Subject:
Re: TLDP and WIkipedia
From:
Mysid ####@####.####
Date:
14 Aug 2005 21:18:21 -0000
Message-Id: <6eb799ab0508141417b804368@mail.gmail.com>
On 8/14/05, Stein Gjoen ####@####.#### wrote:
> Discussion on wikifying TLDP works started quite some time ago
> Wikipedia in its current incarnation with software and
> processes are in my opinion not suitable for the TLDP.
Did you consider that the kind of documents TLDP makes are
incompatible with the kind that Wikipedia makes, because most TLDP
materials would be offtopic on Wikipedia, and there are many
fundamental differences between an encyclopedia article and a
howto/etc?
The issue would be that TLDP includes documents like howtos, manual
pages. Wikipedia by contrast
is an encyclopedia and needs to use very different standards than TLDP
ought to need.
I think a better thing to compare against would be uh, Wikibooks
(http://en.wikibooks.org)
TLDP should probably setup its own wiki, though, rather than put
documents on an outside wiki. Nothing against WikiMedia, I just think
TLDP should stay in control of the storage of developmental versions
of documents.
After all, that is where Wikipedia would be likely to send any HOWTO
articles or software manuals to through the deletion and transwiki
process.
> When I started I expected vandalism to be the largest problem but
> to my surprise that was not the case. That was then but things have
> changed. Vandalism is rapidly increasing and reverts are not always
> able to handle this properly anymore. Some examples:
The growth of vandalism, I think, is partly a consequence of
Wikipedia's quick and phenomenal growth, large size, and partly a
consequence of allowing editing by anonymous users (including AOL
users... vandals keep coming back, and blocks for serious vandalism
are usually made for at most 24 hours, allowing the smarter persistent
vandals to return easily).
Last I heard, from the database dumps of Wikipedia available for
download, that of the article histories was 22Gb, and the database
dump for current article pages was around 1 Gb. I tend to think
Wikipedia is just way too big and has a lot to deal with that TLDP
doesn't... :)
If TLDP authors were to use a Wiki, it might make sense to require
users register (and take slightly stronger measures against vandalism)
A wiki is certainly an easy way to submit changes,
lowing the burden to submit.
Release process is another matter (it would
seem to make sense to lock on to a specific
version of each article, and not update the
official release until any discussions are hashed out and changes are
marked 'ok' by a specifically trusted editor)
["Marking 'ok'" might even mean just copying
that version of the text to an entirely different system.]
> Cleanup:
> occationally a page is marked with a cleanup tag,
> "This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher
> standard of quality." Unfortunately the reason is often not
> clearly stated, nor the condition for removal of the tag. Also
Well, such a tag is part of a suggestion or request
for cleanup, or is in general.
If the reason for cleanup not obvious and it wasn't stated, then I
believe anyone can just boldly
remove the cleanup tag on Wikipedia.. if the
discussion on the talk page hadn't brought up
any cleanup to be done.
> pseudonymous users have removed the tag entirely without due
> process (ref. ISO9000).
Due process.. ? Err, "be bold" is their Wiki way,
with some exceptions some due process
would not and should not be required.
Processes often accumulate, which they
sometimes call Instruction Creep, they like
to keep as few processes as possible, so
at most it would be "discuss the change if
it proves to be controversial"
[After all, no due process would have been
required to add the tag, right? :)]
> Deletions:
> there is a group of self stated deletionists rampaging through
> Wikipedia, attempting some kind of textual darwinism.
Yes, there are constant deletionist V.S.
inclusionists who are both much more extreme
than the consensus.
And deletions have a point, and an encyclopedia
does not need to have an article for every
blogger who just came by and wanted to be
featured in an article.
> There were 2 votes to keep and 1 for cleanup versus 2 for transwiki
> yet the decision ended up for transwiki.
''Votes for Deletion'' is of course a misnomer,
on Wikipedia, votes are closed by an admin who
is supposed to be trusted by the community.
he/she reads the discussion and decides which
points which votes to give the most weight to;
the discussion is supposed to be considered
more important than the "Delete" or "Keep"
choice.
Of course it varies, depending on who closes
the vote, and the Wikipedians know that the
Vfd process is not ideal. Several proposals
on Wikipedia were being discussed to reform
the process.
> later on. Unfortunately it is hard to locate the version that
> was the one that was featured.
True, the current release of the MediaWiki
software does not currently provide them a
means to clearly mark the proper versions that
retained the featured status.
> This is missing. Known good (enough) and featured articles should
> be baselined and be easily accessible. This is important for TLDP
> when running off versions for mirroring or CD inclusion.
Yes, I believe for Wikipedia 1.0 which would be designed to be
suitable for release to CD or in print, people have proposed there
that they add a capability to their software to identify the "latest
stable version" of an article.
I think what you are describing is just the same problem.. I assume
they will solve it -- I am just not certain how high a priority they
consider it or how quickly a way of setting a baseline for an article
will be available.
> On Googling for articles I often find copies at commersial sites
> that takes the opportunity to fill the pages with advertising.
Does it really matter that they do this? They are acting as mirrors
and spreading the content further, which is arguably a service, and
increases the recognition of the document, though I suppose they are
taking advantage of others' work to enrich themselves (in a way).
It's part of the disadvantage of releasing anything under free
licenses... by the same token, if you make a web server program and
release it as free software, some big company can run their website on
it, and have it serve their advertising, heh.
Not all TLDP articles are released under the
GNU Free Documentation license, which
could make things hard to deal with in a Wiki
environment, where sometimes content should
pass between articles --
you might almost need to setup a separate
Wiki for each distinct license articles use
(eww)
--
-Mysid
