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: Jon Phillips <jon AT fabricatorz.com>
  • To: Greg Grossmeier <greg AT grossmeier.net>
  • Cc: acawiki-general AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [acawiki-general] Fwd: pages without summaries?
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:56:20 -0500

below

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Greg Grossmeier <greg AT grossmeier.net> wrote:
> <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?

Yes, we shouldn't delete at all. I'm in agreement now. We are diff.
from Wikipedia, and need better ways to identify what is not complete,
which we can do both objectively through SMW and subjectively through
human review.

We can use the incomplete template:

{{incomplete}}

Update the template with some pretty language on it, saying this is
not complete, needs more...

We aren't wikipedia, so, any metadata we get and pointers towards
where a paper is at is a real win. We just need a way to put up front
and center what is not complete and/or considered complete.

What even defines how complete a summary is anyway?

http://acawiki.org/Special:Templates

Would an {{incomplete}} template suffice on these pages? A more
precise template would be better IMO that is a child of the
[[Category:Incomplete]]

I see someone created some blank templates:

http://acawiki.org/Template:No_Original_author

However, these are more wiki-like solutions to the problem.

I think ideal scenario is:

* person enters a summary
* there is a stream of new summaries on a /AcaWiki:Admin or
/AcaWiki:Librarian page with tasks to do, a stream of new articles to
review
* also on this page is a stream of articles that are considered
incomplete and need work done
** We need a /AcaWiki:Newbie page that has some similar information
directed at new people who want to help and/or are *experts* with
loose knowledge
* The librarians/acawikians and the newbies are challenged to go
through and look at the new articles and tag them as incomplete with
specific template that defines what is the issue
** NOTE: With SMW, we should be able to find a better solution to this
that doesn't require forcing the problem of remembering what tags are
necessary for tagging an article for incompleteness. However, we could
use specific tags for the articles which is filterable on SMW. Also,
we could add some section on the bottom of the summaries for
admins/librarians only to help tag an article. Need to explore this
type of conditional box, which can be problem for caching:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words
** here is our list of extensions: http://acawiki.org/Special:Version
* Or, the librarians/acawikians and newbies are challenged to complete
the articles
* On both pages, should have a big counter of number of complete
summaries and incomplete summaries, as a ratio, and as incentive for
improving the completeness of articles.

Jodi, please let us know if any of these processes already exist,
and/or if we can clean them up.

Also, what language fits the site the best?

>
> 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, great idea, please add to the http://acawiki.org/Roadmap and/or
after adding to the bug trackers as a feature request.

Jon

--
Jon Phillips
http://fabricatorz.com/
chat/skype: kidproto | irc: rejon
+1.415.830.3884 (global) | +1-510-499-0894 (sf)
+86-187-1003-9974 (beijing)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page