this is an archive, or bottle, of prior water cooler talk...
policy talkNOTE: To all Wikinfo Editors and Sysops: If you would like to import your personal work, user pages, limited encyclopedic entries, from Wikinfo to GetWiki (instead of the now default importing from Pseudopedia), please do so via the easy-to-use parallel display of this Wiki! Please note that the way the links back are handled at the bottom of the page is slightly different (for WP as well as WI), so follow the code given while editing. This parallel display will keep you logged in here, by the way, and eventually, will be fully integrated for multiple wiki imports :) Please note any problems you encounter here. -proteus 16:13, 23 Mar 2007 (EDT)
use the link below matching your login:
promotions to sysopI'd like to extend sysop status (and eventually admin status) to any Wikinfo sysop interested in also contributing here and building GetWiki. As it was my idea to promote everyone over on Wikinfo, I noticed it really helped with morale and a certain level of excitement about wiki-ing. Four or five such sysops (that I can recognize via usernames) have already made accounts here, and among them, Jon Awbrey has become an admin here for his work (of course, any contributor can be promoted here just as quickly for valuable contributions!) Any objections?? -proteus 00:20, 4 Apr 2007 (EDT)
talk of expansion
I've expanded GetMeta to include a wider range of possible topics than just wiki-stuff and interactive software, etc. I hope folks find this a welcoming place to chat and collaborate on things from detailed philosophical arguments to comparisons of screen technologies. What do you think? -proteus
On this note, recurring with Wikinfo beg the question: Is there room for a wiki which is truly independent from Wikimedia's Borg-like influences?? -proteus 13:30, 8 Mar 2007 (EST)
So, some first changes: Nothing's changed but the overall name. Just solidifying some other details already being used. PPOV is virtually identical to SPOV, and I figured we could import some base articles from the more updated Wikipedia pages in Humanities, Sciences, etc, while forking them off PPOV-style. I worked the importing so that we link back to the WP article without actually mirroring or linking it through Google. I'll probably do the same for Wikinfo, though I'm tired of working on that wiki. -proteus 19:16, 11 Mar 2007 (EDT)
I think there's room (re: the question above), and so GetMeta, now GetWiki, doesn't need to be constrained by either Wikipedia or Wikinfo (especially as I've now left Wikinfo). I think this place can be a complete, PPOV resource for main topics in (and critical of) the Humanities, Arts and Sciences (no TV show pages, no general reference work, no demographics or city histories, etc, as Wikipedia and others have all that covered), and have ebooks, papers, and all kinds of articles all strongly cross-linked and categorized with those resources, as they will be in those fields. Jon is already doing this with his work in Logic and Mathematics, and I'll be posting more of my work here soon, as well as importing the whole Philosophy "tree" of articles (probably from my extensive work on Wikinfo). Please join us! -proteus 13:11, 18 Mar 2007 (EDT)
JA: There is one main thing that I tried to get across on Wikipedia generally, and said more directly to Larry Sanger on three successive projects of his, Digital Universe, Text Outline Project, and Citizendium. (All that came of the experience was that it inspired me to invent the "in one ear and out the other" emoticon ->C|Z|?->, but never mind that now.)
JA: The thing is this: If you want to build a resource that will attract experienced, knowledgeable, mature, professional contributors and that people like that will actually care about improving, then you need to make it a resource that they will actually use themselves in their own work. It's really that simple, in essence. There are few corollaries, however. One is that the common resource must accommodate itself to the working standards and styles that such people already have, and not try to impose a uniform code that reflects the designers' particular preferences. We are talking about adults, people who already have their own standards, and reasons for them, not the sort of petulant adolescents with no knowledge of workaday scholarship that one finds at Wikipedia. Jon Awbrey 12:38, 19 Mar 2007 (EDT)
I totally agree. I will be doing my part for the Philosophy section, and some Science and Art pages. I think most/all of these "subject reference" pages need to be markedly different from Wikipedia/info, which will mean vastly rewriting to get away from the NPOV virus, in favour of PPOV directions. As for any scholarly/journalistic works posted, they will be free spaces for their authors. We can protect the pages when requested, and treat the works categorically (via the database) and even visually as original research works so that they are kept separate from PPOV editing. One thing I thought of today (and I'll be further updating the policy to reflect it) is that other discussion, forum, talk pages need to also be free spaces where the model of free speech, rather than the typical "community rules", "Big Brother" stuff found elsewhere. Just some thoughts on the road, as I'm travelling back to wind up my gargantuan trip... -proteus 20:14, 19 Mar 2007 (EDT)
further talkdidn't think this was a general encyclopedia
Only general with regard to Humanities and Sciences - like having correct pages on various subjects, from Sociology to Physics to Programming, and then lots of papers (like yours and mine), ebooks, and essays on all kinds of topics cross-linked. Go ahead and correct the PPOV page as you think it necessary: It's a wiki, right? -proteus 00:05, 12 Mar 2007 (EDT)people could misread PPOV
WP is just being eaten from the inside by the virus which bore it. We just take what is useful to us and move on. That was the original idea behind Wikinfo, but it didn't work out that way over time, as most people just imported junk and didn't do much with it. We can do better here, and with the features of 2.0 coming along, it will be easier to categorize, reupdate, and compare documents. In short, we don't have to care about the Pseudopedia - and we won't be importing much anyway. As soon as someone shows up to import episodes of Star Trek, we throttle them back. -proteus 01:36, 12 Mar 2007 (EDT)JA: If I never have another policy or style sheet discussion it'll be too soon. That was the worst of what they did at Wikipedia, writing policies and style sheets and templates and infoboxes and robots and ... instead of writing content.
JA: If I'm forced to say what I think about POV Policy, I think we should have something called APOV, for Adult Point Of View, or maybe RPOV for Responsible Point Of View. It would go a bit like this:
APOV. If you have achieved the age of responsibility, then you know the values of Accuracy, Balance, Civility in your writing, and you don't need anybody telling you the desirability of working toward those ideals, as befits your abilities and the purpose at hand. If you do not understand the importance of these virtues, then where will you learn them? Not a question for us to answer.
JA: If I'm forced to say what I think is best in a style sheet, then it would go a bit like this:
Style Sheet. Style is best learned by example. You will find a variety of examples here. Try them, you may like them.
JA: I was gonna call it Adult Style Sheet, but that would have yielded a Really Bad ASS acronym. Jon Awbrey 00:10, 13 Mar 2007 (EDT)
Well, no one is forcing you to discuss this, by the way (hardly any of it concerns your work here). Every site on the internet, and every information resource online and off, has a policy and style of some kind, even if it's just a loose idea. Just because WP has been NPOV-obsessed and has run off thousands of good people, it doesn't follow that the way to go is no policy or leadership. Anarchopedia tried that and it didn't work, as far as I can tell. What's more, if you start a website, your inherent policy will begin the moment someone does something you don't like. Even Anarchy is a policy.
So, I started this wiki three years ago to be a different place from MeatBall, Wikipedia, and even Wikinfo. While I am surely no fan of Wikipedia, but by the same token, I also have no interest in this place becoming some kind of dumping ground for WikiHate built up from Wikipedian fights (Wikinfo has suffered quite enough of that). Frankly, I can't see how anyone could confuse PPOV or SPOV with NPOV on WP, but perhaps the more recent clarifications help. -proteus 02:20, 13 Mar 2007 (EDT) (-proteus 22:21, 20 Mar 2007 (EDT))
titles of articles/headingsSince we're doing things differently than Wikipedia, I'd like to make sure every page is properly titled and capitalized (or uncapitalized), before the wiki becomes too big to do it (like on Wikinfo). Then, as new pages are imported or created, we can keep them organized as we go by monitoring the recent changes. So, let's "just say no" and ban titles like "Wiki theory" in favour of "Wiki Theory", and headings like "See also" in favour of "See Also" or "see also". Bad Wiki habits do not have to spread across the entire WikiSphere! Resistance is NOT futile! ;) (also, we don't want a bunch of redirects, either - let's just build a wiki the right way from the start) -proteus 23:00, 12 Mar 2007 (EDT)
On this, I'd think it would be a great feature to be able to change the title of an imported article before saving it. Used in conjunction with multiple-wiki importing, this could mean that GetWiki (and others running GetWiki code) could really get customized. -proteus 13:11, 18 Mar 2007 (EDT)
licensingI've changed the licensing blurb (at the bottom of every page) to be much more simple, and to add the Creative Commons License to our content/webpages. -proteus 12:33, 30 Mar 2007 (EDT)
xml/atom news feedI've been experimenting and researching providing an XML feed, using the Atom format. Instead of doing it the way WP and other wikis do it (by feeding recent changes/diffs and new articles, and thus creating boring, verbose feeds nobody cares about), I figure why not use the wiki to feed featured articles from the wiki (like our "running daemons" and "wreads") with a blog-style page (say at GetWiki:Feed), on which we can select articles, write summaries, etc? This might be a slow-changing feed, but is that really an issue? The idea here is to provide useful info about the wiki, rather than wasting bandwidth with yet another celebration of "recent changes". Once again, the way WP does it is usually the wrong way... -proteus 12:04, 31 Mar 2007 (EDT)
UPDATE: I've got this going. It's an Atom 1.0 feed which reads GetWiki:Feed and displays it at (Wiki:Feed), with a link on every page so the various readers and browsers can discover it (Safari, on Mac OS X, for example, has a very nice built-in reader). The Feed page is protected, but the idea is to keep the page fresh enough with featured articles. Compared to a list of recent changes, I hope this is potentially more interesting and useful as a news feed. It's another way to get our content out there... -proteus 01:34, 10 Apr 2007 (EDT)
new parserI've updated the parser code in the guts of the software, which fixed some nagging problems, especially with the display of multi-line preformatted text, like for ASCII Art. Let me know if any pages or portions are broken. -proteus 21:52, 4 Apr 2007 (EDT)
- Also, there was a small images problem, where some image links were broken when you clicked on them - should be fixed now. -proteus 18:37, 5 Apr 2007 (EDT)
- (Wiki:Pages) now shows which pages are redirects... -proteus 13:15, 6 Apr 2007 (EDT) ...and is broken into smaller "groups" of pages, putting fewer (75, rather than 300) pages on each group page. -proteus 13:30, 13 Apr 2007 (EDT)
- I fixed a small problem I'd created, which was double posting article edits, thus messing up the page histories and contributions. -proteus 12:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
other languagesDespite my love of other languages, I'm thinking of disabling the "other languages" links for this wiki (option in the software itself). Do we actually need them? Are they, in the context here, anything more than Google-mirror links for WP? -proteus 00:26, 12 Apr 2007 (EDT)
I've turned the links off and made it an option in local settings. If this wiki, GetWiki, is expanded to articles in other languages, we can come up with a better solution than passively linking to WP. -proteus 12:52, 15 Apr 2007 (EDT)
edit box styleI finally got sick of the tiny edit box (on Safari), and set it to 100% of the default font size in someone's browser (it must have defaulted to 50%). Let me know of any problems (tested on Mac OS X, Safari, Firefox, Camino, and only Safari had the smallest box/font). Note, later in the Spring, I'll be set up again to test on multiple platforms. -proteus 12:50, 14 Apr 2007 (EDT)
now, to classify pagesUnlike any other Wiki in the "Sphere", we now have Categorical and Faceted Classifications at the same time. The heirarchical Categories and flexible Facets are user defined, dynamic, and handled completely separate from article edits. There are many reasons for this, from distributing database load, to following the principle of separating structure from content, to just keeping things simple (see GetWiki:InterWiki for more...).
On Main, GetMeta, and GetWiki namespace pages, you'll see a "classify this page" link under the edit link (which has been removed from the top, alas). Go to that interface and update as needed. All pages are by default "uncategorized" (a default Category) and pages have no Facets. Facets will allow "winnowing" searches of the database by similarly tagged articles. Pages need to be updated individually, then (guess I'll do it :) ). Everything about the "Wiki:Classify" function page has been designed to encourage simple classification. Instead of thousands of Categories which become impossible to use (especially when used incorrectly, as on Wikipedia), we should have a small number of Categories, like "Philosophy", "Science" or "Mathematics", and Child Categories, say "History of Philosophy", really should be no more than 3 levels deep. Why? Simplicity, Usability, New User Welcomability, and so on... Enjoy :) -proteus 17:49, 25 Apr 2007 (EDT)
The "index" is now live (I'll continue to refine it), and I've faceted and categorized all of the important pages, leaving only redirects and a few pages I'm not sure what to do with yet (should the redirects be ignored in the index and classifications??). If there are glaring errors in my Category/Facet choices, fix them. Broad classification is best, though doubtless, many articles could fit into multiple Categories - that's what Facet/Tags are for! An additional function page will allow easier deletion and moving of categories for Sysops, but it's not a critical need just yet. -proteus 13:54, 28 Apr 2007 (EDT)
not just skin deep: GUI changesOkay, many changes. Here's a list, in no particular order:
- "Breadcrumb" links are across the top of every page. These display up to 3 Categories in which the current page is contained, and all link to the "(Wiki:Index)", or "browse", feature to show relevant articles.
- Facet links are just below the breadcrumbs, which also link to the (Wiki:Index) function. After looking at many options, this seemed to be the best place to put these terms/links.
- Common links appearing on every page, such as your userpage, recent changes, and so forth, are "greyed out" when you're on them - even the logo stops being a link to the Main Page when you're on the Main Page.
- The way the skins work has been simplified, and "Nostalgia" has been removed. Previously, the software loaded each skin as a separate parsing, which meant that some code changes to one skin would not show up in the others. Now there is only one "skin" function, and the only thing that changes is the actual CSS file of styles linked up. "Cologne Blue" has been changed slightly and is now "Minimal". "Classic" is the previous default style of GetWiki, while "Moderna" is the new default, and while it looks the same now, it will be changed a lot to be much more interesting-looking. User-uploaded skins are now easier to consider, but probably not necessary.
- The outdated "printable version" has been updated to a greyed out "prints friendly", as any page will now print directly using the print styles, rather than having to click on the link first. That link is now a small up-arrow, and just for fun, that extra click still works as before. The print styles have been vastly improved.
- The last Author of a page is now added to the stub at the bottom, as well as in the Facet list at top.
- Lots of license, edit warnings and other bits of language have been updated or made "prettier".
- "User_talk:" pages are now "UserTalk:", which is only a problem for hardcoded links in articles, but as they are mainly only found on our own user pages, it seems a minor problem to update them. Other Talk pages follow this format, too, such as GetWikiTalk, GetMetaTalk, etc.
- All "Special Pages" have been renamed as well, either to reflect their newer meanings (like "Backlinks" instead of "Whatlinkshere"), or just to get away from senseless WP styles, and they're now "(Wiki:Functions)" (I've put a couple of redirects in place for temporary help).
© 2007-2007, 2004-2018 M.R.M. PARROTT | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED