Meta:MetaPage

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Alle van Meeteren 08:03, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

I noticed this page "MetaPage". I also saw the technic described on this page, is hardly used. I am aware of the MediaWiki subdivision of pages in Namespaces. There exists also a standard namespace "Meta" in MediaWiki. Is it an idea to make a Meta namespace for WikiWorld?.

Is it also an idea to create some custom namespaces for the several projects on WikiWorld? see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Custom_namespaces


This is a very good idea for an implementation of namespace. The only requirement is that there needs to be a way to easily access the page, for those without express knowledge of our wiki system. We would have to find a way to modify the code so that Meta is a tab: |Article|Discussion|MetaPage| or something to that effect, in that clicking on metapage would automatically result in Meta:PageName, in the same method that clicking the discussion tab results in Talk:PageName. I suppose that I should start Feature Requests as an extension of MediaWikiCentral to keep track of everything that we want to do. --KenSchry 08:35, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

Addendum: Alle, don't implement your system until you can prove that it works. You claim that it does, and it's great that you have a system that you can follow, though it does not satisfy the end users. You can use your talk page and create other pages specifically on which to experiment with your system, though until you perfect it (or as close to that as you can get), let's hold off on widespread implementation in other pages. --KenSchry

Meta function already exists?

Alle, how do you envision Meta working? From what I envision/understand so far, it would seem that "Meta" is not needed, as that's what the "Discussion" tab (you know, the "Talk:") handles. Discussion and notation about the page's meta data and extraneous concepts.



StarPilot (I quess you wrote the text above),

Meta is an instruction about the use of the article page. Talk is a place to discuss with eachother about the article page. I am not sure Meta-pages are needed, but we were thinking about that. -- Alle van Meeteren 06:00, 28 July 2006 (EDT)


Meta does not have to be ONLY instructions, that is just one potential use of the page. For example:

  • Right now, the meta keywords are created based off of WikiLinks on the page. That means that the keywords aren't necessarily related to the page's content as a whole. MetaPage could contain the keywords that would better catagorize the article page for search engines.
  • MetaPages could contain a quick review of the discussion on the content page.
  • Right now, we assume that all pages behave in the same "Back-and-forth" discussion structure. This behavior may change in the future, and Meta could help facilitate the instructions for formatting that page according to user specifications.
    --KenSchry 09:19, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

But you agree with me Meta has another use than Talk, and Talk has another use than Main (article pages)? Alle van Meeteren 10:40, 28 July 2006 (EDT)


Eh, now you're just trying to be sneaky. Meta definately has potential applications, that if put into effect, should be separate from the content page. However, I cannot blatantly say that article pages are different from their Talk counterparts; depending on the circumstances, that may not be true.

Alle, you have to realize that a majority of the pages here are just simple back-and-forth discussion. Talk pages can be useful for certain tasks, side conversations that deviate from the main topic is one example, though you need to re-evaluate how you approach WikiWorld. There are three points that matter: the information, how you present it, and where you put it. You're formatting data in a way that's unfriendly to the user on pages that aren't linked from anywhere. At the very least, you need to come up with a temporary hub for these topics, our reliance on Recent Changes will run out after a while. I seem to have deviated from the focus, so we need to get back to the topic at hand: is it worth integrating MetaPages for the reasons stated above (or any other proposed future uses?)
--KenSchry 19:57, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

JimScarver 22:10, 30 July 2006 (EDT) I think meta pages would be useful for talk about the page itself. I think Alle is correct that we should attempt to use Mediawiki as it was intended with articles and discussions largely separated. There is also the need to talk about the page, refactoring, deletion, should the content by moved to talk because it has become a discussion, etc.

Technically meta information is any information about the page including keywords, discriptions, etc. In the context here is could mean any information about the page that is not already handled in some other manner. In particular there is a needs to discuss the logistics of the page itself and that is the useful role I see meta pages filling. Star suggested using Talk pages for that purpose and I agreed initially. If we can add separate Meta pages for this purpose I think that would be an improvement.

Talk pages can be an integral part of the basic content of WikiWorld, and they should be searched by default along with the article pages.

Here we are having a discussion that perhaps should go in a talk page. However there is no reason to move it until we have an article on "MetaPage" to replace this page. We should not be anal about forcing all discussion on talk pages unless such discussion obscures an article.

I would like to see a Meta tab at the top along with Article and Talk.

  • article - the topic, our synthesis to the extent it exists, initially it may start as a series of random thought and arguments from which an article/synthesis is crafted at the begining and finally the initial crap may be moved to the talk page.
  • talk - discussion about the topic
  • meta - discussion about the article and talk pages.

Much of what we have done in wikiworld has been talk, but there are also articles, so why not catagorize them properly as a general rule, without being anal about it.


Let's be honest about this: To make a system work, you have to be disciplined (meaning, you have to be anal). Otherwise, why waste the effort? If we aren't anal about it, then it will either fall to the wayside (like the .discussion system did), or we will end up with a hodge-podge that no one really understands and no one will be able to use efficently or quickly.

Now, I've been programming for a very long time. So, to me, "Meta" should be the "Meta" data of the page itself. Keywords and whatnot. It seemed to me that Alle was suggesting something more akin to yet another discussion tab. If we are going to have some process go through and pull out the meta-data (keywords, form structures, etc), then we definately do not need a tab on the page for it. Otherwise, let's just rename Discussion to Meta and be done with it. (Or rather, put up the meta tab, remove the discussion, and move all the "talk" pages to "Meta"). Or just agree that such talk can go on the "Discussion" tab, and not do all that moving and bother. ;-)

If it's worth doing, we have to be disciplined to make it work. That's what my experience tells me. Anyone have any different experiences?

--StarPilot 18:43, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

Meta is not the same as Talk Alle van Meeteren

I suggested to make use of the NAMESPACE meta. I found out that is a namespace on the wiki of WikiMedia itself. I did this suggestion after I saw that our former wiki had a MetaPage, and I understood that the idea was to have a MetaPage for every page. Using the namespace looks like the technic to realize that idea.

Ken likes the idea and suggested even a special tab, so that the meta-page is every time near by. I thought that Ken meant not only the formal meta-data of that page (key-words form structures), but also to leave an instruction about the use of the particular page. Perhaps a short history, the logical relation of the particular page to other pages. Perhaps a special procedure for the way we handle that page. A cleaning team?

That function is definitely another one than that of holding a direct dialog, with consequences for the style used, And so has the article-page also another function than Meta and Talk, with consequences for the style wherein the different pages are best written.

21:02, 31 July 2006 (EDT)


Given the results of my experiment this morning (See MetaContentTestPage and Meta:MetaContentTestPage), we can assume that Meta will not behave in the way that we desire. When I suggested that Meta be used for keywords, I was under the assumption that REDIRECT tags were able to function with content present on the page, we now know that is not so. There are a few possible solutions:

  • Modify the page output to include categories (link), and organize a WikiWorldCategorizationTaskforce
  • Simply include a "Keywords section" of the page that lists desired meta-keywords in wiki links
  • Your solution here?
--KenSchry 09:17, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

Want for description of meta Alle van Meeteren

13:24, 4 August 2006 (EDT) Can you describe why we want to use meta? And the way it should behave?


We want to implement Meta for the purpose of augmenting the current meta-tag system, whose methodology doesn't work very well for our usage (MediaWiki creates meta-tags based off of wiki links, so we end up with tags that aren't necessarily related to the page content). We need to examine our options and choose the most viable, which are: write an extension that allows for direct input of meta-tags from the wiki page, implement an existing extension that uses categories as meta-tags, or experiment with the meta namespace concept to try to make it fit our needs.

Meta-Tags should be representative of the page they exist on, using keywords to identify the broad aspects of that page.
KenSchry 20:01, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
Personal tools