Welfare offer bet365 live streaming app_free login 188bet?casino no deposit?bonus_free login betvictor app iphone

Sun, 30 Dec 2018 04:24:21 -0800

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
says pretty much the same:

> The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's 
> topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic 
> is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent 
> controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established 
> in the first few sentences.

that is, the intro section should be a short standalone article:

> As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four 
> well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

For an extreme case, [[World War II]] gets *five* long paragraphs for
its intro section.


- d.



On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 10:57, Anders Wennersten
<m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>
> In my little duckpond (svwp) we have guidleines for the introduction
> part of the article.
>
> It should use (simple) language to enable 14-16 years old to understand
> it (while the rest can use more complicated vocabulary)
>
> It should hopefully only be 1-3 sentences, and to state what is all
> about and not a summary.
>
> We do not live up to this recommendation all the time, but I have
> noticed that he introducion part on enwp generally are very long, in
> comparison
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-12-30 kl. 11:39, skrev Zubin JAIN:
> >> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two
> > important things about them. They have a very short attention span and
> > difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized
> > information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable of
> > watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20
> > pages from a book.
> >
> >> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate / the
> > best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know the
> > answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise
> > the rest of the text does not make sense.
> >
> >> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like to
> > be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious. Articles
> > must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need to
> > be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with more
> > voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just
> > further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next clip.
> >
> > These are gross generalizations and the ideas are similarly flawed.
> > Anecdotes do not prove anything and while there is some evidence to suspect
> > that attention span is reducing ( Though there has yet to be consensus and
> > one should naturally be sceptical of any psychological finding given the
> > fields replication crisis). Under 18 people such as myself probably use the
> > site the most compared to any other demographic and most of us are capable
> > of using it as well as anybody else.
> >
> > The idea that Wikipedia needs to be dumbed down has abousltley no basis on
> > fact and data, is only supported by anecdotes and stereotypes. This is not
> > to say that simplifying some Wikipedia articles and creating more video
> > content is wrong, Wikipedia should be inclusive to all including those with
> > disabilities or conditions that make the traditional encyclopedia
> > unsuitable but making those changes out of ageist assumptions of
> > generational decline is insulting.
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 17:21, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I still believe we need to "explode Wikipedia", by which I mean split
> >> curation templates, categories, lists and all other articles into more
> >> easily editable and curatable parts. This enables better linking to
> >> discrete Wikidata items while reducing the tedious task of curation for
> >> extremely long articles. Your comments, Peter, are still based on the
> >> 18-year-old idea of "it's the info that matters". It's no longer just the
> >> content that matters. Content curation, once advertised as being super
> >> simple (and still in the byline as "everybody can edit"), has become a
> >> tedious and complicated task, and efforts to make it easier have resulted
> >> with the visual editor for mobile, which still doesn't work for uploading
> >> to Commons. We need better upload interfaces for fixing spelling mistakes,
> >> adding blue links, categories, media, and all other common tasks. We should
> >> not let Google decide which sentences to index first, but we should be
> >> enabling those decisions to be made by human editors. Findability should
> >> reflect editability and it doesn't.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:18 AM Peter Southwood <
> >> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Yaroslav,
> >>> Several recent developments relate to this situation which I think you
> >>> have described reasonably well.
> >>> Short descriptions help a bit. But they are too short to help much
> >>> Simple Wikipedia tries to keep things simple and easily understood, but
> >>> perhaps concentrates too much on a small vocabulary.
> >>> I do see a real need and a use for a "Readers Digest" or "executive
> >>> summary" version of long and complex articles for people who doní»t have a
> >>> need for the full story, but as a complementary version, possibly linked
> >>> from the top of a desktop view, and possibly the primary target in
> >> mobile.
> >>> This would not be needed for all articles.
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Peter Southwood
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Wikimedia-l [free online bettingmailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> >>> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> >>> Sent: 29 December 2018 23:34
> >>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> >>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?
> >>>
> >>> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
> >>> this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
> >>> that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to
> >>> comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The
> >> target
> >>> audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
> >>> Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first
> >>> several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
> >>> apologize in advance.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Yaroslav
> >>> _________________
> >>> I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of Wikipedia.
> >>> Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless, but
> >>> someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly
> >>> talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I am
> >>> active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues,
> >> but
> >>> there are typically many other things going on there which make the
> >> picture
> >>> more complicated.
> >>>
> >>> Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since 2001,
> >>> and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million
> >>> articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have
> >> already
> >>> been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to point
> >>> out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article on
> >> an
> >>> urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many
> >> articles
> >>> are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and
> >> they
> >>> need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular
> >> basis:
> >>> new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and
> >> so
> >>> on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since
> >>> there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world in
> >>> terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is not
> >> so
> >>> much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been
> >>> already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia -
> >>> or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first
> >> hit
> >>> &#8212; they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance.
> >>>
> >>> In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008 or
> >>> Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody could
> >>> contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951 film
> >>> "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started in
> >>> 2005, as well as an article on Cy Twombly, at the time probably the most
> >>> famous living artist. This is not possible anymore. This is why the
> >> number
> >>> of active editors is currently dropping - to contribute to the content
> >> in a
> >>> meaningful way, one now has to be an advanced amateur - to master some
> >>> field of knowledge much better than most others do. Or one can be a
> >>> professional - but there are very few professionals contributing to
> >>> Wikipedia in their fields, and there are very few articles written at a
> >>> professional level. Attempts to attract professionals have been made for
> >>> many years, and, despite certain local success, generally failed. They
> >> have
> >>> been going now for long enough to assume they will never succeed on a
> >> large
> >>> scale. Wikipedia is written by advance amateurs for amateurs. However,
> >>> despite the decline in the number of editors, there are enough resources
> >> to
> >>> maintain and to expand the project. It does not mean there are no
> >> problems
> >>> - there are in fact many problems. One of the most commonly discussed one
> >>> is systemic bias - there is way more information on Wikipedia on subjects
> >>> pertaining to North America than to Africa, and if a topic is viewed on
> >>> differently in different countries, one can be sure that the American
> >> view
> >>> dominates. But it is usually thought - and I agree with this - that these
> >>> drawbacks are not crucial, and Wikipedia is atill a useful and
> >> sustainable
> >>> project. Wikipedia clearly has its ecosystem, there are no competitors to
> >>> talk about, and all attempts to fork it were unsuccessful. There is a
> >>> steady development, and everybody is happy.
> >>>
> >>> Does this mean that everything is fine and we do not need to worry?, just
> >>> to wait until missing articles get written, or even to help this by
> >> writing
> >>> them ourselves?
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely not. To understand this, we can look again at the editor base.
> >>> There are detailed studies, but, for a starter, it is a nightmare to edit
> >>> Wikipedia from a cell phone. It is possible but not much easier to edit
> >> it
> >>> from a tablet. The mobile version is different from a desktop one, and it
> >>> is not really optimized for editing. This is a known problem, but one
> >>> aspect of it is clear. Most Wikipedia editors actually own a desktop and
> >> a
> >>> laptop. This brings them into 18+ category. There are of course
> >> exceptions,
> >>> but the fact is that the editor base gets older, and this is a problem.
> >> The
> >>> problem is not so much at this point that we all die and there will be
> >>> nobody to edit Wikipedia. The problem is that the next generation (18-)
> >> has
> >>> very different ways of getting information. And I guess they are not
> >>> interested in editing Wikipedia, and they will not get interested when
> >> they
> >>> grow up - possibly beyond introducing minor corrections, which can be
> >> done
> >>> from a phone.
> >>>
> >>> Traditionally, students were always among the core of the editors base.
> >>> They already have some knowledge and they still have time to edit. When
> >>> they graduate, find a job and start a family, they have way less time and
> >>> typically stop editing. The next group are retirees. Between students and
> >>> retirees, we have a tiny fraction of dedicated enthusiasts who are ready
> >> to
> >>> take time from work and family, but they are really not numerous. Well,
> >> and
> >>> very soon we are going to lose students as editors. And we should be
> >> happy
> >>> if we do not lose them as readers.
> >>>
> >>> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two
> >>> important things about them. They have a very short attention span and
> >>> difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized
> >>> information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable
> >> of
> >>> watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20
> >>> pages from a book.
> >>>
> >>> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate /
> >> the
> >>> best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know
> >> the
> >>> answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise
> >>> the rest of the text does not make sense.
> >>>
> >>> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like
> >> to
> >>> be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious.
> >> Articles
> >>> must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need
> >> to
> >>> be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with
> >> more
> >>> voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just
> >>> further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next
> >>> clip.
> >>>
> >>> This is a paradigm shift. Currently, the editors generally consider that
> >> it
> >>> is good to have long Wikipedia articles - because long means more
> >> complete.
> >>> Sometimes there are even proposals (fortunately isolated and without
> >>> followup) to delete all short articles even if they describe notable
> >> topics
> >>> and contain verified information. Clips are almost not in use.  Of course
> >>> they still need to be made, but this is not such a big problem - there
> >> are
> >>> plenty of school students who have their own youtube channel, if they can
> >>> make clips, everybody can.
> >>>
> >>> The most difficult question is how this can be realized. I believe it is
> >>> not possible to just transform Wikipedia like this - make articles
> >> shorter
> >>> and simpler and spit them. First, this might be good for the young
> >>> generation, but this is still not good for the 18+ generation. Second,
> >> such
> >>> reforms should be either be approved by Wikipedia community through
> >>> consensus, or be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation who owns the
> >> project.
> >>> The likelihood of either is zero. Just to give one argument, the
> >> community
> >>> is, well, the community of editors, of the same 18+ people with laptops
> >> who
> >>> have no difficulties reading long texts.
> >>>
> >>> I envision it differently. Ideally, we have the Wikipedia as it is now,
> >> but
> >>> on top of this, every article has a collection of shorter companion
> >>> articles, simple and a paragraph or two long, so that each of them can be
> >>> read in half a minute, They should not have excessive markup, references,
> >>> categories or anything else which can be found in the main article if
> >>> needed. References in Wikipedia are required not for the sake of having
> >>> references, but as a means to ensure that the information is verifiable -
> >>> and if the main article does it the companion articles do not need to.
> >> Some
> >>> of these companion articles can be in fact clips - there is a difficulty
> >>> that clips can not be edited collaboratively, but I am sure this one can
> >> be
> >>> solved. If anybody wants to solve it.
> >>>
> >>> The status of what I have written above is science fiction. I am sure if
> >> I
> >>> come with this proposal to a village pump of Wikipedia, it will be dead
> >>> within a day. In addition, it requires some modifications of MediaWiki
> >>> which can only be done by the Foundation. And I am not really looking
> >>> forward for the Foundation implementing this either. I have a lot of
> >>> respect for some of the Foundation employees, but it has now grown up
> >> into
> >>> a big corporation now and behaves as a big corporation, where some people
> >>> care less about the product and more about other things, and some look at
> >>> Wikipedia editors, aka "unorganized volunteers", as some annoying
> >>> phenomenon, which they can tolerate but are not willing to listen to. My
> >>> forecast is pretty pessimistic. Unless a miracle happens (and I
> >> currently,
> >>> at least not from my perspective, do not see any reasons for a miracle to
> >>> happen), soon or late will realize this, It might be a startup company,
> >> or
> >>> a non-commercial. And Wikipedia will stay as it is, and, after the
> >>> standards change many times, it will not be readable / accessible to most
> >>> of internet users, and will slowly die. And the results of what were were
> >>> doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and
> >> happens
> >>> to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of
> >> pieces
> >>> of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until now.
> >>>
> >>> Yaroslav Blanter, editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia, 125
> >>> 000 edits.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> free online bettinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>> https://www.avg.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
free online betting

Reply via email to