WikiPediaProcess

Comment on the Wiki''''Pedia process here. Your opinions are solicited on all manner of policy questions. Or, if you simply want to raise a policy issue, raise it here.

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.

I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page. The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense. It's possible that this makes me a "wiki reductionist." -- LarrySanger

See discussion on NamingConventions.

A request: for an encyclopedia, the usual Wiki link-naming scheme seems not quite right. How about patching the Wiki server code so that any string that ends in a special character (such as "~") becomes a Wiki link.

I second this request. I propose that wiki links should be enclosed in double braces, {{like this}}. Of course, we'll have to do some serious re-naming of pages when the new standard is implemented--that might not be for a while, too. Don't hold your breath.

It is possible to link to images simply by typing in the URL of the image. This was done, for example, on the FidDle page. But the image exists somewhere outside of WikiPedia. Is this wrong? Is a "link back" to the image source adequate compensation, or not? What do you think?

Interesting question. I linked an article (a pretty long one) in HelL, without which my couple of paragraphs would be basically meaningless. Obviously, if the original author has placed it on the web, he intends for it to be widely viewed and circulated - but what if he changes domains or drops off the web altogether? Then what of my link? The substance of my paragraphs will be as naught with the loss of that material. If I had my druthers, I'd include the whole article in the body of my notes, with a link-back. However, I am leery of violating standards of fair use under copyright law, and so I don't. Who has a definitive answer on this?

I'd say just go get permission. But then the article itself, since it doesn't concern HelL per se but is a very particular take on a particular question about HelL, should be saved under its own special (aptly-named) page. That's my view, anyway.

Let's post links to PublicDomainResources (for both images and text)!

What's to stop the BadGuyS(TM) from deleting accurate stuff and replacing it with PatentNonsense? This is possible, but we have ways of avoiding DisRuption. See WikiPediaFaq for more information.

So, Larry, you DO want chaos on a website? Do you think it will become self organising, or will it get hit by multiple failure syndrome?

LarrySanger answers: I think it will be self-organizing. See Ward Cunningham's original wiki. But in the case of WikiPedia, I dunno! Guess we'll see! (I suggest you remove this question and answer to WikiPediaFaq.)

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. -- LarrySanger