Jump to content

Proposed system changes

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Sorry for being a newbie; I have no idea if this is the correct place to make this type of request. If I'm wrong, helpful redirection would be appreciated.

I would love to have a "better" ranking of what words need a definition in Wiktionary. Perhaps once a month, would it be possible to sort all the words (if too much, then just links) that don't exist in Wiktionary, ranked by number of times used throughout the entire wikipepdia text?

-- 23:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in trackback pings in wikipedia is this possible to configure or it is not yet implemented?

  • See Trackback (I wished the developers would more document their work...!)

Turn off capitalization in Lojban[edit]

I can't find a better place to request this. Someone with access to the source should turn off the feature that automatically capitalizes the first letter of a page title for jbo.wikipedia.org. Lojban does not use capitalization this way.

Currently people are refraining from creating new pages, because supposedly lots of links will break when this feature is added. But that's more reason for it to be done sooner. 16:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) (en:User:RSpeer / jbo:User:RabSpir)

Don't know where else to suggest this, but what about a scholar program that works like so:

Wikipedia begins to register 'experts' in various fields who are teachers at accredited universities. They can then create assignments for their students to either create a new entry or proof-read, fact check and source pre-existing articles. After it has been examined by the student and the professor, that version would have a 'appproved by Dr So-and-so, an Astronomy professor at such-and-such university, according to the 'fact-checking' guidelines at this page' mark somewhere on the page. It could then be edited or modified as normal, but every later version would included a link to 'the last fact-checked version of this entry'

I think it would improve wikipedia to allow forking of articles, and maintain these forks. Philosophically, I think postmodernism is mostly BS, but I think a postmodern critique of wikipedia would improve it.

- Wikipedia contains no authorship information. This creates a false sense of authority and objective knowledge. I find 'neutral point of view' to be an oxymoronic statement. A point of view is by defition a perspective; a bias.

- Contested truths are fought in a zero sum game where only one text can inhabit an article at any time.

So instead of 'the definitive' article, a 'contested tree' of an article.

Additionally, I recommend installing a 'signing off' system, where authors sign off on their works, perhaps using pgp keys. Users who sign a lot of articles in agreement with other signers get a higher reputation system. If someone updates a text, the text has a higher reputation if its ancestral authors sign off on the updates.

Filtering works by reputation would make a better wikipedia experience for casual users. Unpopular authors can maintain their own branches, and controversial topics might maintain several concurrent branches. This would relive edit wars as proponents of particular truths would be more intersted investing time and effort into crating and maintaining those truths than destroying others'. Furthermore, if someone's work is vandalised, in their perspective, that author can apply filters which ignore the updates of proponents of a competing truth.

This would help alleviate edit wars and trolling, as proponents of various ideas would be inclined to create and maintain their side of the story, rather than fight for space under a single article heading.