Simple ideology of Wikitax

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Hierdie is 'n opstel. Dit gee die mening en idees van enkele gebruikers op Meta-Wiki weer, maar word waarskynlik nie deur almal ondersteun nie. Dit is ook nie 'n amptelike beleid of riglyn op Meta-Wiki nie, maar dit mag wel een op ander Wikimedia-projekte wees. Voel asseblief vry om hierdie bladsy soos nodig by te werk, of gebruik die kletsblad om groot wysigings voor te stel. هذه نصيحة. تعبر عن آراء وأفكار بعض مستخدمي ميتا-ويكي لكن قد لا تكون مدعومة على نطاق واسع. هذه ليست سياسة على ميتا-ويكي، لكنها قد تكون سياسة أو إرشاد في مشاريع ويكيميديا آخرى. لا تتردد في تحديث هذه الصفحة عن الحاجة، أو استخدم صفحة النقاش للتعديلات الجوهرية. Ovo je esej. Sadrži misli i ideje nekih korisnika Meta-Wikija, ali ne mora nužno da bude široko prihvaćen. Ovo nije pravilo na Meta-Wikiju, ali može da budi pravilo ili uputa na drugim projektima Wikipedije. Slobodno promijenite ovu stranu po potrebi ili koristite stranu za razgovor za veće promjene. Açò és un assaig. Expressa les opinions i idees d'alguns usuaris de Wikimedia o del Meta-Wiki però pot ser que no tingui un ampli suport. Això no és una política del Meta-Wiki, però pot ser política o guia d'estil en algun altre projecte Wikimedia. Sentiu-vos lliures d'actualitzar aquesta pàgina quan faci falta o utilitzeu la pàgina de discussió per a proposar-hi canvis d'importància. Dette er et essay. Det udtrykker visse Wikimedia- eller Meta-Wiki-brugeres holdninger og idéer, som ikke nødvendigvis deles af et flertal. Dette udgør ikke en politik på Meta-Wikien, men det kan være en politik eller et regelsæt på et andet Wikimedia-projekt. Du er velkommen til at ændre denne side efter behov, eller til at foreslå større ændringer på diskussionssiden. Dies ist ein Essay. Er drückt die Meinungen und Ideen einiger Meta-Wiki-Benutzer aus und wird eventuell nur von wenigen Benutzern unterstützt. Dies ist keine Richtlinie aus dem Meta-Wiki, kann aber Richtlinie oder Leitsatz in anderen Wikimedia-Projekten sein. Tu dir keinen Zwang an und aktualisiere diese Seite falls nötig, oder benutze die Diskussionsseite, um größere Veränderungen vorzuschlagen. This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some wikimedians or Meta-Wiki users but may not have wide support. This is not policy on the Meta-Wiki, but it may be policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes. Esto es un ensayo. Este texto expresa opiniones e ideas de algunos usuarios pero éstas no tienen un amplio consenso. Esto no es una política de Meta pero sí puede serlo en otros proyectos. Sea usted libre de actualizar esta página o use su página de discusión para proponer cambios mayores. Jen eseo. Ĝi esprimas la opiniojn kaj ideojn de iuj Vikipediistoj aŭ uzantoj de Meta-Wiki, sed eble ne havus vastan subtenon. Ĝi ne estas la regularo de Meta-Wiki, sed ĝi eble estas regularo en aliaj projektoj de Wikipedia. Laŭvole ĝisdatigu ĉi tiun paĝon laŭ bezono, aŭ uzu la diskuto-paĝon por proponi grandajn ŝanĝojn. این صفحه یک انشا است. این صفحه نظر و ایدهٔ برخی از کاربران فراویکی را بیان می‌کند اما ممکن است از حمایت گسترده‌ای برخوردار نباشد. این صفحه یک سیاست در فراویکی نیست، اما ممکن است سیاست یا رهنمودی در دیگر پروژه‌های ویکی‌مدیا باشد. آزادانه آن را به روز کنید، و برای تغییرهای بزرگ از صفحهٔ بحث استفاده کنید. Tämä on essee. Se ilmaisee joidenkin wikimedialaisten tai Meta-Wikin käyttäjien mielipiteitä tai ajatuksia, mutta sillä ei välttämättä ole laajaa kannatusta. Tämä ei ole Meta-Wikin käytäntö, mutta saattaa olla käytäntö tai ohje muissa Wikimedia-hankkeissa. Päivitä tätä sivua tarpeen mukaan tai ehdota isoja muutoksia keskustelusivulla. Ceci est un essai. Il exprime les opinions et les idées de certains contributeurs de Meta-Wiki, mais peut ne pas renconter le soutien des autres. Il n'est ni une règle ou une recommandation sur Meta-Wiki, mais peut l'être sur d'autres projets Wikimédia. N'hésitez pas à modifier cette page si besoin est, ou à proposer des changements majeurs sur la la page de discussion. Dit is in essay. It jout mieningen en ideeën wer fan guon meidoggers op Meta-Wiki, mar it is net sein dat eltsenien it der mei iens is. Dit is ek gjin offisjeel belied of rjochtline op Meta-Wiki, al kin dat wol sa wêze op oare Wikimedia-projekten. Fiel jo frij om dizze side wêr't dat nedich is bij te wurkjen of om grutte wizigings út te stellen op de oerlisside. עברית: דף זה הוא מאמר. הדף מבטא את הדעות והרעיונות של חלק מהמשתמשים במיזמי קרן ויקימדיה או במטא־ויקי, אך ייתכן שאין להם תמיכה נרחבת. דף זה הוא לא דף מדיניות במטא־ויקי, אך ייתכן שהוא דף מדיניות או דף הנחיות במיזמי ויקימדיה אחרים. הרגישו חופשיים לעדכן את הדף לפי הצורך, או השתמשו בדף השיחה להצעת שינויים משמעותיים. Ovo je esej. Sadrži mišljenja i ideje nekih korisnika Meta-Wikija, ali ne mora nužno biti široko prihvaćen. Ovo nije pravilo na Meta-Wikiju, ali može biti pravilo ili uputa na drugim Wikimedijinim projektima. Slobodno promijenite ovu stranicu po potrebi ili koristite stranicu za razgovor za predlaganje većih promjena. Ez egy esszé. Néhány Wikimédia- vagy Meta-Wiki-felhasználó véleményét fejezi ki, de lehet, hogy nem kapott széles körű támogatást. Nem irányelv a Meta-Wikin, de irányelv vagy útmutató lehet más Wikimédia-projektekben. Szabadon frissítheted ezt a lapot, ha szükséges, vagy használd a vitalapot, ha nagyobb változtatást szeretnél javasolni. Isto es un essayo. Illo exprime le opiniones e ideas de alcun wikimedianos o usatores de Meta-Wiki, ma pote non esser appoiate per le consenso general. Isto non es un politica del Meta-Wiki, ma pote esser un politica o directiva in altere projectos de Wikimedia. Sia libere de actualisar iste pagina in caso de necessitate, o usa le pagina de discussion pro proponer major alterationes. Ini adalah sebuah esai. Esai ini menyatakan pendapat dan gagasan dari beberapa Wikimediawan atau pengguna Meta-Wiki dan mungkin tidak didukung oleh komunitas secara meluas. Esai ini bukan kebijakan Meta-Wiki, tapi mungkin saja merupakan kebijakan atau pedoman di proyek-proyek Wikimedia lainnya. Silakan memperbarui halaman ini seperlunya, atau gunakan halaman pembicaraan untuk mengusulkan perubahan besar. Questo è un saggio. Esprime le opinioni e le idee di alcuni contributori di Meta-Wiki, ma può non incontrare il sostegno di altri. Non è una raccomandazione o una linea guida su Meta-Wiki, ma lo potrebbe essere su altri progetti Wikimedia. Non esitate a modificare questa pagina se occorre, o a proporre modifiche rilevanti nella sua pagina di discussione. この記事はエッセイです。何人かのメタウィキの利用者の意見と考えを表していますが、幅広い支持を得ているとは限りません。メタウィキの方針ではありませんが、他のウィキメディア・プロジェクトの方針かガイドラインであるかもしれません。必要に応じてこのページを遠慮なく編集し、大きな変更の提案にはこの記事のノートを使用してください。 이 문서는 수필입니다. 이것은 일부 사용자의 의견을 나타낸 것으로, 총의를 얻지 않았을 수 있습니다. 이 문서는 메타위키 정책은 아니지만, 다른 위키미디어 프로젝트에서 정책이나 지침으로 사용하고 있을 수도 있습니다. 이 문서를 편집하거나 주요 내용을 바꿔야 한다면 토론 문서를 이용해 주세요. Ова е есеј. Во него е искажано мислењето и идеите на извесни викимедијанци или корисници на Мета-Вики, но не значи дека тоа ужива широка поддршка. Ова не претставува правило на Мета-Вики, но може да виде правило или напатствие на други проекти на Викимедија. Најслободно менувајте ја страницава, или пак користете ја страницата за разговор ако сакате да предложите некои поголеми промени. हा एक निबंध आहे. यामध्ये काही विकिपीडिया सदस्यांची किंवा मेटा-विकि सदस्यांची मते आणि कल्पना मांडण्यात आल्या आहेत. त्यांना बहुतांशांचा पाठिंबा असेलच असे नाही. हा निबंध मेटा-विकिवरील धोरण मांडत नाही, पण इतर काही विकिमीडिया प्रकल्पांमध्ये हा निबंध धोरण किंवा मार्गदर्शक तत्व म्हणून वापरला जात असणे शक्य आहे. आवश्यक असेल तेव्हा विनासंकोच हे पान संपादित करा किंवा काही मोठे बदल सुचविण्यासाठी चर्चा पानाचा उपयोग करा. Ini adalah sebuah karangan. Ia menyatakan pendapat serta buah fikiran sesetengah ahli wikimedia atau pengguna Meta-Wiki tetapi tidak semestinya mempunyai sokongan yang meluas. Ini bukannya polisi di Meta-Wiki, tetapi ia mungkin merupakan polisi atau garis panduan di projek-projek Wikimedia lain. Silakan mengemaskini laman ini jika perlu, atau gunakan laman perbincangannya untuk mengusulkan perubahan-perubahan yang besar. Dit is een essay. Het geeft de meningen en ideeën van enkele gebruikers op Meta-Wiki weer, maar wordt waarschijnlijk niet door iedereen gesteund. Dit is ook geen officieel beleid of richtlijn op Meta-Wiki, maar dat kan het wel zijn op andere Wikimedia-projecten. Voel u vrij om deze pagina als nodig bij te werken, of om de overlegpagina te gebruiken om grote wijzigingen voor te stellen. Aquò es una redaccion. Exprimís las opinions e las idèas d'unes contributors de MetaWiki, mas pòt rencontrar pas lo sosten dels autres. Es pas una règla o una recomandacion sus MetaWiki, mas o pòt èsser sus d'autres projèctes Wikimèdia. Esitetz pas a modificar aquesta pagina se fa mestièr, o a prepausar de cambiaments màgers sus la la pagina de discussion. Ten artykuł jest esejem. Wyrażone są w nim opinie i pomysły niektórych wikimedian lub użytkowników Meta-Wiki, ale niekoniecznie mają szersze poparcie. Nie jest to zasada obowiązująca na Meta-Wiki, ale może to być zasada lub zalecenie na innych projektach Wikimediów. Możesz aktualizować tę stronę w razie potrzeby lub skorzystaj ze strony dyskusji artykułu aby zaproponować większe zmiany. Isto é um ensaio. Ele expressa as opiniões e idéias de vários wikimedianos ou usuários do Meta-Wiki mas pode não ter grande respaldo. Isto não é uma política no Meta-Wiki, mas pode ser uma política ou orientação em outros projetos da Wikimedia. Sinta-se livre para atualizar esta página quando necessário, ou use a página de discussão para propor alterações maiores. Acesta este un eseu. Aici sînt exprimate opiniile şi ideile unor utilizatori de pe Meta-Wiki, dar este posibil să nu aibă accepţiune majoritară. Aceasta nu are titlu de politică pe Meta-Wiki, dar poate fi politică sau ghid de reguli pe alte proiecte ale Wikipediei. Poţi să îmbunătăţeşti această pagină după cum crezi adecvat, sau să foloseşti pagina de discuţie pentru a propune schimbări majore. Это эссе. Оно выражает мнения и идеи некоторых пользователей Мета-вики, но может не пользоваться широкой поддержкой. Эссе не является правилом Мета-вики, но, вероятно, может быть правилом или руководством в других проектах Викимедиа. Вы можете обновлять эту страницу как считаете нужным или воспользоваться страницей обсуждения, чтобы предложить масштабные изменения. Ово је есеј. Садржи мисли и идеје неких корисника Мета-Викија, али не мора да буде широко прихваћен. Ово није правило на Мета-Викију, али може да буде правило или упутство на другим пројектима Викимедије. Не устручавајте се да промените ову страну по потреби или користите страну за разговор да бисте предложили веће промене. Den här sidan är en essä. Den är inte en av Wikimedias policys eller riktlinjer, och återspeglar kanske endast författarnas åsikter. Uppdatera sidan om det behövs eller diskutera innehållet på diskussionssidan. หน้านี้เป็นข้อเขียน แสดงถึงความคิดหรือไอเดียของผู้ใช้วิกิมีเดียหรือเมต้าวิกิบางคนซึ่งอาจจะยังไม่ได้รับการสนับสนุนกว้างอย่างขวางนัก นี่ไม่ใช่นโยบายบนเมต้าวิกิ, แต่อาจเป็นนโยบายหรือแนวทางของโครงการอื่น ๆ ของวิกิมีเดีย อย่ากังวลในการแก้ไขหน้านี้ตามที่คุณต้องการ หรือใช้หน้าอภิปรายในการเสนอการเปลี่ยนแปลงใหญ่ ๆ Đây là một bài luận. Nó thể hiện ý kiến và ý tưởng của một số thành viên Wikimedia hoặc Meta-Wiki và có thể không được đồng tình một cách rộng rãi. Đây không phải là quy định tại Meta-Wiki, nhưng nó có thể là quy định hoặc hướng dẫn tại các dự án khác của Wikimedia. Xin hãy thoải mái cập nhật trang này nếu cần, hoặc sử dụng trang thảo luận để đề xuất những thay đổi lớn. 这是一篇论述。它只表达了部分维基人或元维基使用者的意见及观点，此等观点可能未获得广泛支持。这不是元维基的政策，但可能是属于其他维基计划的政策或指引。如有需要，欢迎更新本页面，或在讨论页提出修改的建议。 这是一篇论述。它只表达了部分维基人或元维基使用者的意见及观点，此等观点可能未获得广泛支持。这不是元维基的政策，但可能是属于其他维基计划的政策或指引。如有需要，欢迎更新本页面，或在讨论页提出修改的建议。 這是一篇論述. 它只表達了部分維基人或元維基使用者的意見及觀點，此等觀點可能未獲得廣泛支持。 這不是元維基的政策，但可能是屬於其他維基計劃的政策或指引。如有需要，歡迎更新本頁面，或在討論頁提出修改的建議。 [translate]

You may read I have no idea which is more representative of current developer team opinion.

A Simple ideology of Wikitax (for Wikipedia3 and Wikipedia4)

Paper Wikipedia is the highest priority, since paper is most universally used and sharable. The Wikipedia DTD should put paper needs foremost—including conserving paper, by making maximum use of compressed text conventions. Those conventions are better understood in electronic media:

Most users encounter email first, then chat (including IRC, MSN, ICQ, and IM), and if they are good at both, they discover weblogs, then wikitext. So, the conventions used in these ought to be respected in that order unless it is truly contradictory to do so—OR unless it builds a Wikipedia database that cannot be validated, maintained, edited and vetted by uniform mechanical means. This requires the spacetime DTD, person DTD and TIPAESA conventions.

Metalingo is a good place to start, if it encourages the use of absolutely unambiguous conjunctions; E Prime verbs "becomes", "remains", "equals" which can be translated for reading purposes into "is", "is then", etc. In effect any use of typed links or language constructs that can be said to imply such links is a rather serious move in this direction.

That's the simple ideology in a nutshell. The implications of the last clause are severe, implying rigorous standards for names, places, time intervals and (most difficult of all) attribution of sources. Since Wikipedia is by far the largest wiki application, and most uses of wiki also involve source checking, or trust in certain contributors, and politics of sysops and bias, it's important to consider the desirable future where the Wikipedia data are widely trusted, and where the Wikipedia conventions of expressing WHO/WHEN/WHERE become universal—I urge you to push hard for strict standards of this in Talk:Wikitax.

The rest of this amounts to rationale and detail:

Email uses many conventions, and almost all users know them. The most obvious are the use of ">" (and ">>", ">>>") marks to denote a dialogue with quotation of prior statements, and the use of "*" to emphasize, as discussed for "*bold*". This necessarily means losing the use of "*" as it presently stands in wikitext but that is justified in the SIMPLE IDEOLOGY because email and chat and some blogs already use * that way. So here's an example where we're discussing it already.

Many obvious conventions like "mailto:" and "http:" and "ftp:" being URLs and presented as links, are also respected on most email and chat clients, and weblogs. These are usually easy to handle.

Where it gets difficult is the presentation of quotations and attributions and such. In an encyclopedia it is particularly important to associate statements with authorities, not just in the text but in the diffs between the texts—done clumsily right now by good old revision control and informal social trust between contributors (who don't revert text from those they consider trustworthy, and do so regularly for those they don't, without much checking either way). It's easy enough to imagine an elaborated diff or history file that lays out the level of 'so and so added this statement at such a time' - the "Older Versions" link does this now, and it could all be presented on a page with alot of parentheses—although we don't do that for newbie's clarity and to continue to exploit conventions (like 'side by side presentation of versions') of the user interface. But in principle, the facts that "Newton said F=MA", "Physicists agree that F=MA (source=Newton)", "(Nontroll added the text that) Physicists agree that F=MA (and assumed source=Newton without justifying it)" are all of the same sort. They are however validated three different ways.

Note, if you want to be a purist then "F=MA" itself, and "(sysop decided that Nontroll was in fact a non-troll)" are also facts of this nature. But that goes a bit beyond the SIMPLE... into the reasons we trust science and sysops, both of which are necessarily part of trusting computer collaboration. So don't go that far, or we have to consider the five different ways we validate things here. Not the point of wikitax.

The difference between Wikitax and say Weblogtax is probably the ease with which we express these source and validation relationships, and how standard (global) we expect expressions of names, times, places to be. We already standardize these, and a name, a time, and a place, should be marked as such in the Wikitax (and ultimately in the XML DTD)—if only to improve tools for the validation I mention above.

A great proportion of the content of the Wikipedia is names, places, dates/times, and titles (e.g. King, physicist, Elvis impersonator). It would be truly ideal if the XML DTD let us deal with all these in a standard way. For instance 1999 refers to the calendar year 1999 in the Gregorian Calendar, but there's no reason not to allow exact dates to be converted to other calendars. Adopting a default representation of UTC Time Intervals (from absolute time A to absolute time B, or absolute time A plus time interval C=1 day, 1 month, etc.) and shorthand for referring to those; e.g. "January 2003" refers to UTC January 1, 2003 (absolute) plus 1 month, isn't that hard to do. More complex issues like unfolding events (history of the en:United Nations for instance, which is still going, human lifetimes that continue), calendar conversion, etc., can be dealt with as long as this is exact. Without accurate time semantics (a spacetime DTD), everything else falls apart in a hurry.

The second most important thing to get right is locations and place-names. As borders shift over time, what is in 'Czechoslovakia' or the 'Austro-Hungarian Empire' in one article is in 'Slovakia' now... this is another major headache. Eventually we'll have nice latitude-longitude maps of the actual borders at key points in time, and towns and villages will be located by some automatic means.

Then, third, we have to rigorize conventions regarding names so that we are not using multiple names for one person, and can compile biographies and timelines of associations, without extreme effort, in some cases straight from evidence. A person DTD and following strict TIPAESA conventions for reporting a source or authority in dispute, is the best approach.

So, with these constraints, that conventions for names, times, places, sources, must be rigorous enough to stand use in the global peer-reviewed Wikipedia, the user interface can happily follow paper, email, IM/IRC, and weblog usage for other things—or by default the existing wikitext conventions, which are pretty reasonable for links etc. It would be good to add simple 'source attributes' to links, so that the idea that A is linked to B can be viewed the same as the idea that B should be referenced in a file about A. So some convention that lets you state the source of something right in the link itself, even if that source is just another article, is good enough. That lets me tie F=MA to an elaborate article on Newton's Laws, without forcing me to make mention of that in every article—and giving the user the option of looking at something say, historically or philosophically, or scientifically, and going to different places based on why they're reading the article.

This also integrates the Older Versions, as one can actually present the whole article in ALL VERSIONS THROUGH TIME as a single complex article using these conventions; i.e. each section added by ATroll (and later deleted) appears as a link to a version with that text added back, with the source listed as "ATroll". One set of conventions therefore covers naming of contributors and those we write about in Wikipedia, presentation of old versions of articles and old versions of theories, etc. Real processing on the whole database is possible.

This starts towards as w:Semantic Web ideal for Wikipedia, but should go no further than the above: names, places, times, and sources with special status so that, in the long run, older versions and original source material, users and celebrities, all have identical status in the system syntactically. Beyond that, we're best off pandering to conventions that people already know very well.

BUT, to stay SIMPLE, an IDEOLOGY must not try to cover things it can't cover, nor can it pander to views that would compromise the overall results to the point where the SIMPLE IDEOLOGY is rejected. As Einstein said, "Things should be as simple as possible. But no simpler." As Alan Kay said, "Simple things should be simple. Complex things should be possible." They're both right.

So, blind importation of weblog conventions is a BAD THING, if it cripples the key functions of attribution and source mapping, and makes us not an encyclopedia. It would be a shame to have to fork the Wikitax just because these key considerations of an encyclopedia weren't taken into account early.

The simple ideology probably cannot be implemented fully in Wikipedia3 but should be a very high priority in the development of Wikipedia4. That opinion is reflected in the Wikipedia4 timeline. Edit it there, not here.