420:; I like your proposal because it takes organizes that sort of meta-information coherently. The only wonder I have is how are we going to create WikiProjects? We can either create them as an a priori hierarchy, based on how we think human knowledge is organized (kind of like how categories on the HomePage are organized); or we can let them evolve organically (create them whenever one feels the need, do not worry about the relationship of any one topic with any other. Personally I'd favour a middle way -- create one WikiProject for each main category in the HomePage scheme, and then people can create subprojects as they feel fit -- let us worry about how the subprojects fit together within each main category as we feel the need to. --
104:
42:
86:
216:. There are existing page that deal with standardisation, but they cannot be applied generically. The conventions for entries on mathematics or chemistry are worlds apart from the conventions for 'famous authors'. Even a generic standard for 'Biographical Entries' cannot be applied universally - the method of describing 'Egyptian Pharoahs' would be radically different to pages for "American Baseball Players' (Pharoahs don't have RBI statistics).
534:
familiar with the general concepts of metadata management, so you'd expect them to be similar (my ideas certainly aren't original). I think the best idea I came up with is calling it the "WikiProject" - people can remember it, and it will never conflict with a "real" article name (calling a system 'meta-data management' would have conflicted with an actual content article on that subject. Thanks for the links - Manning
459:
There are numerous other areas where it is completely inappropriate. My goal is to create a framework methodology that can be employed whenever someone 'decides one is needed'. Additionally this eliminates the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and create an information schema from scratch every time one is needed, and it provides guidance for those who are not familiar with the subject. --MB
403:. The value of this approach only increases with the volume of contributors. For anything less than (say) 5 people the WikiProject idea only adds unnecessary complexity. However once the number of contributors grows that it serves to focus efforts, reduce the workload of integration (ie - where numerous articles get reformatted, etc) and prevent information fragmentation. --Manning
240:. The inherent problem in any communal project is that without central authority chaos emerges. But with excessive central authority, stagnation sets in. The WikiProject is a 'central authority' (thus providing the benefits of stability), but the WikiProject page itself remains consensual and dynamic. Where evolution occurs, the process can be centrally managed.
383:
at the moment, and my current goal is to have a couple of paragraphs describing the origins, basic outline of play, elite championships, and geographic representation of every sport I can. Obviously, I could apply your organisational tools to my current work, but I'm unconvinced that the overhead is
278:
The value of such a metadata management model increases with the volume of contributors. In a case where only a handful of contributors are working on a project the actual value of a WikiProject page is negative - it only adds additional work. However, as the volume of contributors increases the work
269:
A Wikiproject is not a place for subject information. It is a place for the management of entries within a specific subject area. Neither is it rigids in its hierarchical management. All hierarchies are arbitrary, the
Knowledge seeks to create one purely for the management of entry creation, not as a
458:
I agree - it certainly is not appropriate until there is a 'critical mass' of both participants and content. I developed my thinking on it by considering 'Countries of the World' where there has been a good start and the need for administrative and organisational control has become necessary (IMHO).
440:
I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Basically, I think that at this time efforts at setting more specific content rules is a bit premature. My biggest worry is that it might end up discouraging people from working on
Knowledge. I think that, basically, the thing has so far been successfully
533:
Larry opposes anything which "forces" people to do things a certain way (see his comments above), and I support his viewpoint. My ideas are more about creating a organisational framework that can be adopted when and if wanted. But yeah - our ideas are similar, but then it seems that we are both
182:
A WikiProject can lay down the principles by which an individual entry can be considered to have achieved 'Minimum standard of completion'. Eg: "WikiProject
Countries of the World" may require Capital, imports/exports, major cities, poopulation, political history, etc etc... whatever. Both the
142:
I have adapted a concept from this field and (tentatively) titled it a "WikiProject". I am defining a "Project" as a comprehensive catalogue of "related information entities". Examples would include "Countries of the World", "Famous
Scientists", "Games and Sports", whatever. (q.v. the
363:
Anyway, this is just a proposal and I am keen to hear feedback from any and all. As this is the
Knowledge, I am aware that I am free to commence this WikiProject idea anyway. However if people are warm to the idea, it would be nice to plan and consult as we lay down the framework.
406:
Manning, at this stage it seems that I am doing most of the work, so perhaps that makes it less necessary. However, setting something up might have the side benefit of encouraging more contributions, and ensuring casual contributions conform to the "house style". I'll see what
359:
Notice that in the example the structural definitions are as fluid as everything else. The natural evolution of "proposal - consensual discussion - consolidation" will occur. (As the discussions about structure die down, the suggestion becomes the 'convention')
433:
page where I have begun to identify certain projects already. Observe that historical figures is referenced under both
Biography and History. All information hierarchies are arbitrary anyway and the Wikiproject idea supports this by being quite fluid --
279:
required to maintain the WikiProject pages is substantially less than the work required to correct the fragmentation of style and content, and the duplication which will otherwise occur. (Have you ever spent an hour tracking down and editing REDIRECTs?)
335:: Instruments can be placed into one or more of the following categories - Orchestral, Brass, wind, stringed, ethnic... (notice the categories are not mutually exclusive - a trumpet is both brass and orchestral and belongs in both)
258:. Each Wikiproject can evolve a definition of "minimum required standard". As entries achieve this status, they can be documented on the WikiProject page. Dissenters can always remove the status, or upgrade the entry in question.
393:
Robert. This is great - sports is an obvious candidate which I hadn't even considered (!). I'd be delighted to test the methodology there. I'll get things underway ASAP. I'll create the framework and you provide the
539:
246:. Participants in the overall Knowledge will have a convention defined for creating new projects, and they will know where to go to find existing framework definitions and discussion forums for the framework.
373:
I like this idea, and I think it could work with Magnus's additional namespaces to allow for using the wiki as an organizational tool for WikiTeams to use to structure their activity on the
Knowledge.
384:
worth the benefits (things tend to coalesce naturally anyway, in my limited experience. However, it's probably worth a shot. Would you be interested in helping me give it a try for sports?
132:
Because of its length, I chose not to include it in the general 'suggestions' page, although I have placed a link there. If you feel this belongs somewhere else, please feel free to move it.
511:
506:
183:
standards and the 'accreditation' maintain their dynamic status, so we are not getting into "locking pages" or other methods which contradict the essential nature of the
Knowledge.
324:: (Discussion of how each musical instrument entry is to be formatted, sample given, including eg: Name, alternate names, description, evolution, relatives, see also, etc)
199:
Note: such pages already exist in an ad hoc sense (eg: Tree of Life). However, my concept for a WikiProject page seeks to standardise and formalise this approach. also
252:. Numerous attempts have been made to document what has not been achieved and give suggestions for areas needing attention. This merely formalises the process.
416:
I think its a great idea
Manning. As far as comments on what information should be in a particular type of article, I've already done something like that in
521:
399:
By the way - "is the additional overhead worth it?" Thats a good question. In the case where a single individual is doing most of the work the answer is
563:
234:. by centralising the TALK forums to predictable locations, we minimise the fragmentation of discussion into multiple locations which occurs presently.
495:
I proposed teamwork inside
English Knowledge and between International Wikipedias. There was also some discussion on the Knowledge mailing list.
516:
445:
we have loads and loads of content to organize and standardize--which, despite our 11,000 articles, we don't actually have, in my opinion.
175:
eg: guidelines on how to define "Prime Ministers of New Zealand" as a descendant of "Prime Minister" as a descendant of "Political Leader"
139:- that is, the information about the information. I have spent the past few days pondering how to apply this knowledge to the Knowledge.
21:
31:
150:
A WikiProject is a metadata page that serves as a reference point for those who wish to be involved in a specific project.
169:
eg: how each individual entry should be structured - in a biographical entry - relevant dates, notable achievements, etc
110:
The talk page of an archived item is unlikely to be monitored, so start a discussion at an active venue like the
61:
41:
17:
470:
idea to have "sample articles" and templates to follow, so long as people aren't taken to task for
475:
111:
95:
122:
548:
498:
The general voice was not encouraging and there was a strong opposition from Larry Sanger.
421:
8:
68:
478:
pages all follow the same format just because they're all based on the same source, the
441:
organizing itself, and that more formal organization and standardization is better done
479:
408:
385:
228:. This has already happened of course, but the WikiProject page formalises the process.
450:
466:
Well, then, it looks like I have no objections whatsoever. I think it's actually a
417:
222:, due to there being a consistent and well-defined hierarchical descendent schema.
201:
it seeks to segregate the "information" from the "management of the information".
557:
449:
I'm intrigued by the proposal and I think we should think more about it. --
226:
Allows the development of special interest communities within the Knowledge
144:
489:
It is really suprising how different people come to the same conclusions.
430:
256:
Provides a forum for 'Endorsement', without closing off editorial freedom
527:
512:
User:Krzysztof_P._Jasiutowicz/Proposed templates for Knowledge pages
482:. BTW, thanks a lot, Manning, for jumping in with both feet! --LMS
374:
173:
establishes the formatting conventions for hierarchical descendants
507:
User:Krzysztof_P._Jasiutowicz/Application of the keyword mechanism
299:
This WikiProject aims to catalogue all known musical instruments.
493:
I proposed some metadata patterns that are very much like yours.
380:
282:
A sample WikiProject page is laid out below for consideration:
487:
I like your ideas and your input into Knowledge very muchĀ !!!
474:
following a given template. Not yet, anyway. You know, the
306:
167:
establishes the formatting conventions for individual entries
130:
This is a proposal for all and sundry to read and consider.
232:
Permits strategic planning and consensual discussion
67:don't necessarily represent current information or
555:
540:WikiProject/Origin of life and related debates
517:User:Krzysztof_P._Jasiutowicz/Metadata pattern
250:A resource for standards and comprehensiveness
379:I'm probably the guy doing the most work on
339:TALK section related to hierarchy definition
154:Structural principles for a WikiProject page
491:We discussed metadata issues some time ago.
305:This WikiProject is a child WikiProject of
162:defines the scope of the particular project
564:Items in the Knowledge historical archive
244:a convention for information management
32:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals
14:
556:
292:Title: WikiProject Musical Instruments
135:My field of professional expertise is
349:General Strategy and Discussion forum
108:Looking to revive discussion on this?
429:Simon - I agree. have a look at the
36:
238:Allows controlled dynamic evolution
65:. As an archive item, its contents
27:
328:TALK section related to formatting
317:No descendant WikiProjects defined
30:To propose a new WikiProject, see
28:
575:
220:Decreases the volume of REDIRECTs
98:, with some associated discussion
214:Standardisation of look and feel
192:provides subject specific forums
187:lists participating contributors
102:
84:
40:
13:
1:
121:This proposal was written by
180:Define 'Minimum standards'.
48:Knowledge historical archive
18:Knowledge:Historical archive
7:
59:in the English Knowledge's
10:
580:
265:What a WikiProject is not:
29:
344:Directory of Participants
147:, already in existence.)
94:The original proposal of
312:Descendant Wikiprojects:
206:What are the advantages?
51:This discussion page is
274:Is it worth the effort?
57:preserved for reference
476:countries of the world
270:schema of knowledge.
549:User:ManningBartlett
422:User:Simon J Kissane
333:Hierarchy definition
137:Metadata Management
522:Knowledge teamwork
480:CIA World Factbook
409:User:Robert Merkel
386:User:Robert Merkel
71:on project matters
62:historical archive
451:User:Larry Sanger
118:
117:
90:Item description:
571:
418:talk:U.S. States
123:Manning Bartlett
106:
105:
100:
88:
87:
49:
44:
37:
579:
578:
574:
573:
572:
570:
569:
568:
554:
553:
103:
92:
85:
73:.It was active
47:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
577:
567:
566:
552:
551:
537:
536:
535:
525:
524:
519:
514:
509:
502:
494:
492:
490:
488:
485:
484:
483:
463:
462:
461:
460:
438:
437:
436:
435:
414:
413:
412:
411:
397:
396:
395:
366:
357:
354:END OF EXAMPLE
341:
340:
330:
329:
319:
318:
284:
262:
261:
260:
259:
253:
247:
241:
235:
229:
223:
217:
197:
196:
195:
194:
189:
184:
176:
170:
164:
116:
115:
45:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
576:
565:
562:
561:
559:
550:
547:
544:
543:
542:
541:
532:
531:
530:
529:
523:
520:
518:
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
504:
503:
499:
496:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
419:
410:
405:
404:
402:
398:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
382:
377:
376:
371:
370:
365:
361:
356:
355:
351:
350:
346:
345:
338:
337:
336:
334:
327:
326:
325:
323:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
308:
304:
300:
298:
294:
293:
289:
288:
283:
280:
276:
275:
271:
267:
266:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
202:
193:
190:
188:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
148:
146:
140:
138:
133:
131:
127:
126:
124:
113:
109:
101:
99:
97:
91:
82:
80:
76:
72:
70:
64:
63:
58:
54:
46:
43:
39:
38:
33:
23:
19:
545:
538:
526:
501:Please seeĀ :
500:
497:
486:
471:
467:
446:
442:
439:
415:
407:happensĀ :)--
400:
378:
372:
368:
367:
362:
358:
353:
352:
348:
347:
343:
342:
332:
331:
321:
320:
311:
310:
302:
301:
296:
295:
291:
290:
287:EXAMPLE PAGE
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:
268:
264:
263:
255:
249:
243:
237:
231:
225:
219:
213:
205:
204:
200:
198:
191:
186:
179:
172:
166:
161:
153:
152:
149:
145:Tree of life
141:
136:
134:
129:
128:
120:
119:
112:village pump
107:
96:WikiProjects
93:
89:
83:
78:
74:
66:
60:
56:
52:
50:
22:WikiProjects
431:WikiProject
394:principles.
178:(optional)
546:See alsoĀ :
528:User:Kpjas
322:Formatting
303:Parentage:
79:early 2001
69:consensus
558:Category
375:User:MRC
369:COMMENTS
114:instead.
53:inactive
20: |
381:sports
297:Scope:
468:great
443:after
307:Music
16:<
55:and
472:not
447:But
401:no!
77:in
560::
434:MB
81:.
125:.
75:ā
34:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
