Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yoenit (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 9 June 2011 (→‎cooling in the humid areas: hmm, that linked somewhere else). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Before commenting, note:

« Archives, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

The aim of the Village pump (idea lab) is to encourage the preliminary incubation of new ideas in a "non-polling" environment. When you have a new idea, it is not mandatory that you post it here first. However, doing so can be useful if you only have a general conception of what you want to see implemented, and would like the community's assistance in devising the specifics. Once ideas have been developed, they can be presented to the community for consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

The formation of this page, and the question of its purpose and existence, are the subjects of discussion on the talk page. Direct all comments on those topics there.


New Permission

Moved to: User:Ebe123/Protected editor.

Cleanup templates -- almost as bad as ads; reduction ideas?

As we all know, Wikimedia takes pride in not covering the site in advertisements. Ads take up screen space, are obstructive to readers, and are generally just annoying to see. As more and more time passes, this is exactly how I feel about the cleanup templates. I am not saying at all that we should get rid of them, but I think we need to find a way to greatly reduce them in space used — closer to what is used for {{Expand section}} with the ability to place them side by side rather than only each below the next.

Think of it this way: we don't want ads on the site because then every page would begin with something like this...


...but many pages needing more than the most basic cleanup already start with something like this...

...or like this...

How is this visually any more acceptable, particularly for non-editors who only visit to find a bit of information? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying on purpose. Visually they distract, and redirect attention to themselves. This serves three purposes: a) warn the reader that there may be factual or other problems with the article; b) alert readers who are potential editors that there's something they could fix, if only they clicked the 'edit' link for the first time...; c) alert current editors who come across an article (or indeed search by categories of tagged articles) what the specific problems and concerns are. Net benefit to the project. → ROUX ₪ 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our rejection of advertisements is not based primarily on visual appeal, but editorial independence. Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
However we can if we wish do this:
Rich Farmbrough, 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It's technologically possible to create expandable templates - a smallish floating template that would have the icon and a key phrase like 'Content dispute', 'Help needed', or etc, but could be clicked to give more details. Don't know if we'd want to do that, and it would be a fairly major undertaking, if only because we'd have to make sure that changes to the current templates didn't muck up any of the possibly thousands of pages these banners are currently on, but it is possible. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Roux. Essentially, the ugliness is functional. Rd232 talk 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, those templates only state the obvious anyway ("This article needs more references, blah, blah.") and I have rarely seen cases where an article was improved as a direct reaction to them. In most cases, somebody puts them on a page and then they stay there for years, because even if proper references have been introduced nobody dares remove the banners. It's really a social problem rather than a technical one: Some editors, instead of simply fixing/improving an article, prefer to tag it with a mostly useless cleanup template because that's less work for them than actually doing something about an article's deficiencies. These templates are also a cheap way to rack up a high edit count, which might explain why some editors are so fond of them. To which I say: WP:SOFIXIT. --Morn (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've solved problems in response to a template, but usually because the article was already on my watchlist for some other reason, and I saw the addition. On the other hand, tags that aren't addressed promptly are probably pretty worthless, if not permanent fixtures. (Exercise for the reader: Go open 100 articles in, say, Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2006 and see how many are incorrectly tagged as containing zero sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I have rarely seen cases where an article was improved as a direct reaction to them." - how can you tell? This sort of anecdotal handwaving is worthless, unless for some reason you think it valid to only count cases where someone immediately fixes the entire problem and has sufficient confidence in the resolution to remove the template. Of course there's nothing to stop you doing a statistically valid study to determine the impact of cleanup templates over different periods (1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year...) if you want... These things take time, and without attention-getting templates, they take even longer. Rd232 talk 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They say the obvious... to a human viewer. But the point of a cleanup template is that it enables an editor in the future to find it (through categories and backlinks from WP:TC etc.). And I think the suggestion that the only reason editors tag with cleanup templates is because they are lazy edit count whores is flexing WP:AGF! I've tagged a few articles with WP:TC templates, and the reason I do so is because I'm not necessarily knowledgable about what makes a reliable source for that topic. If I'm watching TV and doing some anti-vandal work while the advert break is on and run across an article that needs obvious cleanup, being able to notify other editors that it has some set of problems is quite useful. Similarly, if I run across a stack of new and unreferenced articles on, say, French politics: I don't know what counts as a reliable source in that topic, but it would be nice if the people who do know could find the article and fix problems with it. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(First, on a side note, reading my posts I know that the tone of my typically-long ones can sound a bit snobbish; I assure you that is not the intent. My apologies in advance, though, just in case.) I can see Roux's point, but I think the only reason for validity is because it is what we are used to seeing. On the "Feature Articles" is a little icon in the upper right hand corner. Typically the same is true for admins' pages. We also receive those administrative notices in or watch lists that we can dismiss when we choose. None of them are large, yet I doubt they go unnoticed by the majority. It's not about size; it's about effectiveness. The two aren't always the same. Mentioning again the two examples shown here already:

Can we not see those? Do we think that others cannot see them? What do the larger templates give except for an extended explanation of the template's purpose which is essentially the same as what the link always found in each template provides? If the person doesn't know what "Needs references" means, they can click the link and find out. They don't need it mentioned in the template along with a link visible in the same template for them to click to tell them the exact same thing in more detail. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A significant part of the purpose is to turn readers into editors. The "please help" bits are not optional extras. Rd232 talk 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point (in the way that you stated the first sentence.) I admit I had never thought about it in full from that direct angle — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I liked that point that banners end up sitting for months or years, even after the problems are gone, or of decidedly little interest even to the person who made the banner. Maybe these are good reasons that banners should evolve over time to get smaller?-Tesseract2 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some (not I) could argue the opposite. If the banners are what grab attention to what needs editing and something hasn't been edited after a long time, then maybe the banners just need to be bigger (ha!) But seriously, I do still feel something could be done. This all sparked from a post a ran across recently by User:MuZemike proposing more uniform templates that (or based on what) he had created (all found here). I agree with his concept, but by chance they are also smaller than current:
... but my view leads to even smaller:
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help us improve it if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions.
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it.
This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite it from a neutral point of view. Blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, should be marked for speedy deletion. using {{db-spam}}.
Please expand this article using the suggested source(s) below. More information might be found in a section of the talk page.
A bit crude in my coding making it easier for me to create these, but you get the idea. I still feel they are easily noticeable. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It's need: copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling • rewriting from a neutral point of view. (Blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, should be marked for speedy deletion. using {{db-spam}}) • expanding by using the suggested source(s) below. Please help us improve it if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions.

Hmm? Przykuta (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haha... erm... no. :D — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, sombody said what I've been feeling for more than a year now. All these "missing citations", "disputed", "should be merged" and similar notices are ugly, distracting, and gives Wikipedia a really unprofessional appearance. I did a short test: I clicked the "Random Article" 10 times. Out of these 10 random pages, 6 (!) had these large warning messages on them, 3 were stubs (very short articles), and only 1 a normal warning-less article... What is most annoying is that in many cases, several people worked hard and wrote a nice article, and then comes along one person who decides that this article needs citations, or whatever, and just tags it - and then this ugly banner stays around for years... If you want to add citations, do it. If you think there's an error, correct it - or remove the erronous statement. Or write about in the talk page. But what good do these banners do???? I say, ban these banners! Nyh (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment above. These banners are ugly and distracting on purpose. Readers must know when there are problems with a given article, as it allows them to make a judgement about whether to trust the information contained therein. Such banners also serve to recruit new editors because people think, for example, "Hey, I can fix the writing here!" → ROUX ₪ 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icons

Perhaps the various tags could be replaced with icons located to the immediate right of the article title.

What I envisage is icons of the same font size as the article title, and in the form of a relevant image covered by a red crossed circle. The nature of each icon may be stated as alternative text (e.g. "This article needs...").

To avoid too many such icons, the current tags could be simplified down to a handful. For example, the orphan and dead end tags could be subsumed into a insufficient links icon. And all the references, refimprove, unreferenced, references-blp tags, some of which duplicate each other, could be subsumed into a insufficient references icon.

When adding an icon, an editor could be forced to enter a concern parameter indicating what is wrong. The concern, (in either WP:USETEMP or tag form) could then be automatically entered into the talk page. Once saved, each icon may then act as a link to the relevant section in the talk page. After all, shouldn't these sorts of tags be on the talk page. Isn't that what the talk page is for. How many times have we come across a tagged article and found that the talk page hasn't yet been created or if it has, it was only to add it to a WikiProject.

The obvious criticism I can see of this idea is that icons may be less noticeable than tags. However, considering how dominating tags can be, almost anything would be less noticeable. Nonetheless, I think readers would soon notice these icons as they wouldn't appear identically on every page if at all. And, of course, serving the same function as tags, they'd still add articles to hidden categories.

LordVetinari (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil and it seems he already mentioned icons there. Must have been at the back of my mind when I thought of the idea described above. Thought I'd add this in case I get accused of stealing ideas. LordVetinari (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to that essay. I had never read it before. Do we really know that the size of the tags (or the tags at all) draw in new people to edit? More specifically, do we know that the tags draw in new people to make edits specifically focused around hoping to get that tag removed? How can we possibly know if we only stick with "how it's always been done" instead of taking a chance? My personal opinion is that smaller tags would not change a thing for better or worse relative to the already-declining number of new editors. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, of course, but tags didn't motivate me to edit. I read articles on Wikipedia for years before I started editing. Back then, I usually ignored the tags as nothing more than meaningless maintenance stuff. As a reader, it meant nothing to me. When I did eventually edit, it was in response to my own opinion of the article content, not others' opinions as presented through tags. More so as a reader, tags were to me little different to the ads that clog up the dictionary.com website: the reader has to search through the page just to find the text. That's as annoying as google search results that don't lead to pages relevant to the requested search.
My view is that maintenance tags have three purposes:
  • To 'tag' an article for maintenance (i.e. add it to a hidden category)
    • Icons will do this as well as anything
  • To advertise to the reader that an article has been recognised as being below standard
    • Icons, in the form I've described, may fulfil the same purpose. This is especially likely as readers will come to notice that not all pages have icons and those that do don't necessarily have the same ones.
  • To encourage readers to become editors.
    • As mentioned above, tags had no effect in my case. I also don't think people need to be told that a crap article is a crap article in order to motivate them to edit it. People join because it fulfils their needs. That their actions also usually serve Wikipedia's is, in my namesake's words, "a happy bonus". I don't believe people join in because we've just presented them with an article that needs references or needs a copyedit. If they are going to join in, they'll likely start in an area that is of interest to them and then, they'll probably begin by correcting a typo or rephrasing a sentence in an otherwise passable article. To put it in perspective, maintenance is difficult work. For example, I occasionally go on de-orphaning patrols but, despite it seeming like a simple task, different orphaned articles can present different problems requiring different solutions. Just like wikification, refimproving and the others, it is not an easy task likely to motivate the casual reader. Let's entice them with the easy stuff. Once they're seduced, then they'll feel inclined to do the hard yards.
One last thought: I think an editable encyclopedia appeals to that part in many of us that feels compelled to correct spelling mistakes in the newspaper (e.g. see Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
One last question: How many editor's (IP or otherwise) began by dealing with an issue mentioned in a maintenance tag?
LordVetinari (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by CobraWiki to give my views on this. I believe strongly that turning tags meant for editors into small icons would be an improvement. Tags that warn readers about factual controversy or bias are ok, I think. But all those "fix-me" tags nagging about whatever someone felt like nagging about is not worth the distraction and article ugliness the big boxes bring. The style manual states that articles should begin with defining or explaining the topic. These tags goes against that. In general I'd like article space to be for the readers, and complaints or suggestions to editors on how to improve an article should be made on the talk page, not with big flashy boxes on top of the article. --Shanes (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback but thank you especially for "loaning" your idea (see my second edit, above). LordVetinari (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shanes. That's an interesting point you bring up about two types of tags being used in different ways. I certainly agree about the use of the talk page over the article space being more logical for the boxes (particularly since the talk page is where you have to discuss the issues if needed anyway. If the point of view remains that the templates are there to grab attention and too many members keep believing that those tags have more worth in encourage enough people enough to edit and then join and edit than obstruction by being there (which I believe is flawed reasoning as mentioned above), then not even that sort of change would be placed in effect. I'd at least like to at least see a trail period, but that would only happen if some details could be hashed out here otherwise I have no idea if many others agree with the idea (prior to starting a poll). — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the idea would be more successful if the end result could be rolled out in stages. The concept, as described earlier, actually consists of several ideas. Consider,
  • Icon/tag design and layout → Don't know what mechanics are involved but changing from one to the other should be a simple case of altering some template pages.
  • Icon/tag simplification (eg. subsuming {{references}} & {{refimprove}} into a new {{Insufficent references}} icon) → Technically, this is a separate issue, and could be rolled out anytime.
  • Icons/tags automatically linking to talk page → As above, some tinkering with the template code should enable this. It would also require a major rewrite of relevant tutorials, WP namespace pages etc. Perhaps it could be made easier with the appearance of a messagebox whenever someone tries to add an old-style tag. I expect this aspect of the concept will provoke most discussion.
All in all, justifying the replacement of tags with icons should be the easy part. LordVetinari (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, umm, I'm not very familiar with this whole Village Pump process. What usually happens next? I'm thinking of moving this discussion to its own page in my userspace so that we can find it more easily. It looks a little lost on this page. LordVetinari (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another step is to create a poll, but that doesn't do much good without hashing out details here. Otherwise the poll isn't helpful. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shanes: "Tags that warn readers about factual controversy or bias are ok, I think. But all those "fix-me" tags nagging about whatever someone felt like nagging about is not worth the distraction and article ugliness the big boxes bring."
Tags indicating unreliability and bias are useful to the reader and should stay in some form. The rest are aimed at the editors so shouldn't take up so much space - either make them smaller or put them at the bottom of the article rather than the top. What reader ever read a tag saying "This article needs to be wikified to meet wikipedia's quality standards" and thought, ooh, I'll join wikipedia so I can learn how to wikify this article?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! In article space we should think about and only include information that is useful to those who looked up the article to learn about the topic. If the article is disputed in any way, this is important for the reader to know. But if the article needs wikifying or spell checking or better grammar or what ever, this is not something that give the reader any better understanding of the topic. It is just something that give them information about the article about the topic on the encyclopedia called Wikipedia, but this is just meta-information the reader wasn't asking for.
I find it interesting that the very first, and really the ultimate "fix-me-tag", the stub tag, was introduced and always meant to be included very discretely at the bottom of the article. Since then the tagging has become a screaming contest where every minor flaw that an article might have now has its own tag that is put up on top before any information about the real topic. It's rather rude, I think. If my 85-year old mother wanted to learn more about some subject and looked up the article on wikipedia about it and had to read about wikifying first, she would be confused. I don't think she knows what it means, and, really, why should she? We are here for the readers. --Shanes (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Shanes. If it's about neutrality or such, then at the top is important, but otherwise, stick it at the bottom. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix-me tags that tell the reader that this page is unsourced or needs more sources is beneficial. It screams that you shouldn't believe a word of this --Guerillero | My Talk 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, if Shanes' view is the way to go, another stage would be locating all of these templates in order to separate them into two groups. . . I believe I will safe that task for a latter point if it seems this idea might go through. Fix-it templates on the talk page critical ones on the project page, but I'm still holding on to my original reasoning that each template itself should be made smaller. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already started at User:LordVetinari/Template messages LordVetinari (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LordVetinari. I have been busy the past few days (and I can't devote a tone of time to WP anyway). I'll add to it as a I can. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for no updates on this issue. I never relized just how many cleanup tags that there are (or sub-tags to cover tiny variations). I've been trying to work on this offline but have caused myself a few headaches just by looking through all of them. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer to those who complain about tags

I agree with this idea by User: CobraWiki: Starting off with small tags--maybe at the bottom, even, might be okay. But there should be a defined period after which they become more conspicuous, not less. First they should jump to the top, then at the next stage, grow (perhaps to the current size) and then after a longer period, perhaps double in size. Ideally, if an article's tag problems are not addressed for a period of, say 12 or 18 months, the tag would grow large enough that it would fill the average user's monitor. This would address the only truly annoying aspect of tags--the fact that sometimes they sit literally for years without being addressed. I mean, really, how many more articles do we need to write, people? It's time to fix the problems--especially bias--in the articles we already have. And in this way, those who for some reason say that they don't like tags can help get rid of them. (And first in line to start fixing things maybe should be User:Shanes, who appears to be trying to have it both ways--he writes this essay complaining about tags and then he says right here that the ones he likes are okay. Well, which is it? All tags are evil, I guess, except when they're not.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmm "It's not about size; it's about effectiveness. The two aren't always the same." .... ;oP LOL! Sorry, had to do that! I have to say, I personally would be far more likely to respond to the dinky-size boxes. Maybe I'm just perverse, or something. A page with huge big banners all over it really just makes me want to go somewhere else (like maybe looking for random typo's beginning with 'm' .....). SuggestBot? I'm sure more use could be made of it. I think. How about use of SuggestBot for people who actually identify themselves as Elves, Gnomes, Fairies, and so on? If they already like doing that stuff, seems an obvious way to target people who are more likely to respond. Pesky (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a bad idea. Let's let the encyclopedia evolve at its natural pace. Don't hinder access to information by growing annoying signs even larger. More obscure topics simply take longer for their articles to grow. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My cleanup proposal

I'll plug this here again, as I have in the past whenever the old cleanup tag discussion happens, designed to "lessen" the footprint of tags but still keep some degree of relevancy: User:MuZemike/Cleanup proposal. –MuZemike 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's an improvement, but I wouldn't mind seeing an even tighter layout. How about a template that is a tab-bar with a single named tab for each concern. Click on a tab and the appropriate template appears below. When you don't want to see it, the template is rolled away exposing only a single line bar. Alternatively, a roll-up button could be used.—RJH (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you adding to the discussion MuZemike since, as I said previously, it was running across your proposal that sparked this topic. It also reminds me how the icons need to be better-standardized. Another alternative I considered (after reading a post by LordVetinari much further up) could be placed in the upper left corner:
Article issues:

Needs general cleanup Needs copy-editing Reads like a review Neutrality is disputed

Each of the images links to a descriptive article with a mouseover description of the needed cleanup. Critical ones could have an extra red box around them. Again, I use the reasoning that if a change is made, people will learn or adjust if they actually care about the existence of tags. (It would be interesting in the next independent review questionnaire about WP to ask about tag issues: a scale of how often people add them, clean up to remove them, scan and remove them without any work themselves, use categories to adjust these issue in mass instead of the tags themselves per article, etc.) Tags have very rarely influenced me to do anything, but with or without them I still had to learn things. Change the method around learning (a small box in the corner or smaller templates as in the start of this discussion instead of a huge one in the center) and people would still learn. The only difference being less clutter. Where is the tag for "tag cleanup needed?" — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally support this idea, but what we do about tags perhaps depends on what the tags are for. If they're meant as a stark warning to readers we probably want to leave them prominently in place. Unreferenced BLPs or neutrality disputes might be an example. On the other hand Orphan tags don't effect the article itself so could simply appear as an icon, category or on the talk page - that tag is only really for people interested in "building the web" of Wikipedia, not the average reader. I'd also support ditching "Cleanup" as a tag, which is far too vague to be of any use. Fences&Windows 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never involved myself in Village pump issues. Can someone tell me what other steps aside from trying to work on this issue myself can/should be taken if I hope to get others involved in this? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need for-profit Wikiversity-like organizations as Benefit Corporations under Wikimedia Foundation control

Note. This discussion was started at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Archived here. See also: Wikiversity and Wikinews.

Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation can create this. Here is a model: The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization that acts as an umbrella for for-profit subsidiaries. See also: Social enterprise. It has info on for-profit organizations like Benefit Corporations, etc..

From the Mozilla Foundation article: It "owns two taxable for-profit subsidiaries: the Mozilla Corporation, which employs several Mozilla developers and coordinates releases of the Mozilla Firefox web browser, and Mozilla Messaging, Inc., which primarily develops the Mozilla Thunderbird email client."

This also needs Integrated, interwiki, global watchlists in order to take advantage of the already-registered millions of Wikipedia users.

I think if there was some dedicated well-paid leadership (due to the for-profit aspect) combined with the social enterprise goals, then things like Wikiversity and Wikibooks might become much more useful. Advertising could be used too without profit becoming a controlling factor. People could invest money in it. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything the "Great Recession" showed us, it is that "dedicated well-paid leadership" is not what it is cracked up to be, and the unregulated capitalist "business model" does not, as it claims, produce a better more efficient business. Why do so many think that Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation would be better off if only they made a profit? Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, etc. are all better off being under a non-profit organization than as a for-profit (and heaven forbid publicly traded) business model where profit (or share price) are the driving motives and "well-paid leadership" is an oxymoron. If you can't do a "leadership" job without excessive compensation then you dont know how to lead in the first place. Enron et al. proved that. And I'm relatively sure that Jimbo's motivation in inventing Wikipedia was not to become wealthy, which is the motivation for for-profit businesses to invent things; which is why we didnt see Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo! invent Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Jimmy Wales is well-paid, and I am glad for that. What I am talking about is that he gets large speaking fees. He also does lots of freebie talks too, or gets airfare, and a place to stay.
Do you know what a Benefit Corporation is? It's a new legal designation for socially responsible businesses. Here is some info:
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-26-whats-a-benefit-corporation-and-why-should-you-shop-there
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/running_small_business/archives/2010/04/benefit_corp_bi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation
Explains the Washington Post:
"At its core, benefit corporations blend the altruism of nonprofits with the business sensibilities of for-profit companies. These hybrid entities pay taxes and can have shareholders, without the risk of being sued for not maximizing profits. Companies can consider the needs of customers, workers, the community or environment and be well within their legal right." --Timeshifter (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure (with all due respect to JFK, or possibly Mark Twain(?) [1]) that they don't run the risk of blending the altruism of for-profit companies with the business sensibilities of nonprofits? I think CamelBinky has hit the nail firmly on the head here. Wikipedia works better than economic theory says it should. This is a problem with the theory, not with Wikipedia. Fix the theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice username. :) I am not talking about Wikipedia. I want collaborative knowledge work to spread much more widely beyond Wikipedia. I do not see much good work in that area elsewhere. Attempts have been made, but 100% for-profit models do not seem to do very high level work (not like the quality of info at Wikipedia), and 100% non-profit models are marginal and frequently disappear to due lack of funding. Hybrid models of organization seem to be working and expanding in areas outside collaborative knowledge work. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, I'm a bit confused, and hope you have the answer to this- How would making profit (or as how I interpret what I read about benefit corporations, the proper term would be revenue and not profit) help wikibooks (as a specific example). We could add advertising and make boat-loads of revenue, but what would we spend it on that would actually make a difference? The theory that the benefit corporation business model would be MORE likely to be efficient is flawed... If you're a non-profit with limited resources, trust me you are going to trim fat and be more careful with your expenses than if you were operating under a profit-generating rival business model. If you think of Wikimedia Foundation's various functions such as Wikipedia as more like public services and less as a business this may make more sense. Even the staunchest Fiscal Conservative has never stated that the military would be more efficient if it made a profit (or any revenue at all). If I'm still missing something please inform me on this business model some more.Camelbinky (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, I wanted to thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've had a longstanding interest in hybrid models, due to the limitations of both the non-profit and for-profit models. While I don't think "under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation" for-profit subsidiaries is the right way forward, you should feel free to pitch the idea to the board. It's certainly interesting.
Camelbinky, let me give one example of how a for-profit (or semi-for-profit) model might benefit a project. Most of our smaller projects feel a somewhat justified neglect - the Foundation's primary focus has to be on Wikipedia because it is so big. We know, for example, that the software we use at Wikipedia is optimized for writing an encyclopedia, but isn't really awesome for Wikinews (for example). I can envision lots of things that could be done to improve Wikinews with some investment, investment that the Foundation isn't in a position to make. But imagine if Wikinews could raise $4 million in venture capital, with the investors expecting to make a return from an advertising-based business model, but also with the "Benefit corporation" charter giving very clear and legally enforceable rights to the community of editors, for example mandating editorial independence, NPOV, pursuit of quality, etc. You can tinker with this idea all you want, because the precise details aren't the point: the point is that in a hybrid model, the organization can be well-funded, provide a good return to investors, and still pursue social goals.
In the past, I've thought about various ideas about what can be done to help Wikinews realize its potential. I've thought about Wikinews being spun out into a separate non-profit, so that it can have an organization that focuses only on Wikinews... but such a non-profit could very well not survive. Unlike Wikipedia, Wikinews simply isn't popular enough to count on sufficient support from its readers and editors. (Maybe, maybe not... I think not.)
Ok, what about spinning Wikinews out and having it be a for-profit? Well, I don't see how that really makes sense. Anyone can start a for-profit wiki-based news site anytime they want, and in our considered business judgment at Wikia, we've not (yet) seen that as a viable alternative.
But maybe a hybrid model could work. I don't know for sure. But it's certainly interesting to think about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having never worked on anything other than Wikipedia I had not realized that Wikinews and other Wikimedia Foundation projects were having problems. That's interesting, and definitely a very good sign that you in particular have taken time to trying to rectify those issues. I assume in your position that you get access to, or at least occasionally run into and chat with, leaders in the web industry, such as Google. Have you ever been approached by the likes of Google, even if just in an informal discussion, to purchase Wikipedia or any other project? Would you be willing to ever sell Wikinews if the likes of Google were able to make clear promises to keep core principles?Camelbinky (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that he could or would talk about it here in the open if he had. I have thought quite a bit about this over time myslef and this issue is and always will be a give and take. No matter which way it goes there will be positives and negatives and people who like it or hate it. Personally though, as long as the money goes to the Wikipedia foundation to further the dissemination of information and maintenance of the Wikiservers and such, I personally wouldn't have a problem with some things in Wiki being done to generate some funds. I am not a proponant of mass advertising on Wikipedia though just to be clear. A couple of possibles:

  1. IMO individuals reading or editing Wikipedia is different than say a business using Wikipedia's information for a profit. I have often thought that if a business (such as a book company printing books of Wikipedia articles) or like Faccebook that creates "site links" to Wikipedia articles and then associating ads on those, used Wikipedia then they should pay at least a small fee of some kind. This would be different than a news agency or book that mentions or references the infrormation. I am talking straight copying or linking for profit.
  2. Another possibility would be for a Business to be allowed to advertise on some Wiki's (though probably not Wikipedia) if and only if IMO that article pertained directly to them. For example if Microsft wanted a small add on a Wikibooks article about them. Although probably not about products or people...just the organization. I admit this could be problematic in itself though and we would need to do a test or maybe a study to see if there is any interest.
  3. Potentially creating and selling professionally bound books on a subject. These should be FA quality in my opinion and well vetted prior to release but I think its doable.
  4. Possibly doing public private partnerships on certain types of data. For example, if an organization wanted to donate money to expand information on a given topic (even a government grant) then some of these might be allowable. For example if the Center for Disease Control gave Wikipedia a grant to build up information related to Diseases or even if Boeing gave money to expand the dissemination of knowledge and infrormation about Aviation related articles, then why not. It should be clear that they are not being given preferential treatment or be tied directly to the development of an article (something like a combination bounty board and WikiProject) perhaps with the payments tied to various milestones (articles created, articles improved, article promoted to FA, etc).

These are just some and there are many many more ideas out there. Its just a matter of hashing through them all. --Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimbo Wales for reading my comments, and for your good ideas. I want to get the hybrid idea out there for more people to chew over. Many interesting ideas have come out of this thread. I doubt the Wikimedia Foundation will be the first to try out these ideas. But if some hybrid successes first occur elsewhere then the admins and editors of some of the smaller Wikimedia Projects may clamor to join in, and the Wikimedia Foundation might allow it to occur. The problem is advertisements of course. I am the main editor and writer of this section: Wikipedia:Advertisements#Arguments for optional adverts, and so I understand the politics. Other than that optional ad method for non-profits, the hybrid semi-for-profit model is the only one I would trust for high-level knowledge collaboration work. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very interesting. I am not advocating for any particular arrangement in the future, and of course I'm not the decision maker on such things, the entire board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation is. However, I personally would invite and support proposals for novel institutional arrangements that might be beneficial for some of our other projects that could likely flourish if given appropriate resources. This is not a top priority for the board right now, but I think it's worthy of sustained discussion in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity

"I learned more on wikipedia than from college, but I didn't get a degree from wikipedia. I paid tens of thousands of dollars for school and jack squat to read wikipedia. Why is this? Change is gonna happen, and it needs to happen soon."

1- study plans (syllabi) and tests 2- various courses of study on various levels 3- legitimate degrees approved by the authorities 4- input by experts and good sources (which already takes place on wikipedia)

this is all that is needed, why isn't this happening? the world is slow, we cling on to an archaic academic system which gives power to those who already have it, money to those who can afford to learn. There is a rich idiot whose parents are CEOs and they send him to school. He parties and drinks for four years, and at the end of it all he gets a diploma and can get any job he wants with it. Does he deserve it? There is a poor man in india who is a genius and a very hard worker. He thinks hard and applies to a basic school to help his family survive. He gets denied due to lack of proper funds. Does he deserve it?

I think that free organized education on the internet could have tremendous positive effects throughout the world. We already have the materials, most study is done on the internet. All we need is the organization, and wikipedia possesses the key to this kind of organization and popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.218.15 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granting degrees requires accreditation from whatever the international body is, can't remember what it's called. Getting accreditation means committing to certain levels of teaching, breadth requirements (e.g. humanities students must take sciences courses and vice versa), etc. These things cost money, which Wikiversity doesn't have. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many employers will hire people with skills no matter how they got those skills. Many skills are easily tested by employers. More and more schooling is done online and by teleconferencing. More and more courses can be tested out of. This is the future because it is a lot cheaper. Home schooling produces better test scores overall. Putting people in desks and rows in order to learn is old school. Literally. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Ghonim and Egypt NGO

Wael Ghonim. In April 2011 Ghonim announce he was taking a "long term sabbatical" from Google in order to start a "technology focused NGO to help fight poverty and foster education in Egypt."

In May 2011 Ghonim said that he has signed "Revolution 2.0" book deal with US and UK publishers. All proceeds from the book going to charity & families of victims of the revolution. The book will be released in Arabic and English on Jan. 25 2012. The book deal is 2.25 million USD (all given to Egypt charities and families of Jan. 25 victims) and $500k worth of books to be given to public schools.

"I call this Revolution 2.0. Revolution 2.0 is, is — I say that our revolution is like Wikipedia, OK? Everyone is contributing content. You don't know the names of the people contributing the content ... This is exactly what happened. Revolution 2.0 in Egypt was exactly the same. Everyone was contributing small pieces, bits and pieces. We drew this whole picture. We drew this whole picture of a revolution. And that picture — no one is the hero in that picture." -- Wael Ghonim on the peaceful protests in Egypt that lead to the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak. Feb. 13, 2011 on CBS 60 Minutes TV show.

Brief Description when hovering mouse on a link

When I was reading an article about "Java (programming language)" I noticed that many of the words and phrases in the article was new to me and I don't understand the meaning of that word, But each of those words is a separate article in wikipedia (they are links), For those who don't want or have no time to navigate to the link and leave the current page to read the full article (so that he or she can follow the original article) this is a good idea that the author of the article also provides a brief and meaningful description of the article (the gist of the subject) and when the reader hovers the mouse on the link and holds control key down this description appears and help her to understand the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mz1378 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's something like this here, click on 'gadgets' and enable 'Navigation popups.' Or you can go here and see if there's something else which fits your needs better. → ROUX ₪ 22:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Noticeboard

Moved to: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#OTRS_Noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikimedia commons has a Noticeboard for OTRS members to answer questions asked by other users.(Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard) The advantage of this is that a user can get a quicker response to any questions regarding a ticket. I think it would be just as useful to have the same thing on Wikipedia. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this; wonderful idea, one I've entertained myself. :D I don't know that it needs much development, though. :) Maybe it's just time for WP:VPR? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be separate noticeboards for permissions, schools and vandalism? MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, no. Too many noticeboards makes the thing confusing. :) (For clarity: I support the idea of a noticeboard for OTRS, but not of multiple ones) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to access yesterday's main page

I decided to browse Wikipedia while having my breakfast, and found three or four articles of interest to me on the main page. I didnt have the time to read them this morning.

I came home for lunch, hoping to browse the interesting articles I had seen earlier. Unfortunately, in the intervening time, a new Wikipedia day has begun and the content has changed.

So my suggestion is simply that Wikipedia add the ability to access yesterday's featured content, to enable users to browse interesting content at a convenient time. However, I realise a simple suggestion may require a complex solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.148.202 (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to access all the articles that appeared on the main page via these links: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/2011, Wikipedia:Recent additions, Wikipedia:ITN archives, Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 2011, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/All. Fences&Windows 01:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The brand new Wikipedia:Main page history should help. Fences&Windows 02:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert articles to video files

Hello,

As a fan of open source documentaries, I thought it would be great to watch Wikipedia pages as a video rather than read them.. Have you considered converting some of Wikipedia's best articles to video files by perhaps using some text-to-speech application like this: www.naturalreaders.com (this is not an endorsement) and then give an appripriate and nice background sound and use the images from Wikipedia Commons with some animation effects.

Wikipedia could have hundreds or thousands of documents close to something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU&feature=player_detailpage#t=681s

Now that would be really nice to watch :)

Perhaps there is a project like this already ongoing, or even videos available? If there isn't and you think this idea has potential, I would be happy to assist Wikipedia in my free time with this project :)

Best regards, Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.178.88.85 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Qwiki is what you're looking for. http://www.qwiki.com/ Fences&Windows 05:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Part of this comes out of the RFC on dispute resolution. It seems to me that disputes on Wikipedia are all over the place, as in, they are not where they should be. We have people filing mediation cases for conduct issues, and vice versa. Some users don't seem to realise the best forum for getting their dispute resolved. As a result disputes often get disjointed, and it becomes quite hard for mediators / "helpers" to keep track of. While I don't exactly think we need to micromanage every Wikipedia dispute, quite often disputes go to ANI when they really should go to MedCab or an RFC. Perhaps we could create a new noticeboard, say Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where we would have users being able to post their enquiry there and get assistance as to the best forum for their issue. I see part of the problem being a) ANI getting clogged up with disputes, so perhaps part of the new noticeboard could take away some of these disputes from ANI and b) Users not knowing the correct place to take their issues. Perhaps the noticeboard could have a similar format to SPI (with "clerks" to make sure discussions don't get out of hand, stay civilized) but with users not having to post with funky templates. A simple comment about what the dispute, who is involved, what has been happening, and then we can point them in the right direction. These are just a few ideas in my head so far, needs refinement, but I think it would be worth a shot to see if it helps the situation at all. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that has crossed my mind before. If the board makes sufficiently clear that it's primarily there to help direct users to where to go, not to resolve disputes, it could work. Inevitably some early discussion may sometimes help with dispute resolution itself, but that should be clearly secondary to the primary objective of directing people. And editors who know where to go should be encouraged not to post there, to avoid clogging it up. Worth a go, I think. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Rd232 talk 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, it could help resolve them. Better than wikiquette, a DR noticeboard could be staffed by mediators rather than clerks who would try and come up with solutions rather than just deal with policy or behavior issues. And unlike a content noticeboard, it would be focused on the editor interaction and compromise rather than just the writing. Ocaasi c 23:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol - moved from subpage / redirects

I've recently created a few stubby articles in my own subpages and moved them to mainspace, but checking Special:NewPages shows no sign of them and their patrolled log is empty. This seems a bit of an oversight: an editor who knew of this loophole would be able to created attack pages, advertising pages and so forth knowing that it would be a rather long time before they were discovered. The same seems to go for articles created from redirects. Would it be possible for the page move function to automatically add the article to Special:NewPages if it is moved from user subpages? Would it be possible for a bot to detect articles created from redirects and add them too? doomgaze (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had to tell everyone about the loophole, didn't you! But yes that would be a good idea. Suggest this on the bot proposal talk page. (Wikipedia:Bot_requests)--ThePastaKing (Talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace moves are covered by feature request Template:Bugzilla. I created Template:Bugzilla to cover redirects. Rd232 talk 16:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes that appear following a redirect

How feasible would it be to create a template that only appears when you display an article by following a redirect? For example, suppose you want a {{Redirect}} hatnote that will only appear when you reach a page through a specific redirect. The benefit would be that the Redirect hatnote won't clutter up the top of an article for those readers who don't need to see it. You might also want to have multiple Redirect hatnote instances on an article; one for each redirect. (For example, see Century.) Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if feasible, a problem would be that some editors "helpfully" fix redirects by piping the term -- the term would look to the reader like a link to the redirect but would go direct to the target and the reader would thus not see the hatnote message if it were only visible when arriving via the redirect. Of course, one would hope that editors would check to make sure that the "fixed" link went to the correct article for the context, but unfortunately that isn't always the case. Also, a context-dependent template would also cut off a means of browsing -- some readers are actually interested to see other uses for a term. Rather than such context-dependent hatnotes, I think there might be some value to having optionally collapsible hatnotes -- the collapsed hatnote could include a brief note that there are other uses and the expanded version would list all the options. older ≠ wiser 15:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the event of a piped redirect, the viewer wouldn't see the hatnote anyway, so I don't think that would be a significant issue. To me the hatnotes are directed at a small minority of the viewers, while they can make an article header look cluttered and amateurish. (For a really messy example, see Wikipedia:Peer review.) Anything that can be done to clean up the look could be beneficial. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you misunderstood or if I wasn't clear, but with a piped link made to look like a link using the same term as a redirect, currently a reader would see the same hatnotes on the target article as everyone else. With what you propose, they would not. Hard to say how significant an issue it is, but I see it as a disadvantage. And for what it's worth, I'm not aware of any objective evidence that hatnotes are only useful for a small minority of readers or to what degree readers in general are bothered by the appearance of hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

translate equations...

When looking at equations, it would be helpful if there is some sort of way to see the correct way to say it... it would be helpful for those of us who have not used equations over the passed several years to see how to say them... often, this would be of some benefit to parents when helping their children with homework - consistency between parent and educators, for example...

Also, can links have indications that the link is to a subscription or pay-wall site; even those sites that merely require a login access but are otherwise free.75.93.189.220 (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block log annotation

Prompted by a recent discussion at WP:ANI, I wonder if we couldn't have a means to specifically annotate block logs, to help interpret longer or more complex logs, correct errors etc (a bit like a person's credit reference file has a place for explanatory comments). It could be a protected user subpage of that user (i.e. annotations by admins only), which a bit of Javascript transcludes on the block log. Rd232 talk 17:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about something like this as well. Someone would need to add a field to the table that the block info is held on, and write up an interface to it. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement, but it wouldn't be trivial either. You should see if you can find a developer willing to work on it, or help you out with implementing it yourself (PHP isn't that hard). There might actually be an extension that does something like this already (check MediaWiki). If that's the case you'd just need to see if it needs any polish, and lobby to get it installed on the Wikipedia servers.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking it would be doable in JavaScript - but I don't know for sure. Rd232 talk 02:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it can't be done in JavaScript since from what I understand, you want to share notes with others; as in, you write a comment that other admins can see. Then I do think that the PHP method mentioned above is the better way to do it. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The JavaScript can't transclude a page, if the page (User/blocklogannotation sort of thing) exists? That's all I had in mind. Rd232 talk 06:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this in MediaWiki:Blockiptext but unless I've mucked something up, it's not getting the SUBPAGENAME you would expect from Special:Block/Rd232. (Compare User:Rd232/Rd232 test page.) Rd232 talk 07:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yeah, technically JS can transclude a page. It uses the Wikipedia API to grab a page's contents and then it can manipulate it however it likes. It's a tad bit slower than PHP, but it's doable. Still, a few questions would arise. For instance, when an admin blocked a user, they'd have to create User/blocklogannotation manually. Most likely they'd also have to edit protect it so only sysops could edit, too, right? Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, javascript is not the way to go here. Anything that is going to be shared among users should be done server-side (both in terms of storage and computation).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe. But how often is the block log for a given user shown? And the page load would only happen if the page exists, which I'd expect to be rare. Rd232 talk 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just kludgy trying to make (client side) javascript work for this... somehow, in some way, the information that is to be shared has to be on the server someplace, eventually. We might as well do it correctly from the get go, and store the information with the existing block information. It's all related anyway, after all. Besides, it wouldn't be that hard to add in really, and as you point out the impact is fairly low. Unfortunately, I don't know of any established developers who don't already have their hands full with one project or another.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be kludgy, but as you say, getting developer attention for it isn't very likely, the more so as it may turn out not to be used much, and perhaps ultimately ditched. If it was done in JS and started getting traction, it could be done serverside later. Rd232 talk 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that thinking, but doing it fast in javascript now would likely make it more difficult to implement server side later on. At the very least, it would complicate any hypothetical transition from one method to another.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schema.org Microdata HTML enhancements for Search Engine indexing

My original message to Wikipedia, from which the answer forwarded me to this place:

Dear,

As you maybe heard of, Google, Yahoo and Bing recently announced schema.org. This initiative should make indexing of structured data easier by using special HTML attributes in your web pages. Now is my question: Will Wikipedia start using this method of HTML markup for their pages, or won't it ever?

If you didn't heard of it (which I suppose is not), you should consider using this!

Thanks in advance!

Steven

So, will Wikipedia update their HTML structures along with schema.org to help search engines understand their content? Or maybe it already has an own HTML structure to indicate what type of information is provided by what page?


Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki bot for Commons

I'm wondering if there is (or should be) a bot to periodically go around checking whether crosswiki links to Commons exist, and if they don't, to add {{commons}} or {[tl|commonscat}}. Anyone? Rd232 talk 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cooling in the humid areas

the idea of having simple steps taken to cool the home using less or no energy .simple thing sthat can be included or combined in the architecture of a building or simple additions on the curtains walls ,evaporative cooling can be used in hotter dry climates but what about the humid places ? what can be the simple steps taken for cooling but without using the principle of evaporative cooling. like ther are a number of simple steps taken to cool using evaporative cooling techniques but in humi climate it only adds to the discomfort. maybe fan is the only simple option using less resources ,but the speed of air causes different prblems like the noise and the working on a desk with a fan moving at full speed is impossible so how can we solve this problem?any views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivanidholepatil (talk • contribs) 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason Air conditioning was invented. This question really belongs at the Wikipedia:Reference desk though, not here. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&oldid=433348619"