Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

acawiki-general - Re: [acawiki-general] Fwd: pages without summaries?

acawiki-general AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Acawiki-general mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Greg Grossmeier <greg AT grossmeier.net>
  • To: acawiki-general AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [acawiki-general] Fwd: pages without summaries?
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:45:56 -0400

<quote name="Jodi Schneider" date="2011-06-17" time="07:38:39 -0400">
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Christopher Adams <
> christopher AT fabricatorz.com> wrote:
>
> > I would say that if a summary page has no content AND no other pages link
> > to it, and it isn't recent, we should consider either deleting it or
> > adding
> > it to a category that we can filter out from the main pages.
> >
>
> We want to *keep* the metadata and make it easy to add summaries. (See the
> conversation with Jim Pitman)
>
> Just deleting won't do that: Deleting the page would mean a *lot* of
> metadata rekeying -- which is a disincentive to creating the page. Can we
> store metadata-only pages in some different way? They definitely need to be
> filtered, they should still show up as redlinks, and they shouldn't be
> prominent in search engines.

I here ya on the disincentive part, but hopefully we can make the adding
of metadata so simple that it won't matter.

There are technical restrictions that would prevent us from having BOTH
the metadata still there AND the pages show up as redlinks; just not
possible. Either a page exists or it doesn't. Redlinks don't know the
difference between stubs and non-stubs.

Acawiki isn't a metadata repository, it is a summary community, and thus
pages that are just metadata for, say, 2 weeks, should be auto-deleted so
as not to confuse people who get there via a Google search, front page
search, or otherwise.

With all of that said...

I could argue the otherside by saying: Having a stub of a page with the
metadata already there, and having it be a blue link, might actually be
helpful. Someone comes along, sees that a summary is supposed to be
there, clicks on it, only gets the metadata (with hopefully a link to the
article). If they are still interested they might read it and summarize
it. This might not happen if the link was either none-existent or red.

But, back to the technical limitation point: we can't have both metadata
pages and red-links to those metadata pages. [If anyone can prove me
wrong on that point, please tell me. I just asked in #mediawiki on
Freenode, but, most people are still asleep.]

...

I'm starting to lean towards just having a bunch of blue-linked
metadata-only pages on acawiki, as long as they aren't autocreated by a
bot that is run by someone who just wants better google juice for their
journal/articles without providing CC:BY licensed summaries. That is
basically the equivalent of a Conflict of Interest at Wikipedia. The
blue-linked metadata-only pages should be for summaries we want, like the
Top 100 list.

Thoughts on that solution to this problem?

Is there a way to use something like this gadget
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pyrospirit/metadata)
from Wikipedia to help make it clear the status of these metadata-only
pages?

Greg

PS: I still think we should make the adding of metadata stupidly simple
for people. We should offer to pull from any number of sources, Google,
Mendeley, OpenLibrary if it is a book, etc.

--
| Greg Grossmeier |
| http://grossmeier.net |




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page