I second the motion to move this discussion to the wikiresearch-l
list, since two threads have diverged... SJ
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Garrett <agarr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Neil Harris <use...@tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/07/10 22:38, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Дана Monday 19 July 2010 22:20:15 Brian J Mingus написа:
>>>
>>>> Feel free to provide your feedback on this idea, in addition to your own
>>>> ideas, in this thread, or to me personally. I am especially interested in
>>>> the potential benefits to the WMF projects that you see, and to hear your
>>>> thoughts on the potential of this project on its own, as that will feature
>>>> prominently in the proposal. Additionally, what do you think WikiCite would
>>>> eventually be like, once it is fully matured?
>>>>
>>> I was thinking about this too. Main advantages that I see are that citations
>>> will become easier to use for editors while more informative for readers.
>>> Too
>>> often I just link to something instead of properly filling a cite template
>>> because it's just too bothersome. For example, instead of this crud:
>>>
>>> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
>>> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
>>> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>>
>>> we would have just:
>>>
>>> {{cite|work=Српски митолошки речник |pages=161 |chapter=Јерисавља}}
>>>
>>
>> Since there might be more than one edition of the same book, you'd still
>> have to do a unique identifier, and expanding the cite into the text of
>> the article is still a good idea. I would suggest making the system work
>> like the current {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}} and {{cite medline}}
>> templates, where you'd add (say)
>>
>> {{cite citeid|345343095}}
>>
>> to the article, and a bot would come round to the article and replace
>> this with:
>>
>> {{cite book|author=Š. Kulišić |coauthors=P. Ž. Petrović, N. Pantelić |
>> title=Српски митолошки речник |origyear=1970 |publisher=[[Nolit]] |
>> location=Belgrade |language=Serbian |pages=161
>> |chapter=Јерисавља|citeid=345343095}}
>>
>> Doing this would combine the advantages of a central database, which has
>> great advantages for providing authoritative centralized data, with the
>> redundant copying of the same information into the article, which has great
>> advantages for archival purposes, so that, were the central database ever to
>> be lost, or access to be unavailable, the information would remain
>> accessible in the article text itself.
>>
>> By retaining the link in the expanded template, corrections and improvements
>> to data in the authoritative database could then, as necessary, be
>> propagated into articles using a bot. However, if bad data is ever uploaded
>> into the database, the full expansion of the cite would still be available
>> in the article history, again aiding archival access, and protecting against
>> data corruption.
>
> Whatever syntax is used, we should absolutely not expect users to
> remember it and the unique identifier of the cited work. There should
> be a "Cite" button in the toolbar that will allow users to look up
> (with search suggestions) the correct work, request any further
> information, and add the information into the page. Then we don't need
> to get hung up on the syntax, except for readability's sake.
>
> --
> Andrew Garrett
> http://werdn.us/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
