Wikipedia talk:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
This page is for discussion about the village pump idea lab only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
« Older discussions, 1

Crazy Wikipedians/Wikipedia stories???[edit]

Hi!

I'm a filmmaker, looking into stories related to Wikipedia and I want to get in touch with folks around the world who are addicted to checking Wikipedia, or who have contributed the most, and for whom this online wealth of knowledge has manifested and possibly changed your life.

Please reply to this post - would love to hear from you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.146.172 (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

      • Very interesting and topical ... Sort of a behind the scences look. My guess is that editors are highly varied. You could have anything from a bored high school teacher goofing off and not watching her class (LOL) to a paid lobbiest or homeland security person. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sometimes people who never edited attend a Wikipedia:Meetup to see what kind of people do. I haven't asked whether they find us all or none intersting. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you interested in just major editors, or high-volume Wikignomes as well?    → Michael J    12:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider "Cross-Linking" and option when linking similar pages together[edit]

Suggestion: Cross-linking information: Allowing users to create pages that use the same "title", but which exist from different perspectives. Such articles would be "Cross-linked."
Consider Cross-Linking Information. Did you know that one of the "revolutionary" benefits of using a computer is that you can cross-link information (related articles...that are similar, but present information from different perspectives).
For Example.
Consider two colors (black and white).
I am using my Dictionary as my primary source.
Imagine:
"Colors"
Information about colors based upon the "Scientific" study of Light.
The definition from this perspective would look like:
Colors
Black - 1) The achromatic object color of least lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that neither reflect nor transmit light. 2). Total or nearly total absence of light.


White: 1) The achomatic object colors of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum.
This page would be "Cross-Linked" with another (similar) page, aslo called "Colors"
"Colors"
Information about Colors from an Industral or "Everyday" Perspective.


Black - 1). A black pigment or dye. 2) Of or relating to a group or race characterized by dark pigmentation.
White - 1) A white colored product (as flour, sugar or [My insert: white paint, or white pigment] 2) Being a member of a group or race characterized by reduced pigmentation.
"Cross-Linked" with
"Colors"
Colors as defined, or used "symbolically" in Western Literature.
For example:
Black - 1) Soiled, dirty 2) Thourghly evil, wicked. 3) Gloomy, Calamitious.
White: 1) Marked by upright fairness, free from spot or blemish. 2) Innocent 3) Not intended to cause harm (such as a white lie or white magic).
"Cross-Linked" with a similar "Colors" pages such as:
"Colors" as defined or used "Symbolically" in Eastern Literature

"Colors" as defined or used "symbolically" in African Culture and Literature

"Colors" as defined or used "symbolically" in Latin Literature....
My point: I don't think articles with similar (or the same) title is (necessarily) the problem.


I think an electronic (factual) encyclopedia may find that by supporting "electronic-links," they may"cross-link" information and create effective, and unique information layouts.

...can you believe they said (on the Wikipedia site) under Technical Problems: Editing articles of such length that you can't edit them. C-ritah (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Guess what, I have created a blog which may help explain my position in easier to understand terms...if you are interested in this, my blog link (if I'm allowed to post it on this talk page) is http://offwikipedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-unpleasant-wikipedia-experience.html I hope I am resonable...If you find me unreasonable, it was not my intent to be. C-ritah (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So, do you think instead of having articles differently titled as in Color in Chinese culture and Color symbolism and Color (disambiguation), the different articles should have the same name and be distinguished only by being presented with different fonts and colors? I do not see how this would be easier for readers to understand than conventional WP:BTW links. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
please note:
  1. this is the "talk" page. it is not meant to discuss ideas, but rather to discuss the operation of the idea-lab. to discuss ideas, use the "Project page".
  2. you answered a post almost 2 years old. it is not very likely that the OP will gain much from your response..
peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops! And, worst of all, I'm experienced enough to know better; just wasn't paying attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Page move protected[edit]

Just to note that I've protected this page from moves, to align it with the other VP sub-pages. James F. (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What actually happens to these ideas?[edit]

Are they just here to collect dust or are they discussed and eventually forwarded/read by developers/admins? What's the workflow of these so to say?

And isn't Wikipedia Open Source -> couldn't other programmers implement some of the ideas? (Please explain)

--Fixuture (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Most ideas don't require developer effort, since they are ideas about changing policies and procedures for the English Wikipedia, rather than changing software. Many are abandoned by their proposers. If dev time is needed, people (including me, but far more often a volunteer) report the idea at phabricator:.
Yes, MediaWiki software (the software that Wikipedia and thousands of other wikis uses) is a free open source project! If you would like to help out, then see mw:How to become a MediaWiki hacker. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Great to hear that! So if any of my ideas isn't already implemented or otherwise unfit (as per comments in the idea lab) and requires dev time I should report it at phabricator right? I would certainly love to help out with the software...I don't think I'm yet skilled enough for it but I'm probably going to look into it the next days or so anyways. --Fixuture (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Fixuture:For most ideas to change the software, I would suggest raising it at WP:Village Pump (technical) (or another village pump if it's a non-tech idea) and make sure that we think it's a good idea first. If there's consensus to do it there, the WMF developers are more likely to work on it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:Ok, thanks again! By now I would have raised them here and proceeded with phabricator after things are settled here. So if any of the ideas I already posted here isn't yet implemented I should post them there as well I guess?
Eventually it would also be a good idea to slightly change the description of Village pump (technical) because by now it's relatively unclear where ideas for technical augmentations belong (it just states "issues" and seems to be more focused on questions/problems than such).
Also it seems like some of my ideas are already technically implemented - however just usable via obscure ways such as some relatively hard to use and find wiki-tools which would render it mostly useless as these ideas just work out if they are accessible by the larger public. Such cases would shrink my ideas down to making these tools more accessible and incorporating them in the official Wikipedia instead of external tools. How to proceed with these? --Fixuture (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Fixuture:Whether to post at technical or not is based on whether discussing it requires technical knowledge. If it's a matter of bringing more attention to a hard-to-find feature, Village Pump Proposals probably is the way to go. If it's a new feature that all editors will understand, also post it at proposals. If it's some esoteric thing about template and module processing, that would go to technical, where editors would actually understand it. Idea Lab is when your idea is vague enough that other users won't really be able to say whether they oppose or support it - after discussion there, you would get a clearer idea of what to do and could then bring up a specific idea at Proposals. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:Ok then I'm gonna post them at Village Pump Proposals.--Fixuture (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixuture, you should feel free to post ideas at Phabricator whenever you want. Sometimes, ideas aren't suitable for the English Wikipedia, but are interesting or valuable for other projects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)