Yao Ziyuan is thinking along the right lines. Wikipedia can be more
than it currently is. We need experiments, we need to be experimental
again.
FT2 makes the excellent case that we need a level of 'insulation' to
protect our existing project from the potential negative effects of
failed experi
On 01/24/12 3:26 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in
the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the
relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and
can deal with the fact that a l
+1 exactly
There are 3 basic kinds of dialog - ** editors and participants actively
hoping to improve the article; ** feedback that is intended to have a
decent proportion of useful comments and can be sifted for them quickly;
and ** "chat about the topic, article, and anything else people ge
Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in
the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the
relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and
can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions
On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote:
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
on.
En
On 01/24/12 6:50 AM, FT2 wrote:
Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely
for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that
dead ends for so many reasons.
That usually begins to fail when the proponent discovers that he might
have to pay t
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, David Richfield
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM, FT2 wrote:
> > Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely
> > for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that
> > dead ends for so many reasons.
>
> M
On 24 January 2012 15:31, David Richfield wrote:
> Maybe implement a subreddit schema and some way to create a subreddit
> for each article? I don't know what Conde Nast's nastiness level is,
> though.
The Reddit code is open source. Apparently takes more than a little
work to do useful things
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely
> for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that
> dead ends for so many reasons.
Maybe implement a subreddit schema and some way to create a subreddit
Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely
for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that
dead ends for so many reasons.
FT2
2012/1/24 Johan Jönsson
> FT2:
>
> > - "costs" will be the distraction from working on high quality
> > dis
FT2:
> - "costs" will be the distraction from working on high quality
> discussions (1) (2) and article editing as a result of patroling and other
> needs of (3)
... and loss of neutrality, when the comments on controversial topics
(or even less controversial) are filled with arguments for
Instead of hosting comment sections on Wikipedia, there is also the
possibility to just retrieve external comments using Google Blog
Search. For example, if you're viewing [[Cat]], you can click a button
called "Show comments" below the article, which will run a Google Blog
Search that returns all
The difference is, we tread a narrow line here.
We want talk, but of a contributory kind, high signal-noise, high
proportion of information. There are three kinds of "discussion" that can
take place:
1. *User feedback* - characterized by specific one-off posts left for
others to uprate or
I would like to add my voice to the list of those who say that this is
a very bad idea, for reasons already listed.
One kernel of truth is that users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia
expect discussion at the bottom of EVERYTHING on the web. Blog posts,
videos, facebook posts.
Maybe at the botto
Turns out, this "adding a comment section under every Wikipedia
article" idea is not necessary, because if two people are interested
in the same topic, they can find that topic's Wikipedia article and
google that article's title (which is a globally unique term for that
topic) and find each other.
On 23 January 2012 18:09, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Since it's unlikely the foundation mailing list will agree to enable
> such a comment section on every Wikipedia article (although enabling
> it is quite easy: just choose a "comment" extension from
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix/AllE
Since it's unlikely the foundation mailing list will agree to enable
such a comment section on every Wikipedia article (although enabling
it is quite easy: just choose a "comment" extension from
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix/AllExtensions and
enable it on Wikipedia), maybe we can t
Note that we are adding a sorta-quasi-comments section, just not on the
articles; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5
On 23 January 2012 17:31, Svip wrote:
> On 23 January 2012 18:16, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Gerard Me
On 23 January 2012 18:16, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>
>> Having comments in your face at the bottom to me is not only something I
>> would resent, it would also add more clutter that I have to download every
>> time I read an article.
>
> I se
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> A comment section under every Wikipedia article seems to be a very bad
> idea. You read a Wikipedia article to learn about the subject at hand, you
> can read comments on the talk page. Reading the talk page only makes sense
> when
Hoi,
A comment section under every Wikipedia article seems to be a very bad
idea. You read a Wikipedia article to learn about the subject at hand, you
can read comments on the talk page. Reading the talk page only makes sense
when you are interested in learning more about what people have to say
ab
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:16 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> This merit is even more evident when the topic is very specialized,
>> e.g. [[Phonological history of English low back vowels]]. I bet there
>> isn't a forum on the Web dedicated to this very specialized topic, and
>> even if
Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> This merit is even more evident when the topic is very specialized,
> e.g. [[Phonological history of English low back vowels]]. I bet there
> isn't a forum on the Web dedicated to this very specialized topic, and
> even if there is one, it can be very hard to find it with Google
On 23 January 2012 00:44, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote:
>
>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
>> what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement pag
On 23 January 2012 00:43, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Svip wrote:
>
>> On 22 January 2012 23:31, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>>
>>> The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is
>>> really weird to the general public.
>>
>> The name 'talk page' is also a
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote:
> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
> what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
> on.
English Wikinews calls it "collabora
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Svip wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 23:31, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>
>> The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is
>> really weird to the general public.
>
> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
> what it is. A
On 22 January 2012 23:31, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is
> really weird to the general public.
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
wo
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
>> than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
>> simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
> than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
> simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
How would you measure how much good and bad it did? There i
This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>>> They
On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> They can do what academics have always done: read each other's
>> published works and go to conferences. If a subject is so obscure that
>> only a handle of researchers are involved in it, then it probably
>> isn't sufficiently notable to have a Wikip
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 22:54, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> So this can mean very much for scientific research. For example,
>> imagine if there are two mathematicians in the world interested in the
>> same, very deep math concept, but they don't know ea
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> So this can mean very much for scientific research. For example,
> imagine if there are two mathematicians in the world interested in the
> same, very deep math concept, but they don't know each other. How do
> we let them meet and collaborate with eac
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
>>> discussing the article, though, rather than its topi
On 22 January 2012 22:31, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Besides this, another disadvantage of the current "Talk" tab is it
> uses the wiki way to talk, not the typical "comment section" we see
> under every YouTube video, Flickr image, Facebook status update, etc.
> The wiki way to talk may be favored by th
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
>> discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
>
> Besides this, another disadvantage of the current "
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
> discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
Besides this, another disadvantage of the current "Talk" tab is it
uses the wiki way to talk, not the typical "co
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 22:08, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat , we can have a
>> single discussion area that can both talk about the editing of this
>> article and issues related to cats (e.g. petting them).
>>
As Facebook already takes our articles for the same general chitchat
reasons, it sounds like we could add a Facebook link to every article to
get the same result.
Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
___
f
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
While we are more than a conventional encyclopedia, we are still an
encyclopaedia and I don't think we should add job and product adverts to
our articles.
If people want t
On 22 January 2012 22:08, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat , we can have a
> single discussion area that can both talk about the editing of this
> article and issues related to cats (e.g. petting them).
>
Well, English Wikinews has what you are looking for by h
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Hello All,
> I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
> to Wikipedia:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Similar to the "Opinions" tab on Wikinews. Could be interesting. Would
need to be plausibly use
For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat , we can have a
single discussion area that can both talk about the editing of this
article and issues related to cats (e.g. petting them).
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> The Article Feedback Tool v.5 and the current "Talk" ta
The Article Feedback Tool v.5 and the current "Talk" tab are for
discussing *the editing of the current article*, not for discussing
*the topic represented by the current article*, although I think these
two goals can coexist in a single discussion area.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Tom Morris
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
> to Wikipedia:
>
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
>
> Bug 33889 - Request to add a comment section under every Wikipedia article
>
> By providin
Hello All,
I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
to Wikipedia:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Bug 33889 - Request to add a comment section under every Wikipedia article
By providing a comment section under every Wikipedia article, we can ena
47 matches
Mail list logo
