Wiki War I

Discussion:

Wiki War I

Aaron Peterson

2004-03-26 14:39:02 UTC

hi,

I'm sorry, I sent this twice... hopefully you'll only get it once though, My
kmail started to like sending email without a from address for a while.. I'm
hoping/guessing that your mail program blocked my first attempt of sending
this..

Issues with the wiki as I see them:

backlinks
from what I see, wikipedia does not support backlinks, which means that
developers must do twice as much work for every update than is neccessary

Navigation
pages must have links to documents that are logically parents, and peers
this type information makes it extremely easy to navigate a site

Density
bulleted lists are not for everything, pages get very long very quickly. I
recall hearing of a study that lists scrolling as the number one activity of
computer users. I remember my dad telling me that white space is
cheap.. I have come to the conclusion that it is not cheap, but it is often
worth the price. specifically I care about the "see also" and "member of"
pages

moderator quickness to moderate
moderators should delay before editing a page, perhaps talk to the user while
the user is online instead of nuking new pages introduced by a member

Main Page
this page needs to start people on their way. it should list the most commonly
used subset items of a category next to the super category... i.e., it
should be like download.com, listing common utilities under utilities..
helping to define what is meant

Quantity vs Quality
let there be little pages that have a crumb of information... that hyperlink
may be exactly what the user wanted! who cares about the formatting!!!
if somebody has nothing better to do, then go make the formatting easier to
navigate/ clearer... don't make it so that the user must scroll through two
or three pages of screen space to find that crumb.

Save Work
why put stuff into paragraph format if it's already said better elsewhere? why
hide a hyperlink with a title.. when it just causes the end user a bit more
work when they want to remember the site? (you are taking away the ability
of the user to remember the URL on vis own) The user is a part of the wiki!

My experience
study of a few natural languages
interest in manufactured languages, and the creation of a content management
system utilizing branches that can be merged (I independently thought of
wiki's before I knew what wiki's were, I'm sure a lot of people have...)
a pattern language conference from cpsr.org and a communications club
(computer professionals for social responsibility) where I learned about
wiki's
* www.openwiki.org (defunct) where I wrote a style guide and brainstormed
* wiki.fresco.org my first attempt at making a dense wiki. I hate tons of
comments blocking out content
* www.subverted.net/wakka This is where I write what I learn relative to
gentoo. I have done a LOT of work on this site, and I have refined my wiki
style
* wiki.linuxquestions.org This is the first page where I've had to deal with
other people... I have always been god... D something or other beat me down
a bit (a good thing), and now I come to you all with my tail between my
legs, offering with my last bit of strength suggestions and advice. regarding
your epic project.

I have a lot of other thoughts about wiki's
I do not care about spelling, I have better things to do with my time (except
I can use a spell checker, and I have a rule for checking the spelling of new
wiki names)

I'm wanting to learn a bit more about the software side of wiki's I have
installed a couple wiki's on my machine zwiki, and some sort of asp wiki,

I have a goal to make a P2P difference engine that will ultimately make every
web page a wiki... it would be a plug-in to a web browser, with a p2p server
for shaing changes of pages to friends/ subscribers to your oppion

contact info:
alpeterson-***@public.gmane.org

ICQ 2302806
yahoo: incinerated-/***@public.gmane.org
msn: aaron_pet-hPnnkjYJS9NWk0Htik3J/***@public.gmane.org

phone 509 332 7697

snailmail
1220 NE Myrtle St
Pullman WA 99163

I dislike email and wiki discussions

dircha

2004-03-26 17:54:27 UTC

Permalink

Welcome to the list. I'll give you my comments on some of what you related.

Post by Aaron Peterson
backlinks
from what I see, wikipedia does not support backlinks, which means that
developers must do twice as much work for every update than is neccessary
Navigation
pages must have links to documents that are logically parents, and peers
this type information makes it extremely easy to navigate a site

I'm not sure to what extent I am comfortable with this. Many pages may
not properly have a single logical parent. Multiple nodes each of which
do not make sense independently of the others can be combined into a
single node with a section structure. Attempting to force a single
logical parent structure unnecessarily constrains the use and
flexibility of content. We should so far as is possible always try to
create content that is independently valuable. The more flexible the
content is, the more informative links will be possible, the more
information value will be produced.

Also, all modern graphical browsers provide a "Back" button with a drop
down list of previous links. And any user who is not comfortable with
this is perfectly able to use a "table of contents" node as a navigation
window, and a second window as a content window. Most browsers I am
aware of support drag-and-drop of links from one window into another.

Post by Aaron Peterson
Save Work
why put stuff into paragraph format if it's already said better elsewhere?

But can it be said better here? Value is added to content by the editor
critically processing information he or she has obtained elsewhere. It
is processed for bias, usefulness, and relevance. The editor also
incorporates insight obtained from experience and other independent
sources. Even if an editor is only going to uncritically (but legally)
incorporate the content of an official project "About" page, doing so is
still better than only providing a link. Getting the content into the
wiki node in the first place, is the first step to it benefiting from
the wiki collaborative editing process. The premise of wiki seems to be
that multiple independent, informed editors can produce more informative
content than can a single person elsewhere. Wiki facilitates the
elimination of individual bias and the synthesis of multiple informed
perspectives.

Post by Aaron Peterson
why
hide a hyperlink with a title.. when it just causes the end user a bit more
work when they want to remember the site? (you are taking away the ability
of the user to remember the URL on vis own) The user is a part of the wiki!

When a link exists in the context of a paragraph, or in cases where the
link URL itself is not memorable, I generally see no reason not to
re-title the link to make it flow with the paragraph. This is also
addressed in ensuring that a project or application title is never
associated with a link to anything but the official source of
information for that project or the node that functions as the same in
the wiki. Miscellaneous non-official links generally, I think, shouldn't
be included in the first place.

--dircha

Aaron Peterson

2004-03-27 01:50:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by dircha
Welcome to the list. I'll give you my comments on some of what you related.

Thanks!

Post by dircha

Post by Aaron Peterson
backlinks
from what I see, wikipedia does not support backlinks, which means that
developers must do twice as much work for every update than is neccessary

Backlinks provide two way links between every page.
Somebody deleted the "back links" page on the wiki... (grrr) where it
described what back links are. The closest to being equivalent thing on the
wikipedia is "what links to here" . If it were automatically expanded in the
margin i'd be totally happy.

Post by dircha

Post by Aaron Peterson
Navigation
pages must have links to documents that are logically parents, and peers
this type information makes it extremely easy to navigate a site

It is completely possible for a document to have multiple parents. I forget to
add that extra apostrophe to "parents'"
The "back" button method of navigation only provides access to one "parrent"
or related artilce.

That's why I have the structure:
Member Of: [[broad cat]] : [[ lesser cat]]
Member Of: [[broad cat2]]:[[lesser cat2]] : [[specific case ]]

Writing it down once does not exclude other people from writing down the other
logical parents. I was hoping it would encourage it. So, we both see the
problem, and... I've had a few of my "Member Of" comments be deleted, so I
was very frustrated... I'm looking for more "Member Of" comments.

It will also be possible to add an extension that will parse out the "member
of" sections (if we format them consistently) so that the computer can
create a table of contents based on whatever topic the user wants. This goes
with multiple table of contents.

Post by dircha
flexibility of content. We should so far as is possible always try to
create content that is independently valuable.

Linking the pages makes it more usefull in more contexts. If we have to
rewrite wiki pages because there are no links between pages... we are
creating special purpose, unflexible wiki pages. We must have a navigation
system to allow the documents to be usefull.

We are not writing a dictionary (although dictionary type entries are
helpfull) We are creating a web of knowledge that will help somebody solve a
problem. A page that links to related pages immediately gives the reader an
idea of what the page is about, and helps the person search for more
information.

Pages with just a few links or scratched down information can be as usefull as
full blown encyclopedia articles. (often times more so, because they get
right to the point)

Post by dircha
Also, all modern graphical browsers provide a "Back" button with a drop
down list of previous links. And any user who is not comfortable with
this is perfectly able to use a "table of contents" node as a navigation
window, and a second window as a content window. Most browsers I am
aware of support drag-and-drop of links from one window into another.

See above.

Post by dircha

Post by Aaron Peterson
Save Work
why put stuff into paragraph format if it's already said better elsewhere?

But can it be said better here? Value is added to content by the editor

...

Post by dircha
content than can a single person elsewhere. Wiki facilitates the
elimination of individual bias and the synthesis of multiple informed
perspectives.

Post by Aaron Peterson
why
hide a hyperlink with a title.. when it just causes the end user a bit
more work when they want to remember the site? (you are taking away the
ability of the user to remember the URL on vis own) The user is a part
of the wiki!

We mostly disagree here.

we probably disagree on what a memorable hyperlink is... I'm arguing that the
domain name and a bit of path may not be repeatable by an end user, but it
will allow them to verify that they have actually gone to the site that they
wanted to go to.

I don't like retitling a hyperlink inside of a paragraphs even..., well there
are some times that the case has to be changed... so I definitely believe
that there are times to do [[chickens|chicken]]... e.g. I like to eat
chicken pot pies... is way better than I like to eat chickens pot pies...

I do absolutely oppose the "hiding" of hyperlinks in a table of contents/list
of links, as it causes confusion as to weather the link is onsite or not. We
don't need an External Links section!!! that just separates the hyperlink
from the content! and makes the page less dense!

I strongly believe that we need to have links to off site resources, at every
marginally appropriate instance. It is like citing sources in a school /
industry research paper. Our data will also go out of date because we are
not the authoritive (sp) figures for these projects that we link to.

also, some knowledgable people won't want to write on a wiki that is moderated
militieristically, or not agree with your licensing.. and keep really nice up
to date tutorials up for projects that they care about. You would be doing
a disservice by represeting yourselves as the premiere information provider
for linux solutions. I think a wiki type content delivery system will become
the premier solution system, but not if it doesn't have interoperability with
other sites.

I care about free software. (as in freedom)
I care about linux, but i could go with any other gpled system
i care about wiki's, but I want features from many..
I care about having correct info.
I care about knowing of possible errors
I care about interoperability

I would be willing to make the wiki navigation structure, but my changes have
been squashed!

Do you guys want to give me a couple days of relative freedom from navigation
systems being nuked and take my gift of time and see if you like it?

Post by dircha
--dircha
_______________________________________________
Lqwiki-list mailing list
http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-01 02:13:30 UTC

Permalink

I'd like to see this wiki be usefull as a wiki.
I know you guys don't like having navigation structure, but I just came up
with an idea that would allow me to be happy/shut up..

You know how the table of contents is hideable?
give me a navigation tool bar that hides for people who don't like to be able
to find what they are looking for!

That way, i can do a bit of work on the navigation system, and you guys don't
have to see it if you don't want to!

My tone is gruff... yeah, sorry... I know it's probably not the best way to
convince you all to include navigation helpers... the point is that every
single page is it's own table of contents, it's own view on the entire wiki.
Each wiki page should be somehow connected to every other wiki page, ..

Your right that logical parent thing has limitations... but having one way
links makes it so that there is apperantly only one llogical parent to a
document...

example:

foo has a link to blarny

bar also has a link to blarny

blarny has no links back! (or only one to foo)

User goes to blarny from foo, hits back button to go back... and never learns
how to solve vis problem that was covered in blarny|!

509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806

Jeremy

2004-04-01 02:31:45 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson
I'd like to see this wiki be usefull as a wiki.

Me too!

Post by Aaron Peterson
I know you guys don't like having navigation structure, but I just came up
with an idea that would allow me to be happy/shut up..

I don't want anyone to "shut up", I want to help build the largest
and most useful Linux knowledgebase we can.

Post by Aaron Peterson
Your right that logical parent thing has limitations... but having one way
links makes it so that there is apperantly only one llogical parent to a
document...

It shouldn't be one way links, but a web.

Post by Aaron Peterson
foo has a link to blarny
bar also has a link to blarny
blarny has no links back! (or only one to foo)
User goes to blarny from foo, hits back button to go back... and never learns
how to solve vis problem that was covered in blarny|!

Let's use your example. I will *assume* (which I hate to do) that
you meant "that was covered in bar" for the end, as you start out with
"User goes to blarny" so, that essentially makes it (and please do correct
me if I'm wrong):

User goes to blarny from foo, and never learns how to solve his problem
that was covered in bar.

foo ->
blarney
bar ->

I'd still say that if bar was related at all to blarny, then [[bar]]
should appear somewhere in the blarny article (or at a bare minimum in
the ==See also==). By everything being interlinked like a web, the nav as
you speak of it becomes 100% redundant IMHO.

--jeremy

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-01 04:31:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
I'd like to see this wiki be usefull as a wiki.

Me too!

I was just checking... right now it looks to exclude the wiki part, and be a
more traditional document system.

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
I know you guys don't like having navigation structure, but I just came
up with an idea that would allow me to be happy/shut up..

I don't want anyone to "shut up", I want to help build the largest
and most useful Linux knowledgebase we can.

Nuking pages/content is a way of making people shut up.
links to related content are content.

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
Your right that logical parent thing has limitations... but having one
way links makes it so that there is apperantly only one llogical parent
to a document...

It shouldn't be one way links, but a web.

But my navigation links always get deleted because they are "not a part of the
manual of style"

They don't get put anywhere else, and when I tried to add something to the
style guide, the page was switched into a protected mode for a while.

Post by Jeremy
foo ->
blarney
bar ->

foo ->
<-- blarny backlinks to foo
blarney has a nice paragraph description of blarney usage with foo, and
there is no logical place to put a link to bar... either that or blarny is a
long page with lots of links that use blarny as a base, and there might even
be a link to bar, but the link to bar is sufficiently not findable
bar ->

user wants to do something with bar, and found out about it via an internet
search engine, user gets to foo, goes to bar, then gives up, becuase there is
no link back to bar or the user creates a new page and redoes some work, only
to get their content blown away by a moderator who replaces it with a link to
bar... that still isn't linked to by blarny!

now, here comes a user who actually finds bar/is familiar with the wiki, and
doesn't need the navigational structure (moderators) Does that moderator
put a link up from blarny to bar? No! not currently.

Here comes Aaron, or somebody else who cares about usability for the end user,
and not some religious manual of style, (who is willing to work with the
manual of style but got shot down) and creates a link from blarny to bar!

Then along comes the manual of style fanatic, and deletes the link! without
putting it elsewhere or fixing the problem in another way!

This MoS fanatic effectively harmed Aaron! and the community! I put a lot
of effort into finding the back links. I have opportunity costst, so do
other wiki members... I'm spending a lot of effort, just to get it nuked in
an action that doesn't take much effort. It doesn't take much more effort to
copy an old version of the page to the bottom of an existing page, or to fork
the page.

1. Respect other peoples work by making live backups of content, and adding
navigation /formatting (not changing format!)
2. Remember that it must be navigable for end users
3. there should not be WikiSquatting or Illegal , or grosly off topic content
on the wikis. (wiki squatting is soembody making their own off topic wiki,
inside of another wiki with a well defined topic)
4. Moderators should use thier power to enforce previous rules
5. Modertors should be regular users most of the time

The number 1 rule of wiki's should be respect other peoples work. Don't nuke
it, make backups, make spelling corrections, add links to make it become a
part of the wiki... in the appropriate space on the wiki... there are some
things that are illegal, and should not be allowed to be on the wiki... that
is what moderators should be for.

Don't Fix it if It isn't broken!!!! and the MoS doesnt' define wheather
that page is working or not!!

, who recognize that the documentation is for people who are not interested in
the workings of the wiki)

Post by Jeremy
I'd still say that if bar was related at all to blarny, then [[bar]]
should appear somewhere in the blarny article (or at a bare minimum in
the ==See also==). By everything being interlinked like a web, the nav as
you speak of it becomes 100% redundant IMHO.

go check out some of the lessor wikis.. try to find anything... it's tough!

it's ok to be redundant.. in fact, we need the redundancy! Shakespere covered
important plot elements multiple times in his plays so that the audience
would get the ideas!

Besides, I've added non redundant links that were deleted, and I'm trying to
get somebody to stop deleting them!

Post by Jeremy
--jeremy
_______________________________________________
Lqwiki-list mailing list
http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

--
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806

Jeremy

2004-04-02 05:26:39 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson

Post by Jeremy
It shouldn't be one way links, but a web.

But my navigation links always get deleted because they are "not a part of the
manual of style"

I hope you can see that it's desirable to have a consistent look
and feel throughout the wiki, as opposed to having pages you enter look
one way and pages every other user enters look another way. You should
feel free to enter whatever info you like, but it will likely get edited
to follow the format we follow. Also, the "backlinks" you desire are only
ever a single click away.

Post by Aaron Peterson
now, here comes a user who actually finds bar/is familiar with the wiki, and
doesn't need the navigational structure (moderators) Does that moderator
put a link up from blarny to bar? No! not currently.

If they are related there should either be a link in the article
text and a link in ==See also==.

Post by Aaron Peterson
Here comes Aaron, or somebody else who cares about usability for the end user,
and not some religious manual of style, (who is willing to work with the
manual of style but got shot down) and creates a link from blarny to bar!

I get the impression that when you say "willing to work with the
manual of style" you mean write it as you see fit.

Post by Aaron Peterson
Then along comes the manual of style fanatic, and deletes the link! without
putting it elsewhere or fixing the problem in another way!

If the link was relevant it should have been put someone in there.

Post by Aaron Peterson
This MoS fanatic effectively harmed Aaron! and the community! I put a lot
of effort into finding the back links.

I appreciate any effort you put into it. You however seem unable
to accept that we use the "What links here" functionality in lieu of
backlinks.

--jeremy

dircha

2004-04-02 07:15:06 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
This MoS fanatic effectively harmed Aaron! and the community! I put a lot
of effort into finding the back links.

I appreciate any effort you put into it. You however seem unable
to accept that we use the "What links here" functionality in lieu of
backlinks.

And perhaps I could add that for all of us, myself included, the single
most valuable thing that any individual can do for the wiki in its
present state is to provide valuable, informative content. While I
admittedly like to debate issues and technicalities probably more than
is healthy, what I, and anyone else really need to do, is to continue
generating content.

Editing and meta-editing can always be done later, and methods and
styles and practices for editing can be changed and revisited later.
Many of the issues being discussed can even be added in an automated way
if they are at a later date deemed necessary.

Nothing right now will add more to the usability and usefulness of the
wiki than simply continuing to generate valuable, informative content. I
for one haven't been doing as much of this lately as I wish I had time for.

dircha

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-02 12:21:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by dircha
present state is to provide valuable, informative content. While I

dircha,
i would give your post an insightfull moderation on slashdot if it were
there, and if i had mod points..

The brunt of my argument is that the navigation system IS informative content
of the first degree. our mind is made out of neurons that link to one
another. A library with locked doors, might as well just be any other
building.

I want to add these links from page to page, and not have somebody cry
IRRELEVANT when I know that it is relevant.. So I agree that we should be
working on content... and I agree that we should delay formatting battles...
but I've been attacked by formatting zealots... and have been trying to make
the case for delaying these battles/accepting plurality of navigation
systems.

I feel that I am called to provide links from content piece to content piece.
I want to do it here... I guess i like you all in some strange adverserial
way.

I'm asking for the same respect of work as I give people... i want people to
critisise (SP) me/my work, but I don't want people to just up and delete it
casually. I view criticism as a high gift, -- people who don't care about
you will just go away/leave you to your doom.

Post by dircha
Nothing right now will add more to the usability and usefulness of the
wiki than simply continuing to generate valuable, informative content. I
for one haven't been doing as much of this lately as I wish I had time for.
dircha
_______________________________________________
Lqwiki-list mailing list
http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

--
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806

Jeremy

2004-04-02 16:19:11 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson
I want to add these links from page to page, and not have somebody cry
IRRELEVANT when I know that it is relevant.. So I agree that we should be
working on content... and I agree that we should delay formatting battles...
but I've been attacked by formatting zealots... and have been trying to make
the case for delaying these battles/accepting plurality of navigation
systems.

Multiple navigation systems is a bad thing. It's confusing and
unintuitive (imagine a book where half the index was in one format and
half in a completely different format).

--jeremy

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-02 19:36:59 UTC

Permalink

This page belongs on the wiki, it goes with wiki theory and needs to be on
sites that have wiki newbies looking at.

a short comment that deserves a thorough reply 4 sections A B and C.. and D

Post by Jeremy
Multiple navigation systems is a bad thing. It's confusing and
unintuitive (imagine a book where half the index was in one format and
half in a completely different format).

A. a way of hiding multiple navigation systems

If there is a collapsible wiki construct, (hideable, like the table of
contents for a page that has many sub headings), then lets contain them in
that.

B every wiki page is a wiki entry point. clicking on "Main Page" will often
get people many pages away from the content they were just looking at... yes
back links can solve this, but the navigation system is more on top of it.

C. the navigation systems I can see, don't have any inherent conflict in
them. They all pretty much need to be supported... they are a bit redundant,
but so is the glossary the table of contents and page number and the index in
a book.

D: The multiple types of navigation systems listed

1. In paragraph links to other pages -- I don't think this one is debated

2. a See Also section -- this one I think is appropriate for pages that people
have given up on... It is very easy to do, but doesn't divide the links up,
also on long pages, it's way down at the bottom
This also takes a minimum of about 4 lines. it is very sparse.

3. Member Of: Grandparent : parent & uncle & aunt
See Also: not on topic but related peers
This is cool because it only takes 2 lines, is very dense, it doesn't contain
links to extra stuff and provides a way out

(that extra stuff that the author didn't have time to write, that's held in a
== See Also == or == I don't have time to deal with this == section . (

4. Backlinks have some good and bad qualities.
good, it's thourough.

bad, it gets all the links relation to the page mixed up, (kinda like the
current ==See Also== sections)

good, it povides a way back to the page that they got to it from, one often
times uses a book mark, or browser autocompletion to bet back to a page, and
the history information is gone

bad server intesnive?

good automatic alphabetical listing!!
good instantly updated!

5. Searching with wiki search engine

6. searching from off site search engine

7. browser history

8. browser address autocompletion

9 remembered URL

10, intrawiki linking

11, other sites linking/friends/misc

called it, wihout clicking back

---- snipit that got too long --- (note, I treat my own emails like I treat
wikis, I leave partially formed paragraphs or ideas in an out of the way
spot... so people can get the gist of what I mean or read the longer winded
supporting arguments /examples

(yes, people don't just click on a link, then go back, they go around and
come back to the page... and they remember seeing a page right before this
page... but it's not a book, they hit back, and they go to the pr0n site that
they were just looking at because they used the browsers autocompletion to go
back to the page... Now they have the choice of clicking back, or opening
their history book... a real mess!

Jeremy

2004-04-02 20:57:57 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson
4. Backlinks have some good and bad qualities.
good, it's thourough.
bad, it gets all the links relation to the page mixed up, (kinda like the
current ==See Also== sections)
good, it povides a way back to the page that they got to it from, one often
times uses a book mark, or browser autocompletion to bet back to a page, and
the history information is gone
bad server intesnive?

Yes.

Post by Aaron Peterson
good automatic alphabetical listing!!
good instantly updated!

BUT, we do not have backlinks as you'd like them implemented and
have no plans to change the implementation at this time. While I do
appreciate all feedback and make *many* changes based on the feedback I
get, we do not (and can not) implement every suggestion we get. There
comes a time when continuing to discuss the same subject becomes
counter-productive.

--jeremy

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-03 00:03:11 UTC

Permalink

Ok, If the wiki software gets it, then you'll probably get it..
I'm going... up stream

--- read only if you care --
method #4 is an easy hack.
you could implement it in about 10 minutes..

It doesn't need to be planned.! It's a wiki, It grows! -- i think what you

are saying that I have reached the counter productivity point. You would
make back your 1 hour (a bit of testing and formatting time) in 5 minutes.

the other methods probably wouldn't take much longer...

Do you mind If i put [[back links]] in pages that I think would greatly
benefit from it?

I'd put it at the very bottom... I'm just asking if there would be a policy
to delete them.

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-04 05:01:53 UTC

Permalink

in addition to showing what links here on pages that do not yet exist, here
are some other ideas:

Perform a search on the wiki name, the wiki name might have been mispelled,
or be already covered elsewhere

List the pages that link to the page (ok I repeated it here)

have a link to wiki help, or have an expanded wiki help introduction

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-05 05:43:08 UTC

Permalink

1. please allow regular users to see the sources of older versions of pages,
so they can extract usefull things out of them, and not have to recreate
them.

2.
Merging of pages should be reserved to misspellings and capitalization
disagreements., and should be done so with making a backup of the old one,
especially if there is content that is not to be preserved

old:page1
old:page2

*******************
*********

"your brain" could have just had its contents copied to "software guidelines"

This would shut me up mightily, as i would be able to protect my own content,
without having to recreate it every time a moderator merges some pages
because they have a pregidous against a certain way of viewing content.

Moderators are given higher power, and should be held to a higher
responsibility

(google said it was spelled fine, kmail says it's not)

I am specifically really irritated with the state of the software development
page and "your brain"

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-05 10:00:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson
"your brain" could have just had its contents copied to "software guidelines"

Ah, I see that the page has: Human Brain listed instead now.
That is a much better name.
I suggest merging "your brain" and "human brain"

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-05 11:34:24 UTC

Permalink

facility to show merged pages history,

When pages get merged, the one that gets redirected is difficult to get a
history/old version of

Digiot, I'll buy you a phone card, international even, and post the numbers to
the list so you can call me... heck, if anybody want to talk in real time,
voice over IP or whatever, lets talk, it will take less time..

It looks like ya'll want me to be drained and go away, but I think we can
solve these issues...

509 332 7697 USA
ICQ 2302806

I'm on irc.freenode.net #linuxquestions, I'm MrDarkUser

I see a jeremy_lq there most of the time, and a Kurt.

Wiki talking is very very time intensive.

IRC can help clear this up, or I'll donate phone cards.

Wiki's are very important to me, but they arn't good tools for conflict
resolution.

2004-04-05 10:46:53 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson
facility to show merged pages history,
When pages get merged, the one that gets redirected is difficult to get a
history/old version of

I agree. I dunno about the implementation, but it does seem useful.
The best I could do with a recent merge was copy the list to at least
show who had contributed when but the only 'what' is whatever they
chose to include as a summary.

Post by Aaron Peterson
Digiot, I'll buy you a phone card, international even, and post the numbers to
the list so you can call me... heck, if anybody want to talk in real time,
voice over IP or whatever, lets talk, it will take less time..
It looks like ya'll want me to be drained and go away, but I think we can
solve these issues...
509 332 7697 USA
ICQ 2302806
I'm on irc.freenode.net #linuxquestions, I'm MrDarkUser
I see a jeremy_lq there most of the time, and a Kurt.
Wiki talking is very very time intensive.
IRC can help clear this up, or I'll donate phone cards.
Wiki's are very important to me, but they arn't good tools for conflict
resolution.

I appreciate the offer but I don't do much (any) IM/IRC, etc. and I
don't do any phones at all. Phones are evil. ;) This list or the
users' Talk pages seem sufficient to me. And there is no conflict.
(Darth Vader, Slight Return.) Seriously - we, as an entire community,
debate stuff and come to agreements on policy and the sysops actually
have the obligation (not the 'power') to try to watch the site for
outright vandalism but also to apply the guidelines. So I try my best.
If I screw up excessively, I'm sure Jeremy and/or the rest of the
sysops will remove me. So I have no conflict. If you hate me doing
that, you may have a conflict, but I can't really help you with that
and no number of phone calls will change that. It's kinda reality,
y'know? If you hate a law of your country (like a rule of a site), you
either obey it while agitating for change or you break it and try to
avoid the consequences, but prepare to suffer them. So either
contribute stuff according to the guidelines while agitating on the
list or contribute stuff however you want, but expect them to get
edited if anyone sees them and has the time and energy to deal with
them. What's to resolve?

-J

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-05 12:36:05 UTC

Permalink

Part of the thing is, its' really difficult to parse out individual ideas
amongst great big paragraphs / blocks of text.

That is part of the point of the "human brain" page.

I'm fighting in a very new system. I feel hope for breaking down a few walls,
and home to make it easier for further development.

a stitch in time saves nine.

-AP
And I think talk:wik pages are kinda evil too..

Post by j
I appreciate the offer but I don't do much (any) IM/IRC, etc. and I
don't do any phones at all. Phones are evil. ;) This list or the
users' Talk pages seem sufficient to me. And there is no conflict.
(Darth Vader, Slight Return.) Seriously - we, as an entire community,
debate stuff and come to agreements on policy and the sysops actually
have the obligation (not the 'power') to try to watch the site for
outright vandalism but also to apply the guidelines. So I try my best.
If I screw up excessively, I'm sure Jeremy and/or the rest of the
sysops will remove me. So I have no conflict. If you hate me doing
that, you may have a conflict, but I can't really help you with that
and no number of phone calls will change that. It's kinda reality,
y'know? If you hate a law of your country (like a rule of a site), you
either obey it while agitating for change or you break it and try to
avoid the consequences, but prepare to suffer them. So either
contribute stuff according to the guidelines while agitating on the
list or contribute stuff however you want, but expect them to get
edited if anyone sees them and has the time and energy to deal with
them. What's to resolve?
-J
_______________________________________________
Lqwiki-list mailing list
http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

--
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-05 14:03:58 UTC

Permalink

I'm very sorry about my spelling. I've got humorous excuses though.

1. there is a cat sitting on one of my arms.
2. my keyboard has a \ key where enter should be
3. I know how to type in dvorak, and I revert to that when I get a misstyped
key.
4. I've been playing with a sun keyboard, with a funny location for the
backspace key -- see above
5. I am sitting about 6 feet away from my monitor
6, my glasses are a bit smudged.

So, I'm still being a jerk by subjecting you all to my horrific spelling and
inserting of incorrect words.

I hope that my spelling isn't a big hinderance to the relaying of my ideas.

I will work harder at this..

Post by Aaron Peterson
Part of the thing is, its' really difficult to parse out individual ideas
amongst great big paragraphs / blocks of text.
That is part of the point of the "human brain" page.
I'm fighting in a very new system. I feel hope for breaking down a few

walls, and hope!! to make it easier for further development.

Post by Aaron Peterson
a stitch in time saves nine.
-AP

Jeremy

2004-04-02 15:03:51 UTC

Permalink

Post by dircha
And perhaps I could add that for all of us, myself included, the single
most valuable thing that any individual can do for the wiki in its
present state is to provide valuable, informative content. While I
admittedly like to debate issues and technicalities probably more than
is healthy, what I, and anyone else really need to do, is to continue
generating content.

Very well said dircha.

--jeremy

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-02 12:04:17 UTC

Permalink

On Thursday 01 April 2004 09:26 pm, Jeremy wrote:

First, i think it's pretty cool that we are maintaining a dialog of some sort.
This takes a lot of my time, and a lot of yours, and I'm hoping that it will
prove fruitfull.

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
But my navigation links always get deleted because they are "not a part
of the manual of style"

No, I really don't care about consistant look. I'll try to comply with the
style of other pages... and those tend to evolve into something functional,
The style really doesn't matter all that much if the pages have the elements,
and are not garbled.

Post by Jeremy
feel free to enter whatever info you like, but it will likely get edited
to follow the format we follow. Also, the "backlinks" you desire are only
ever a single click away.

A link that quite a few won't find unless they see some note about that
capability of the wiki,

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
now, here comes a user who actually finds bar/is familiar with the wiki,
and doesn't need the navigational structure (moderators) Does that
moderator put a link up from blarny to bar? No! not currently.

If they are related there should either be a link in the article
text and a link in ==See also==.

Who defines what is related?
well... how about the person who sees the relation? Oh wait... Moderators
ignore the ethics of wiki's and delete stuff that isn't harming the site...

It is a generally good to delay choices. Make your plans, do other stuff, keep
an eye open for a better way to do things.. then act when needed... (this
obviously doesn't work all the time for everything, but i'm pretty sure that
it applies to the wiki)

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
Here comes Aaron, or somebody else who cares about usability for the end
user, and not some religious manual of style, (who is willing to work
with the manual of style but got shot down) and creates a link from
blarny to bar!

I get the impression that when you say "willing to work with the
manual of style" you mean write it as you see fit.

of course, however I would present my additions as options, and on a separate
page discuss/encourage discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of them,
and have the first rule be, If it ain't broke, don't fix it--append or move
it when you make a "better" one.

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
Then along comes the manual of style fanatic, and deletes the link!
without putting it elsewhere or fixing the problem in another way!

If the link was relevant it should have been put someone in there.

yeah, but they get deleted!!!!!

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
This MoS fanatic effectively harmed Aaron! and the community! I put a
lot of effort into finding the back links.

I appreciate any effort you put into it. You however seem unable
to accept that we use the "What links here" functionality in lieu of
backlinks.

I can live without backlinks.. but a link to the backlinks page describing how
to use the wikis "what links here" functionality is a good thing.

Also, if you can make your template for un created/deleted pages automatically
be backlinks pages!!! The default action can be changed from /edit
to /whatlinkshere

I'm not doing a very good job of proposing upgrades to the templates, but i'm
trying... Just a few tweaks in the template can save a lot of people a lot
of time.

Post by Jeremy
--jeremy
_______________________________________________
Lqwiki-list mailing list
http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

--
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806

Jeremy

2004-04-02 16:23:07 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson

Post by Jeremy
feel free to enter whatever info you like, but it will likely get edited
to follow the format we follow. Also, the "backlinks" you desire are only
ever a single click away.

A link that quite a few won't find unless they see some note about that
capability of the wiki,

What do you think about moving the "What links here" to the Browse
nav box?

Post by Aaron Peterson

Post by Jeremy

Post by Aaron Peterson
and doesn't need the navigational structure (moderators) Does that
moderator put a link up from blarny to bar? No! not currently.

If they are related there should either be a link in the article
text and a link in ==See also==.

Who defines what is related?
well... how about the person who sees the relation? Oh wait... Moderators
ignore the ethics of wiki's and delete stuff that isn't harming the site...

I am still not clear why you are unwilling to put what you have
been putting on the top of the page in "Backlinks" and "Member of" links
into the standard ==See also== section. I have also not see anyone remove
content you have put into a ==See also== section.

--jeremy

Aaron Peterson

2004-04-02 19:01:05 UTC

Permalink

Note, I have been dealing with many different issues with this wiki, one of
the least of which is backlinks.

* I have this separated into three sections, however the one that I think is
most valuable is:

1 Experiment with the wiki!

2 and make the protected pages have readable source. the /edit function does
not show the contents of the page.

* i have 8 points on why I am unwilling in most cases to put stuff into the
==See Also== Section instead of my one line construct

* I have a list of some tasks that would be nice to see done

**********
My points (see that my arguments need refinement, I stupidly thought they were
self evident)

1. Respect others work by saving it. Saving it means linking to it from the
page that it was on. The history, or deletion bucket doesn't count. We don't

2. Don't delete stuff that you don't understand. If you don't know why
somebody put a link between two pages, ask, or leave it. (unless it's on
another topic completely) (see topic 5)

3. General names are natural seeds, they don't need any plunge ahead note,
Once a page like.. Media has become non-dense, then break it up into audio,
video, and what not, to keep it navigateable.

4. the case sensitivity of wikipedia is unfortunate. is there a work around?

5.What is on topic?
talks about the current wiki, linux questions, and linux, and software that
runs on linux are all ON TOPIC, and deserve to be MOVED if they are in a very
inconvenient spot

6. Links are content.

-----
getting personal here,
1. I have been hit by all of the above topics.

2. I am especially annoyed about bug reporting -- feature request links being
removed. Try going to kde.org and asking for a tiny feature that you'd like
to see... and don't do it over their bugzilla software...

3. A one line See Also: line that is designed to be unobtrusive, and
immediately accessable to a user

Tasks
-----
1. Experiment!!! i have done so, and i am relaying the results of those
experiments to you all. You don't take my word for it, so open up a little
and play with the wiki. this is not plunging ahead, this is trying other
wikis, playing with format, playing with style.. untill you find one that
works. best.

2. Make protected pages be source readable! I can't clone/ fork a page to
show you guys what i mean, because I not only can't submit changes to it, I
can't see the source to the page.

2.
un-protect the main page, or do some work on it. Specifically, it needs
expanded info on how to use the wiki. etiquite (sp), conflict resolution,
etc. I've looked over your pages, and I'm still stumbling across new
formatting thingies.

3. backlinks are most usefull when they can be seen WITH the content, page
flipping is nasty on web pages.
Things I think we will find addequate:
1. Blank pages show what links to them, rather than the edit page.
2. a reminder to click what links here occasionally (the link to the
baclk_links pages were not intended to be complaints, but be markers and
serve as a reminder, and be a question on how to implement them)
3. implement a wiki action that offeres this functionality.
4. an expanded what links here in the side bar.

4 is something i'd like to see experimented with, would satisfy me, and is
proably the easiest to implement, I don't know how hard it would be on your
server though.
1 and 2 is the minimum I'd be happy with
1 and 3 would become redundant if 4 is implemented.
1 is extremely cool, and is highly recommended and, would shut me up for a
while.
1 and 3 are what I expect from a wiki.

***********

Post by Jeremy
What do you think about moving the "What links here" to the Browse
nav box?

A good start, but doesn't allow for seeing the content at the same time as the
links. Having an expanded "what links here" in the side bar would be very
nice.

Thanks for asking this,

Post by Jeremy
I am still not clear why you are unwilling to put what you have
been putting on the top of the page in "Backlinks" and "Member of" links
into the standard ==See also== section. I have also not see anyone remove
content you have put into a ==See also== section.

1. I believe that hyperlinks belong right next to where they were referenced.

2. I believe that the peers of the page define a page as much as the page
content does (taken from my dad observing politicians to see who their fund
raisers are rather than their outward appearance)

3. Long pages need an instant way out of.

4. It's really short being only one or two lines, and it solves multiple
parents

5. once it's in the standard See Also section, people will want to put it back
there if I move it out again.

6. There is a difference between member of, and see also, the distinction has
use. (member of is typically very short, I experimented with paths, but I
can drop that, or condense them)

7. Multiple navigation systems do not harm a wiki, the multiple navigation
systems are the web, I don't think of a cross referenced books as being much
of a web. (I'll expand later

8. People VERY often enter the wiki at where the search engine drops them,
all pages need to serve as a minimal "table of contents" to the rest of the
wiki.

--
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806

David Ross

2004-04-02 18:23:35 UTC

Permalink

Post by Aaron Peterson
**********
My points (see that my arguments need refinement, I stupidly thought they were
self evident)
1. Respect others work by saving it. Saving it means linking to it from the
page that it was on. The history, or deletion bucket doesn't count. We don't

... We seem to be mising a bit here. I really have no idea what the
second sentence is about but I (and I'm sure everyone else) agrees with
the first sentence.

Post by Aaron Peterson
2. Don't delete stuff that you don't understand. If you don't know why
somebody put a link between two pages, ask, or leave it. (unless it's on
another topic completely) (see topic 5)

I agree - I'm not sure why anyone would unless the content is not fit
for the wiki. If there is any doubt then that's when the talk pages
should be used.

Post by Aaron Peterson
3. General names are natural seeds, they don't need any plunge ahead note,
Once a page like.. Media has become non-dense, then break it up into audio,
video, and what not, to keep it navigateable.

I assume you are meaning the stub notice? I think that it is quite
useful especially for new members who may feel reluctant to edit long
standing pages.

Post by Aaron Peterson
4. the case sensitivity of wikipedia is unfortunate. is there a work around?

Yes - use the search feature before creating a new page.

Post by Aaron Peterson
5.What is on topic?
talks about the current wiki, linux questions, and linux, and software that
runs on linux are all ON TOPIC, and deserve to be MOVED if they are in a very
inconvenient spot

Where are they just now and where should they be moved to? All linux
content is valid for posting on the wiki as long as it is not offensive
and does not enfringe on any copyright licencing.

Post by Aaron Peterson
6. Links are content.

Agreed. Links to external sites should also be placed in an External
Links section at the bottom of the article as well as being placed in
the relevant context within the content:
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/LinuxQuestions.org_Wiki:Manual_of_Style#External_and_'See_also'_links

Post by Aaron Peterson
-----
getting personal here,
1. I have been hit by all of the above topics.

I'm sorry to keep hearing this. Perhaps you can give us examples next
time. If Myself or someone else is inadvertantly doing something wrong
it would be much easier to see in context. If a change has been made
please provide the 2 relevant revision links.

Post by Aaron Peterson
2. I am especially annoyed about bug reporting -- feature request links being
removed. Try going to kde.org and asking for a tiny feature that you'd like
to see... and don't do it over their bugzilla software...

Again - examples please. We do have 2500 pages on the wiki.

Post by Aaron Peterson
3. A one line See Also: line that is designed to be unobtrusive, and
immediately accessable to a user

We did have a discussion on a one line "See also" section against a
bulleted list like the "External links" but in the end it looked better
with both as bulleted lists.

Post by Aaron Peterson
Tasks
-----
1. Experiment!!! i have done so, and i am relaying the results of those
experiments to you all. You don't take my word for it, so open up a little
and play with the wiki. this is not plunging ahead, this is trying other
wikis, playing with format, playing with style.. untill you find one that
works. best.

Sounds like a great idea. That's one reason we have the sandbox. Any
style changes that people think should be added to the Manual of Style
should then bring them to the list along with a link to their sandbox
revision (remember to use the revision link and not the current page as
that may change).

I also have one minor gripe to add to this and I'm guilty of it myself
so I will say this while looking in a mirror can people try to use the
preview button before saving pages. I quite often see one page being
edited by the same person several times in just a few minutes. Over
time this will fill the database quite a lot as all revisions are saved
and it makes it a lot easier to use the diff function when there are
less revisions.

Post by Aaron Peterson
2. Make protected pages be source readable! I can't clone/ fork a page to
show you guys what i mean, because I not only can't submit changes to it, I
can't see the source to the page.

I'm not sure if this functionality is already in MediaWiki but I'll look
into it.

Post by Aaron Peterson
2.
un-protect the main page, or do some work on it. Specifically, it needs
expanded info on how to use the wiki. etiquite (sp), conflict resolution,
etc. I've looked over your pages, and I'm still stumbling across new
formatting thingies.

There is a talk page for "Main Page" - what do you think should be
added, the etiquet type documents are being worked on but these things
take time and this is a fairly new project and things are being dealt
with as they come up:
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page

Post by Aaron Peterson
3. backlinks are most usefull when they can be seen WITH the content, page
flipping is nasty on web pages.
1. Blank pages show what links to them, rather than the edit page.

Personally I think this would be confusing to see content on a page that
doesn't yet exist. Why not just create the page as a stub and make a
"See also" section containing a link back to the page you created it from.

Post by Aaron Peterson
2. a reminder to click what links here occasionally (the link to the
baclk_links pages were not intended to be complaints, but be markers and
serve as a reminder, and be a question on how to implement them)

What sort of a reminder? A popup window every 5 pages you visit?

Post by Aaron Peterson
3. implement a wiki action that offeres this functionality.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean code something to
automatically include "what links here" in a document?

Post by Aaron Peterson
4. an expanded what links here in the side bar.

The same as above?

Post by Aaron Peterson
4 is something i'd like to see experimented with, would satisfy me, and is
proably the easiest to implement, I don't know how hard it would be on your
server though.
1 and 2 is the minimum I'd be happy with
1 and 3 would become redundant if 4 is implemented.
1 is extremely cool, and is highly recommended and, would shut me up for a
while.
1 and 3 are what I expect from a wiki.
***********

Post by Jeremy
What do you think about moving the "What links here" to the Browse
nav box?

A good start, but doesn't allow for seeing the content at the same time as the
links. Having an expanded "what links here" in the side bar would be very
nice.
Thanks for asking this,

1. I believe that hyperlinks belong right next to where they were referenced.

I don't think anyone disagrees. Acording to the Manual of Style the
links should be in context within the text as well as in an External
links section at the bottom of the page:
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/LinuxQuestions.org_Wiki:Manual_of_Style#External_and_'See_also'_links

Post by Aaron Peterson
2. I believe that the peers of the page define a page as much as the page
content does (taken from my dad observing politicians to see who their fund
raisers are rather than their outward appearance)
3. Long pages need an instant way out of.

Exactly - that's one reason for including "See also" and "External
links" Just press your "End" key and you should see them

Post by Aaron Peterson
4. It's really short being only one or two lines, and it solves multiple
parents
5. once it's in the standard See Also section, people will want to put it back
there if I move it out again.
6. There is a difference between member of, and see also, the distinction has
use. (member of is typically very short, I experimented with paths, but I
can drop that, or condense them)

Paths? again - examples may be useful. I think you are talking about
namespaces and these will only be created if and when it is thought
there is a need.

Post by Aaron Peterson
7. Multiple navigation systems do not harm a wiki, the multiple navigation
systems are the web, I don't think of a cross referenced books as being much
of a web. (I'll expand later
8. People VERY often enter the wiki at where the search engine drops them,
all pages need to serve as a minimal "table of contents" to the rest of the
wiki.

Jeremy

2004-04-02 18:52:40 UTC