User talk:-- April: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Larry Sanger (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
I am curious, have you considered asking the development team here at wikipedia for a download utility that would port good articles for your science book and all attribution data (if this required by the FDL?) or the top page and 5 most prominent authors by line count? I am sort of laboring under the impression that this is part of the purpose of a free encyclopdia if it is helpful. Anyway hope to see you around occasionally. |
I am curious, have you considered asking the development team here at wikipedia for a download utility that would port good articles for your science book and all attribution data (if this required by the FDL?) or the top page and 5 most prominent authors by line count? I am sort of laboring under the impression that this is part of the purpose of a free encyclopdia if it is helpful. Anyway hope to see you around occasionally. |
||
--[[user:mirwin]] |
--[[user:mirwin]] |
||
---- |
|||
Hey, thanks April! Yes, that's exactly what I mean (re redirecting pages). One thing that might make it real pain (if you decide to do it) would be to redirect the associated talk pages, too. :-( If you don't bother to move them, I don't think any serious harm will be done, though. --[[user:Larry_Sanger|Larry_Sanger]] |
|||
Revision as of 16:05, 20 February 2002
Your home page doesn't work. There is nothing in your talk section either!
- Now there is. :) The homepage is down due to system problems on their end, and should be back up shortly. -- April
--- April, there was discussion about the appropriateness of essay material on wikipedia, which led to the creation of http://meta.wikipedia.com especially for this type of thing. You might want to put any essays you write about wikipedia there. By the way, I love your work on opera plot summaries! --Robert Merkel
- Thanks... if I ever have anything worthy of being called an "essay", I'll definitely throw it on the meta page. I tend to run out of steam quickly, though - my Wikipedia articles tend to run two to three paragraphs, with me hoping others will flesh them out later. :) As a result, I can end up with a stray paragraph or three that isn't worth an article of its own - I'm storing them on the user page as samplers until I can figure out what to do with them. As for the opera plot summaries, can't claim much credit - found an expired-copyright source (cited), and am doing much cut'n'pasting with a few extraneous additions and copyediting. I plan to go back and add more details later... I hope. Thanks for the input! -- April
April, wrt your thoughts on consensus, I would disagree that Wikipedia articles try and reach one consensus opinion. Rather than trying to achieve *one* consensus opinion, the neutral point of view policy indicates that, instead, we should try and characterise *all* opinions on topics where there is serious debate, and then try and reach a consensus on a fair summary of those opinions. Not all articles reflect this, but it's what is aimed for. This idea works well for Wikipedia - it may not be appropriate for other wiki projects (for instance, if you were working on writing a political manifesto using a Wiki it'd be a very bad idea).
The other point that might have some resonance for your textbook project is that, whilst most wikipedians agree on the NPOV policy, the policy was imposed at the very beginning of the project by its originators (though it has been refined and expanded since with the participation of other Wikipedians). You may need to do the same for some principles you consider fundamental to your project. --Robert Merkel
Many thanks for your input... on consensus versus, uh, multi-dimensional view, I have to admit it's an extremely good point. I hadn't quite thought about it from that angle, and will have to do so. :) I can still cling to the idea that what results is a consensus opinion on what is a proper multi-dimentsional view. :)
On the textbook project - thanks again for the suggestion. I've laid out a few guidelines based on the concept that this is aimed at a textbook rather than an encyclopedia or other work. I'm definitely going to have to expand on that, though. -- April
Hi April, Your science project looks like an excellent project. I really like your essay on consensus. Robert made points with me regarding the npov and multiple views but you rallied well with the multipoint consensus. 8)
I am wondering whether you have placed this lovely concise (yes) essay into a wikipedia article. I would like to point to it when 'wikifying"/tweaking a new stub article [[social contract]. I will go check when I finish here.
Irregardless of its applicability to Wikipedia's article development process, I think it is highly applicable to building a healthy community of volunteers (free associating netizens -- A universal human right there somewhere maybe). The reason I wish to wikify the social contract is to point out that much conflict arises from misunderstandings inherent in unarticulated social contracts. This will come up in some discussions at http://meta.wikipedia.com I am trying to get restarted about our own community charter.
I am curious, have you considered asking the development team here at wikipedia for a download utility that would port good articles for your science book and all attribution data (if this required by the FDL?) or the top page and 5 most prominent authors by line count? I am sort of laboring under the impression that this is part of the purpose of a free encyclopdia if it is helpful. Anyway hope to see you around occasionally. --user:mirwin
Hey, thanks April! Yes, that's exactly what I mean (re redirecting pages). One thing that might make it real pain (if you decide to do it) would be to redirect the associated talk pages, too. :-( If you don't bother to move them, I don't think any serious harm will be done, though. --Larry_Sanger