I agree completely as well. You all must realize, though, that the
amount of (expensive) paid programming labor Bomis can devote to
useful and even essential features like this is less than we would
all like. It would be ideal if some programmers would step up to the
plate and actually help bring some of these proposals into being. I
for one would be absolutely delighted.
Larry
You Wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 09:56:47AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>> Jan Hidders <hidders(a)win.tue.nl> writes:
>>
>> > Because the GFDL allows you to download everything and start
your own
>> > server.
>>
>> Well the GFDL also wants transparent copy to be easily available. I
>> don't consider spidering wikipedia to be an option open to the "man
>> from the street".
>
>FWIW I certainly agree with that, and there should certainly be an
easy
>way to download the complete Wikipedia. So you can also add
my "pretty
>please" :-)
>
>-- Jan Hidders
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>0
kpjas(a)tau.ceti.pl writes:
> Hello all,
Wikipedia is naturally collaborative.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Groups seem to organise
themselves '''naturally''', and really don't need formal structures, or at
least not those that they can't figure out for themselves. If you feel that
you can and want to organise a "Tiger Team" for some topic or organise
collabaration between the various international wikis, fantastic, go ahead,
you certainly don't need offical blessing.
I for one can prefer the freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like wikipedia
as it is. As long as we respect each other opinions, and work toward
NeutralPointOfView, we don't need any more formal layers of bureaucracy beyond
the occasional stern telling off by Larry :)
--
Gareth Owen
On Wednesday 21 August 2002 04:41 pm, Enchanter wrote:
> I don't think [using history and the top of talk pages] is enough.
> If others were using wikipedia articles, we
> would want a prominent clickable link back to our article, not something
> buried in the edit history or the talk page. Simple fairness and courtesy
> would require that we do the same and link prominently to others, as we do
> with FOLDOC.
Most sites simply have a link to their copyrights page and/or to a
bibliography, that's all we should have (see below). Do we really want to
have all the source info contained at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnesium in the main part of the article?
As more and more info is added the article will begin to look more and more
messy. Having this type of info in the article will also only encourage
newbies to sign articles they create. This stuff needs to go somplace else
that is obvious and doesn't clutter the article.
On Wednesday 21 August 2002 04:41 pm, --April wrote:
> Would it be possible to add a Credits: namespace that, like the Talk:
> namespace would track a given article? That way we could put credits,
> links-back, links to any invariant texts, et cetera ad nauseum. We could
> even put in hardcopy references, which would be useful and keep 'em from
> cluttering a document. Best of all, it's unobtrusive but easily
> accessible.
Yes, I think this would be a great idea. Having attiribs at the top of a
page called talk is non-obvious while having them in a credits:, sources: or
better yet bibliography: namespace would be very initiative. This should be
linked from the article's page in the same way as talk is and should have
special features available only to sources (or whatever) namespaces.
Some features might be; some text explanation in the non-editable part of
each page briefly explaining what that page is, how it augments the standard
history for large external adds and how to use it with a link to a longer
explanation and to wikipedia:copyrights. Another thing worth considering is
somehow using Lee's jump-to feature along with clickable footnote numbers --
clicking on footnote 5 takes you to that footnote on the bibliography: page
for that article (and/or mouse over text of that footnote is displayed).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
What's wrong with simply placing any attrib or URL in the edit summary that
places the text in the article? The history isn't editable and will
(hopefully) be a permanent part of the article. That, combinded with another
notice at the top of talk will be more than enough. As for others using our
material; we already require a link-back to the original article so others
can access the talk and history.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Monday 19 August 2002 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> also .info, .net
>
> That these are safe is not bad but to buy every possibel wikipedia.*
> seems a waste to me.
>
> giskart
Wouldn't be cheaper and more sensible to trademark the word "wikipedia" in
order to prevent somebody from actually using wikipedia.info/.org/.ca or
.whatever? At 30 bucks US a year per TLD that could get expensive.
I think it would be far better to eventually asign each language their own
.org URL that is their languages' version of the word "wikipedia"
(Vikipedio.org for Esperanto or Wikipedia.org for English for example).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hello all,
The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.
I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a
volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have
invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in
some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to
prosper.
In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of
Wikipedia.
How does Bomis see it ?
How does Nupedia see it ?
How do we ?
The future might be or might not as bright as our imagination whispers
into our ears.
Wikipedia is a great idea combined with a new, revolutionary software
and it has a lot of brilliant committed authors. Her growth is
explosive. But there are also weaknesses (Wikinesses ?) brought into
light be some of us.
Reliability
The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite
possible lack of reliability.
This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's
credibility and ultimately her success.
This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree
here with [[Larry Sanger]] and his view "self-healing". It is an
example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
I'd rather agree with [[Piotr Wozniak]]. His ideal of reliability is
EB and he is anxious about the potential lack of it in Wikipedia.
I am very interested in other people views. To start the creative
process of discussion I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea :
Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is almost
frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like). And the
working Wikipedia for contributors. Forseeing your criticisms of the proposal
that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead into the
working Wikipedia.
Scalability
There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.
If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first
symptom of a serious problem.
I'll give you my ([[Kpjas]]) idea : :Nowadays distributed software
solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed
Wikipedia ? Programmers ?
Multimedia
A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
It is rather trivial.
I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
real encyclopedia.
I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
pages.
Internal data format
This point is connected with Software issue below. Current data format is
otherwise an example of excellent software solution. But understandably the
creator of it did not envision the scale of Wikipedia. It poses numerous
problems like searching through Wikipedia and others. My ([[Kpjas]]) thoughts
wander around [[XML]] data format in connection with a free [[database]] like
[[MySQL]]. And your thoughts ?
Editorial process
Much has been said about it but not much done.
We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - [[Larry
Sanger]] but I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such
editors and when it reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.
My idea ([[Kpjas]] is :
Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias
borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the
simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted
to editorial groups like [[Architecture]], [[Philosophy]] and so on.
Software
Like any other open software project the software behind it should be
free and open to all.
The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia
software (usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but
needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go
beyond that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.
On the Wikipedia mailing list [[BryceHarrington]] proposed making the
Wikipedia software publicly available on [[CVS]] for further
collaboration on its development.
Commercial and organizational issues
I'm no good at it. But to me it seems to be one of the most important
issues, second to wide netizen involvement.
Please, share your feelings and opinions here.
Best wishes to everyone,
kpj.
--
Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz, M.D | Nic w przyrodzie nie ginie, jedynie spełnione
Czestochowa, Poland ... | nadzieje. Stanisław Jerzy Lec
Więcej cytatów : http://www.cytaty.prv.pl
Bryce, no doubt, I would be miffed if I were you. I share your
confusion, too. I had no idea that it was such a small operation
(remember, I'm not a programmer, so you must explain things simply
and clearly to me, if you want me to understand). I assure you that
there is absolutely no *resistance* to the request--unless inertia
counts as resistance...
Nupedia isn't making any money either. In fact, Wikipedia is much
closer to
the point where it might (somehow) make money for Bomis (and
therefore,
potentially, for anyone else who wants to use the content for profit).
Anyway, remember, Wikipedia, like Nupedia, is a volunteer project--so
it's
not surprising (though regrettable) that essential features like this
should
be rooted-for and planned by volunteers. Really, we should have done
this
long ago.
On the other hand, long ago, we didn't really know that the project
would be so successful so quickly, that this would be so important
and useful so soon!
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryce Harrington" <bryce(a)neptune.net>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com>
Cc: <jasonr(a)bomis.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia teamwork
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 sanger1(a)nupedia.com wrote:
> > ... but, well--our programmers are very busy
> > with projects that actually make money. :-/
>
> (And the rest of us programmers are not?)
>
> Wikipedia gains nupedia a good deal of attention. You also have
said
> that there may be articles which can go into nupedia. I further
imagine
> you will find other ways to profit off wikipedia more directly; I
know
> you have expended thought in this area.
>
> The reason many people got involved (at the very least, *me*) was
the
> willingness to hold the content under the GFDL. As I see it, what
folks
> are asking is simply to deliver on the promises made at the outset,
and
> frankly it's rather frightening to encounter any resistance to
requests
> like these. (Like a car manufacturer refusing to do warranty work
> because their employees are busy making new sales.)
>
> This is NOT going to take anyone more than maybe an hour to do. It
> isn't really even programming, per se; any unix sysadmin should be
> comfortable crontabbing tarballs of a website. And it IS tied up
with
> being able to continue making money; call it a marketing or legal
> requirement if nothing else.
>
> Anyway, I'm a little miffed - you said your programmers were too
busy,
> and that you'd appreciate it if someone would supply code to do
it. I
> responded with some code that would do the minimum needed to comply
> (just change the paths). I was anticipating a thank you, but
instead
> "It does no good to post it here"? Well, call me confused. ;-)
>
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>> Multimedia
>>
>> A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
>> It is rather trivial.
>> I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a
>> real encyclopedia.
>> I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :
>> AudioWikipedia, PhotoWikipedia, VideoWikipedia - pages that can be
>> linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk
>> pages.
>
>Agreed, agreed, agreed. What we need, essentially, is an upload tool
>that lets us post images onto the wikipedia site. This opens many
>benefits but also some cans of worms, so this is not a trivial request.
>
>I've written file upload systems several times over the years, and I'm
>about to need to do yet another one at work. I will *tentatively* offer
>to volunteer to provide something that can be plugged into wikipedia to
>do file uploads, if Larry and Jason give the go ahead for it. It may be
>a few months, if at all, before I can have it ready, though.
>
Until then, is there any reason why we couldn't use FTP to upload images?
An anonymous FTP account allowing us to upload to, say,
www.wikipedia.com/images would do the trick, and we could simply link the
pictures from there.
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The same article was put on a Wikipedia page.
>
>I just have a few random, not-worth keeping comments so will reply here
>rather than on the wiki site. (Btw, good idea to post it there.)
etc.
I think these comments are worth posting on the site. Ah, modesty.....0
Just by the way, I have it from an excellent source that there really is no
appreciable likelihood that Wikipedia will die because Bomis goes under,
barring acts of God and such. It is great to be able to say, truly, that
Bomis has very nicely weathered the great Internet bubble-burst.
Larry