Subject:
Re: TLDP and WIkipedia
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
14 Aug 2005 22:10:23 -0000
Message-Id: <42FFC130.80300@mail.nyx.net>
Mysid wrote:
> 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?
I know that. What I was looking for was system, processes and
a wiki with high traffic. For that I felt Wikipedia was more
suitable then Wikibooks.
[snip]
>>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).
That is my impression too and also the reason I wanted to
try out a high traffic wiki. I am unsure Wikipedia scales
with volume and vandals.
[snip]
> If TLDP authors were to use a Wiki, it might make sense to require
> users register (and take slightly stronger measures against vandalism)
Pseudonymous users are also a problem. Also registering
goes against the spirit of wikis, moreso verifying users.
[snip]
> 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.]
This is why I earlier suggested a side-by-side solution
with one fixed pane with a HOWTO and the other pane with
wiki style comments. As mentioned earlier such setups
have been used for creating standards.
>>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.
I don't quite understand the sentence above.
> 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.
Which is what I mean by missing process.
>>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.
In that case boldness means one could dispose of
such tags entirely. After all articles are supposed
to be in a constant state of improvement.
> 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? :)]
Process doesn't have to be complicated, just a statement
on why and what to clean up and what it takes to remove
the tag. Such a tag could have been useful to readers of
the article to exercise extra caution.
>>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.
Excessive inclusionism adds noise.
Excessive deletionism deletes also signal.
> 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.
A useless article would not cause problems since it would
not turn up when people are browsing through the contants.
Deleting a useful article on spurious basis is a problem.
There is a case of attempted deletion of an article on
Danny O'Brian simply because he also blogs. Attempt was
made by user Bloghate whose contempt for bloggers seems to
have clouded rational thinking. His rampaging deletionism
earned him a permanent blocking but damage is probably done.
I have not seen a process to rescue pages deleted by such
people.
>>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.
I would, at the very least, expect a rationale to
be stated.
> 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.
This is an important issue; Slashdot styled "moderation"
would leave TLDP content wiped out within weeks, save for
the funny one. I guess the Tea-HOWTO would have been
brought in. The importance of a decision process cannot
be overstated. We had to remove HOWTOs in the past. It
did take some time but it was done with great care.
>>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.
I believe this is neccessary for TLDP.
>>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 does matter to some here, ad infested pages have caused long
discussion in the past. Also most ads tend to distract reading.
The trouble here is that people are led to the mirror first, not
to the wiki where they can contribute.
> 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.
This is a know issue and license amendments have been proposed
without success.
> 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)
Licensing and wiki is something i carefully avoided discussing
since any thread on licensing tends to drag on for ages with no
resolution in sight. I hope this thread can avoid those issues
and rather consentrate on software, processes and what TLDP
requires. We should shape the tools to our needs, not bend to
the peculiarities of the tools.
Proper processes can also help us set up quality assurance.
Still, I hope that processes and guidelines should remain
simple and useful rather than ritualistic. The same goes for
document preambles.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
