(redirected from WikiPediaProcess)

[Home]Wikipedia policy

HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project

Comment on Wikipedia processes and policies here. There are many unofficial policies and few official ones. Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions. Or, if you simply want to raise a policy issue, raise it here.
Policy issues that have their own pages

A few other issues



Unclassified, random, but interesting policy discussion:

Add new comments at the top, not the bottom, so the fresh stuff is easy to find.


I searched on World War 2 and found no matches. So on the World War II page, I added World War 2, except in a white font that should be invisible in most people's browsers (because it is on a white background). We could add lists of keywords onto a page in this manner to improve the search engine results. This will work so long as we do not switch to a different method of indexing (which we may have to do).

Actually, for a different method, we could add something like keywords: world war two, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchil, Pearl Harbor, etc., but make that invisible, and teach the search engine to look only at the keywords in that list. This would make it easy for anyone to add keywords without dealing with meta tags, xml, or other things the average user might not understand.

Strongly disagree. To start with, what happens if I have my window colors set up differently, or if I am working with a text-only program, or copy the contents to some such environment?

OK, but why not just add keywords, visible, to the bottom of every page? So the end of article scheme would be (approximately): "See also" then a line, then "Keywords" followed by a list of keywords (unlinked). Would be useful for a variety of purposes. I think it's worth considering. The only trouble I have with it is that it seems like too much trouble. We've already got thousands of articles that would need keywords, if we started adding them! Ambiguously yours, LMS


Never use the phrase 'of course' in an article. 'Of course' assumes the reader shares the author's context and perspetive and reaches the same obvious and intuitive conclusions. This is not always the case. Do not assume what the reader knows. Additionally, 'of course' is authoritarian and brooks no dissent, and is used when one wants to tell and assert rather than show and explain. This is not the attitude we should aim for in Wikipedia.


This is just wrong. ;-) The reason why this phrase is sometimes useful is that, in order to keep a line of reasoning flowing, one must sometimes say something that is totally uncontroversial. (Yes, some things are totally uncontroversial.) The point of saying them is to explain the context, and one doesn't want to lead the reader to think that the context-setting is at all controversial. So you say "of course" to alert the reader that, yes, indeed, the point you're making just now really is as obvious as it appears to be.

Of course, this can be overused.


The NirvanA page included two entries, one for the band NirvanA and one for the BuddhisT? concept of NirvanA. I created two new pages, one for each entry, and on the NirvanA page linked to both with a brief description of the contents of each page. Because there are countless cases where we will have this problem (AlabamA? is a state and a band, PaulSimon? is a singer and a Senator from IllinoiS?, et cetera ad infinitum) some solution will be necessary. WikiPedians can check out my solution and comment.


One fun way to WikiOff is to hit the RandomPage link, then search whatever page comes up for a topic that hasn't been edited yet. Then you add something for that topic.
Let's post links to PublicDomainResources (for both images and text)!
I would guess that the policy is that the contents is licensed by the GNUFreeDocumentationLicense. Since I think that this information is important I will boldly add that to the HomePage. --LinusTolke

You were very right to do so. I am astonished that no one thought to do so before now. -- Larry Sanger


Q. For the Math articles there is a crying need to have more symbols, like the Greek alphabet, Integral and Summation symbols, infinity, and more, as well as the capability to show graphs, depict figures, and much more. Are there any tools to do this, other than linking to a another web page? RoseParks

A. I can't answer the question definitively but I can say that you can easily link to images elsewhere. So, perhaps as a temporary solution, you can always upload, elsewhere, an image, then link to it from Wikipedia. The wiki programmers must know more, though...

A2. The next release of the wiki software (usemod 0.92) will allow special characters to be used like ∞ for the infinity symbol, Δ for the Delta symbol (the triangle), etc. See the [list of standard characters] for more information. Most graphical browsers should implement these common symbols. For now, and for other symbols later, an image link to another site will be required. (I'm not sure if image uploading will make it into the next release, but it is a planned feature.) --CliffordAdams (working on the wiki code today)


I think we should discuss references (bibliography but not only) if this going to be an encyclopedia.

One Way to Process a Wiki First try...Play


I've noticed that the GNU General Public License is posted. It is under following restriction:

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, 
but changing it is not allowed.

Does this restriction actually prevent us from putting the license in a Wikipedia article, since anyone has the power to edit it?


HomePage | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited April 5, 2001 10:15 am (diff)
Search: