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 13:19:18 -0500

Piling on, from the work Greg, myself, Mike and others did, there is a
very complete classification system we could copy from the CC
CaseStudies wiki:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Evaluation

What do you guys think about this?

Jon

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Jon Phillips <jon AT fabricatorz.com> wrote:
> 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)
>



--
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