Template:Shortcut

Note:

How to make Appropedia most relevant

In the interest of making Appropedia most relevant to content providers and developers, I'm thinking about ways to make Appropedia more attractive to content users. What will increase the likelihood that the Appropedia content will actually get used? That leads naturally to the "who actually is our customer" discussion.

I see the potential user community as being largely made up of "doers" who are relative non-experts in the technologies and methods documented here. For example, volunteers or volunteer organizers, like Nabuur or World Volunteer Web, wanting to build schools or provide clean water and sanitation, etc, in support of Millennium Development Goals, etc.

What kind of information are these people looking for? I would be guessing (I bet Lonny and Singkong can answer this better), but I have these suspicions:

  • What are the appropriate technologies for building construction (or water purification, etc) in a particular region?
  • How would I choose between the various options that are regionally appropriate?

I think another useful tool would be for an interested user to "request" some content. As a provider, I think it would be compelling to add my content if someone had already specifically asked for it. --Curtbeckmann 07:17, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

Developing course notes - Wikibooks and Appropedia

I'd like us to work out a demarcation between Wikibooks and Appropedia, to ensure efficient collaboration (and maximum cooperation with people from outside Appropedia.

I'm referring to Curricula, mentioned at the Community portal - I think that just as the best place for encyclopedic material is Wikipedia, the best place for developing course notes is in Wikibooks, the Wikimedia project for developing textbooks, and Wikiversity for developing university curricula.

However, there are some additional comments:

  • If something doesn't fit at Wikibooks for some reason of course we can accept it here, e.g.
    • information about a specific course
    • notes taken by someone in a course
  • Any relevant material at Wikibooks can be linked from the relevant page here.
  • We should have a page here listing relevant Wikibooks and Wikiversity courses (which will fit in Category:Internet resources).

Those are my initial thoughts... --Singkong2005 talk 23:07, 5 August 2006 (PDT)

Update:
  1. Wikiversity is now launched, with its own domain name.
  2. OpenCourseWare is an exciting development, with institutions such as MIT releasing their course notes under an open licence. See [1]. If HSU goes the same way, it should get added to the OCW Finder (instructions near the bottom of that page).
--Singkong2005 talk 01:03, 20 August 2006 (PDT)
Comment and question: I changed the first Wikiversity reference to point to the new domain (not sure the exact policy there), and I'm curious why some external links (like the OCW Finder above) don't appear as external links...?
Curtbeckmann 06:41, 12 September 2006 (PDT)
I don't have a problem in this case... where there's a significant change, it's better to make changes at the end - but fixing a broken link or outdated link as you did is the right thing to do I think.
Re external links: have you set your preferences to a different skin? OCW Finder has the little arrow thing after it (denoting external links) when I view it in the standard skin; in the Cologne Blue skin it displays as a green link, which again means it's an external link.
Yes, I have again stayed up ridiculously late. My excuse is that I've been talking with someone about Bangladesh, education, public health and such things and it was all very interesting. Good night. --Singkong2005 talk 10:11, 12 September 2006 (PDT)
See the Scratchpad for some work I've done on a draft education page. --Singkong2005 · talk 19:25, 10 November 2006 (PST)

singularizing categories

I'm inclined towards the Wikipedia practice of making category names plural - after all, it's a number of articles, so it seems logical. (The only problem I see is that "Theses" may be a little confusing to anyone who isn't a well-educated native speaker - so I would like to see an alternative to theses.)

Anyhow, just mentioning it - not something I'll make a fuss about. --Singkong2005 · talk 21:22, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

Hi Singkong2005, Do you still feel that categories should be pluralized? I am interested in comming to some consensus on the standard. In addition, I feel that we have two different types of categories to discuss - Areas and Topics. I feel that topic categories should definitely be singular, since many do not have regular plural forms (unless the topic noun is adjectized and a new noun is added), e.g. Cobb could not be Cobbs (although it could be Cobb buildings). Areas, such as Program vs Programs, seems to be a tougher, more open, question. What do you think? --Lonny 21:54, 31 October 2006 (PST)
Yes, this is still my feeling... and yes, this would only be relevant only be relevant to nouns with a different plural form. Programs seems the right choice to me, as there are multiple programs in that category. As you rightly point out, a category such as Cobb or Solar would not have an s added. I hope that isn't making it too complex - it makes sense to me, but I do want it to be intuitive for readers and editors.
I just looked up Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - I don't have time to figure it out now, but it does mention singular nouns being used sometimes, as well:
Note that there are a growing number of instances where both the singular category (listing topics relating to) and plural category (listing instances of) exist, for example, Category:Opera and Category:Operas. Be careful to choose the right one when categorizing articles.
Something I just noticed, FWIW, is that categories in Wikipedia seem to be always nouns, e.g. Wikipedia:Category:Solar energy, not Category:Solar. --Singkong2005 · talk 05:34, 1 November 2006 (PST)
Any more thoughts on this?
Once we resolve category naming issue, we should create a "category redirect" template, a kind of notice that says "There should be no items in this category", and make a policy of not using normal redirects from category pages. It's a problem at the moment, for example, where Category:Projects is a redirect, but contains two pages, which are consequently not in the singularized version, Category:Project. --Singkong2005 · talk 06:06, 25 November 2006 (PST)
Have we resolved the singular/plural discussion? I still feel that we have many Topic categories that could only be pluralized if we appended a "techniques", "implementations" or "products". See Category_talk:Topic/Draft_of_metatopic_structure for some examples of both singular and plural topic categories. How should we proceed? --Lonny 09:56, 19 December 2006 (PST)
As I see it, the next step was for me to articulate a draft category naming policy with lots of examples. In short, though, I think we all agree. Countable nouns would get the plural, assuming there is one. Others would get the "natural" form. What that translates to is, we look at all our categories, and pretty much "add an 's'" where that makes sense. We listed a number of categories where pluralizing didn't make sense to any of us. Curiously, I think that if we each attempted to name all the categories independently, following a "natural choice" policy, I bet we'd all choose the same names, with the possible exception of the "thesis" category. The major challenge is articulating that policy so that someone else will also choose the right names.
Anyway, I thought next step was me articulating a draft naming policy. If/when we get agreement, then we get busy making changes, while at the same time rolling out the updated Topic (or Topics :-) categorization policy, which will likely also resolve at the same time. --CurtB 17:03, 19 December 2006 (PST)
That was my understanding, too. Another way to see it is that being plural only changes the form of countable nouns. So, however many examples there are of "Biomimicry", it's still "Biomimicry" with no "s". --Singkong2005 · talk 04:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
Please review and comment on my draft category naming guidelines at: User talk:Curtbeckmann/Category naming (which will obviously move when we reach consensus). Thanks, --CurtB 10:20, 20 December 2006 (PST)

Archiving

Suggested archiving policy: Whenever old material is removed from a talk page, it should be moved to an archive (e.g. Talk:Main Page/Archive) - even if the question is resolved, it may have some value as a reference.

I've created an {{archive}} template, which looks like this:

This page is archived.It's no longer active but it's preserved for historical reasons. Please do not edit it unless you intend to revive it.Read more...


The {{archive}} template should be placed at the top of archive pages.

Protection: A policy question - should archived pages be protected to avoid new comments being added? I've seen this done on Wikiversity. My inclination is not to protect the pages, but just encourage the use of the current talk page, as in the template above. Sometimes someone might want to add a very small comment, and will not do so if they have to start a new comment on the current page. At least on the archived page it will still have some value. --Singkong2005 · talk 19:25, 16 October 2006 (PDT)

Great work on the archiving, Singkong. Thanks for setting it up. I think that we can leave them unprotected for now, especially considering the text in the template stating that it is an archive and posting to it will not attract much attention. If it becomes a problem though, I am not opposed to protected pages. --ATSysop 18:59, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

Email this user?

I tried to use the "email this user" link, but didn't work for you. I guess you haven't provided a valid email address :-) Not sure if it works for me. I mention it since it somewhat undermines one of the "benefits of registering" that we articulated... I suspect it depends on what profile stuff we entered when we created our login... and leads to another thought (man, why do I pull on these threads?) that we could have some suggestions (or even a weaker noun, like "thoughts") about what to include in one's profile and user page. --Curtbeckmann 18:23, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

Bummer. I will work on this. --ATSysop 18:59, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

What's with the red "!"

Apparently now that I've got admin rights, all "recent changes" have a red "!" next to them. What does it signify? Is there some action I need to take? Thanks in advance. --Curtbeckmann 18:23, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

I don't think that this is set up here yet, but this is the answer: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edit --ATSysop 18:59, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
Either you fixed it, or it already worked. I hadn't previously noticed the "mark as patrolled" link when viewing diffs. I clicked it, and the red "!" went away for that change. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, click on a "diff" next to a recent change.
On a related topic, I notice in my "preferences" that I can select "mark my edits as patrolled". Assuming that this is only available to Admins, then we Admins should all check that box, in which case only the "ordinary humans" (like Lonny, but not ATsysop?) will be marked "!". I'll go check that box now :-) Certainly admins are human and can make typos, but presumably we're not spammers. --Curtbeckmann 19:10, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
Yet another edit now that I have set the "mark my edits as patrolled" box... --Curtbeckmann 19:11, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
Well spotted - have changed my prefs. Non-admins are usually not spammers too, but might be less familiar with wikis and with this site, and thus more likely to need checking of their edits, in case their formatting & categorization needs adjusting, for example. --Singkong2005 · talk 22:03, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

Linking to Wikipedia & other wikis

We have these templates for linking to Wikipedia:

  • {{Wikipedia}}, which links to the Wikipedia page on PAGENAME
  • {{Wikipedia p}}, used as {{Wikipedia p|foo}} to link to the Wikipedia article on "Foo."

Now, when adding links to other wikis at the end of a page, I'm inclined to say we should:

  • put them in the "See also" section, not "External links," reflecting the fact that we complement and integrate with other wikis, esp Wikipedia; also that we're the same kind of site, part of the "wikisphere."
  • Not use the templates above (too bulky when there's a list); rather we should say something like:

However, our policy should be along the lines of:

When linking to Wikipedia articles, it should be made clear that these are from that wiki and not Appropedia.
Links to other wikis should be placed in "See also" rather than "External links"


It is more difficult for inline links. Perhaps the text can be left plain (not wikilinked) and the {{Wikipedia p}} link can be put near it? Still not a satisfying solution though. --Singkong2005 · talk 17:46, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Why wouldn't we just use the standard interwiki link such as [[wikipedia:Main page]] to create wikipedia:Greywater? This seems to make it clear that it is a link to Greywater at Wikipedia. --Lonny 23:27, 24 October 2006 (PDT)
We could do, though for inline links, they are part of a sentence, so the "Wikipedia" sticks out, breaks the flow, and could be confusing.
But certainly in bulleted lists, "Hand pump at Wikipedia" (using a piped link to look neater) could be dropped in favor of "Wikipedia:Hand pump". I have a bit of a negative reaction to the appearance, but that's minor, and it's easier and clearer.
If we decide on a standard for capitalization of such links, (e.g. Wikipedia: not wikipedia:) that makes it look a bit less raw and haphazard, so resolves part of the aesthetic concern.
Any thoughts on interwiki links going in "See also" rather than "External links"? --Singkong2005 · talk 17:31, 26 October 2006 (PDT)
How about a template for inline interwiki links, with a small WP (for Wikipedia) occurring after the link text? Here's my effort: {{WP}}... for example:
W developed the W."
I think it's an improvement over:
wikipedia:Jock Brandis developed the wikipedia:Malian peanut sheller.
(But of course improvements welcomed.) Are you open to a policy of using this template for all Wikipedia links?
It would be easy to create equivalent templates for any other wikis that we regularly create inline links to, though I don't expect there will be any other such wiki... we would usually link them in the links section at the bottom.) --Singkong2005 · talk 02:51, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Permission for copying information

It would be a good idea to have a policy for copyright permission granted by other authors. I don't expect problems, but it's best to be safe, avoid confusion, and also to have a record of who stated that they owned the copyright and allowed Appropedia to use it.

I suggest Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as a starting point. It seems a little involved and we may wish to simplify it a little (as I think we can assume a reasonable amount of good faith on the part of people we're dealing with). However, it shouldn't be too hard if at least there's a couple of admins (I suggest Curt & myself) who familiarize ourselves with the procedures, and make an effort to see that it is always done properly. --Singkong2005 · talk 02:39, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Puzzlement

Is the redirection of Appropedia:Policy to this page a temporary thing? I would expect (and it was my plan) that the Policy page would hold text describing our policies (when we have firmed up that text) in the same way that Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Policy (after a redirect) tells you about policies, and not about discussions of polices. --CurtB 22:39, 10 November 2006 (PST)

You're right - I've changed it to a redirect to Appropedia:Ruleset (until there is other material to put on Appropedia:Policy). --Singkong2005 · talk 00:53, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Exclusion of political activity

As part of exploration of nonprofit filing, it is clear that Appropedia does not want to participate in any political activity. Consequently we will need some policies about this. Presumably this is implied in Wikipedia's NPOV, which is not copied verbatim by Appropedia. I mention this because I haven't seen explicit exclusion of political activity at Wikipedia (though maybe I missed it), whereas I'm sure we will want to do it here. --CurtB 13:12, 22 November 2006 (PST)

At Wikipedia, overt activism in editing is seen as a violation of NPOV - I think that's the main thing. The move away from political userboxes in the Wikipedia namespace is another thing worth noting - it was dealt with using the German solution of moving them to the userspace, as subpages of individual editors.
I agree we need a policy. Of course I'm sure no one here wants to stifle discussion of relevant political issues, and that's another reason we need to have a clear policy of what's good and acceptable, what should be transwikied to another wiki, and what should be discouraged outright. --Singkong2005 · talk 19:57, 22 November 2006 (PST)

Lots of redirects (I'm assuming that's a good thing)

I just want to explain why I make so many redirects.

I've been following a philosophy of making redirects where I think they'll be helpful, e.g.

Now, having a lot of redirects does clutter up the Special:Allpages page. However, most people won't navigate this way (especially if we maintain the categorization structure) so I don't think that's a big problem. I don't think it affects the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} function (which appears not count redirects).

Anyway, if that's how I've been doing it, but of course if people have other ideas, I'm open to that. --Singkong2005 · talk 15:25, 13 December 2006 (PST)

Redlinks

Should redlinks be turned into stubs, if it only consists of a {{Wikipedia}} box? E.g. Microcredit, at present. I can see the reasoning, but a near empty stub won't show up in Special:Wanted pages so it's more easily overlooked than a redlink.

But rather than the redlink, it's probably better to just link to Wikipedia using {{WP}}. I'd originally left microcredit as a redlink here, as a prompt for myself or others to add material on microcredit, but I'm now less keen on this - the {{WP}} style link will do the job as well, plus provide a useful, direct link. --Singkong2005 · talk 05:07, 14 December 2006 (PST)

Don't use season names in categories

Categories such as Category:Spring 2006, describing the March-May period, only make intuitive sense for those north of the tropics, not for those in the tropics or the southern hemisphere. I'll add a note to Help:Categorization. --Singkong2005 · talk 17:29, 26 December 2006 (PST)

Wow, what egocentrism. I think I had added the seasons based on the U.S. University semesters. Next, I will start advising that all solar panels should be installed facing south. Sorry. This lattitudism has been corrected. Thank you. --Lonny 23:56, 28 December 2006 (PST)
Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appropedia_talk:Policies&oldid=10823"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.