was a good idea at the time
(and later regretted in many cases, I believe!). It's generally
intended to be simple to use, but cite templates are certainly simpler
to use than writing out the reference by hand, so I don't know what
you mean...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Can anyone really edit Wikipedia? [ In reply to ]
The problem isn't cite templates as such. It's including cite templates in the main body of text that's the problem. The issue here is people thinking it's clever to jam their "notes" section and their "references" section together. If you have two separate sections, then all that has to go in the ref tags (and consequently in the main body of text) is the author's name and page number, as the full reference is already listed elsewhere. This makes editing the article possible.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> From: nemowiki@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:41:20 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Can anyone really edit Wikipedia?
>
> Cite templates are against wiki-text philosophy.
>
> Nemo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All