Forum:Mini articles
Please let us have visions about the sense of mini articles. At this time it seems for me, that mini articles are the only possibility to improve search results. People at this time use this articles for describing the Searchword. Please have for the discussion here a look into search:MiniArticle. Do you think forum is the right place or should we take the discussion page? Happy to hear you, Conny 10:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- Discussion is appropriate both here and at search talk:MiniArticles. I moved the article from MiniArticle to search:MiniArticle because it is a policy issue. That begs the obvious question of what the main namespace (articles with nothing in front of them such as Mini:this or Help:that) is to be used for. My tentative vision is to use the Mini namespace for brief articles about a subject, but use the main namespace for in-depth analysis of disambiguation and search keywords needed to produce useful results for that particular word or phrase, see, for example Mini:Joseph Smith for examples of disambiguation. Also see Forum:The clogged search. There has been some discussion on the mailing list searchwiki, follow this thread. Here is Jimmy Wales's reaction, which was to abandon the Mini namespace entirely. Obviously, we do not need to duplicate Wikipedia articles, they are just a click away using Template:wp, but a brief "mini" article might be appropriate. Fred Bauder 13:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for information, I'll try to read. Conny 14:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
I think miniarticles are the first step of reduction of complexity. So the wikipedia is the basis of Information and the miniarticles are the bottom line. The next step could be knowledge meaning cognitive schemata who helps to act.--jeanpol 13:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems for me a license problem - Wikia can't use Wikipedia content. Conny 14:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
- So you can write the articles yourselve, using Wikipedia as source of informations.--jeanpol 14:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why should Wikia be unable to use Wikipedia content? --RainerBlome 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify RainerBlome's point. All written content of Wikipedia is copyrighted with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). This gives anyone the right to modify and redistribute material as long as the derived material retains the GFDL and refers to the original source. The only issue with using Wikipedia material might be that there would have to be copyright notices provided on any such derived page.
- Miniarticles should rather help reduce complexity of search and target mainly on this, see here for an example how to propose suitable keywords in case of disambiguation. Wikipedia and other online documents - feeded to this search engine's result pages - do provide content. --Kolywsko 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What about this recommandation: "Right now, the most important thing you can do is help with the "mini articles" that appear at the top of popular search terms. These will vary in purpose according to the circumstance, but the primary uses will be: Short definitions - Disambiguations - Photos - See also"?--jeanpol 14:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? --RainerBlome 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I mean, that miniarticles should include contains, not just links.--jeanpol 09:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Koliwsko deleted my definition of "Mensch". He says, "Though some of your miniarticle edits in my view seem to ignore that recommandation in favor of mentioning your professional project and collegues. In case you're meaning to defend your way to edit, please write that down in a discussion - or whatever else you intend to express. regards, Kelly --Kolywsko 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)" My answer (in my very bad English, but I have no problem with fuzziness): "You mean I should write my opinion about miniarticle in discussions, but where are the pages to discuss about that topic. Anyway: we all are trying to use the opportunity of miniarticles as good as possible, not just for our egoistic purpose but also for the project as a whole. If we can define for example "Mensch" in a way that is meaningful and useful, why not? You just have delete the definition I wrote. You destroid "knowledge" and didn't replace this knowledge through other useful informations. If you mean, that my definition of "Mensch" is not good enough, you can improve it. You can delete part of them, but not the all informations. We have new opportunities, and we have to experiment with them, not reacting "bureaucratic". But I'm afraid, my position is not easy to understand: open source means open for innovations. Also if somebody is setting a new definition of "Mensch".--jeanpol 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"
In order to be better undestood: we can try to write new definitions, not just the contents which are in the Wikipedia-articles. We can innovate! Forget Wikipedia, let us write new contents...--jeanpol 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
How to handle advertisement?
Is there any help page about this topic?
There seem to be a lot mini articles which are just for advertising purposes.
See e.g. the previous version of Mini:Steuerberater_Charlottenburg
Is it correct to delete such content? What about mini articles of companies etc.? Moguntia 10:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem. If somebody is looking for Steuerberater Charlottenburg, he will find it here. If he is not interested, he will not search for this information, and who cares?--jeanpol 11:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, it is ok for a small company to add an article on itself saying what is their business. But if it is just a link and contact information, with no real information at all, then it is deleted. On the other hand, if the company writes a huge text saying what it is about and how great they are, the part about how great they are can be considered not a neutral point of view, and so you can delete it and leave just a small text saying what the company does. Also please note that if you think a page should de really deleted, you should add {{delete|reason}} to it instead of just blanking it so that an administrator can detete it. -- Bani 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I just think, we have to be careful when we delete. Deleting is very often destroying knowledge. In wikipedia a lot of people are fond of deleting, especially when they don't create knowledge themselves!;-))--jeanpol 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's the reason I asked here if I was correct, i wanted to be sure. But are mini articles really there for finding companies? What if every IT company adds it's link to the mini article "IT"? I thought mini articles were there to give (further) information on the topic, and not to link to everything that has to do with it. Thats what the search results are for, or not? Moguntia 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- As we said, companies are free to write their own mini articles. If they attach the information to another keyword, there are two options: moving it to the company's name or deleting it. -- Bani 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then I don't understand why you reverted my delete. "Steuerberater" means tax accountant and Charlottenburg is a german city. This has nothing to do with the company of User:Müller-Böge. Actually he already has a own mini article about his company: Mini:Müller-Böge. -- Moguntia 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, deleted now that I understand what is going on :-) Sorry about the confusion. I don't speak german so I can only go with the information I had. Anyway, would be worse if I had deleted first and then figured out that I shouldn't have deleted (although that is reversible too). -- Bani 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I admit I should have asked here first before I delete it. I only became aware of the problem after I already deleted it. ;) Thanks for your answers. I completely agree with your point of view about advertisement in mini articles. Maybe it would be useful to start a discussion about it and create a help page on that topic. What do you think? Is there already any "official" statement about this problem? I could imagine this might become even more important as Wikia Search becomes more famous. -- Moguntia 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be documented somewhere. I've only seen it discussed on some user talk pages so far (including mine, in which I've added to my FAQ). I've sent and e-mail to Angela (Wikia co-founder) before asking about this subject, and she agreed to this view, so I think we can call it official. But we cold start a page to discuss it further and then maybe link it to search:Policies_and_guidelines. -- Bani 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I admit I should have asked here first before I delete it. I only became aware of the problem after I already deleted it. ;) Thanks for your answers. I completely agree with your point of view about advertisement in mini articles. Maybe it would be useful to start a discussion about it and create a help page on that topic. What do you think? Is there already any "official" statement about this problem? I could imagine this might become even more important as Wikia Search becomes more famous. -- Moguntia 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, deleted now that I understand what is going on :-) Sorry about the confusion. I don't speak german so I can only go with the information I had. Anyway, would be worse if I had deleted first and then figured out that I shouldn't have deleted (although that is reversible too). -- Bani 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then I don't understand why you reverted my delete. "Steuerberater" means tax accountant and Charlottenburg is a german city. This has nothing to do with the company of User:Müller-Böge. Actually he already has a own mini article about his company: Mini:Müller-Böge. -- Moguntia 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- As we said, companies are free to write their own mini articles. If they attach the information to another keyword, there are two options: moving it to the company's name or deleting it. -- Bani 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's the reason I asked here if I was correct, i wanted to be sure. But are mini articles really there for finding companies? What if every IT company adds it's link to the mini article "IT"? I thought mini articles were there to give (further) information on the topic, and not to link to everything that has to do with it. Thats what the search results are for, or not? Moguntia 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I just think, we have to be careful when we delete. Deleting is very often destroying knowledge. In wikipedia a lot of people are fond of deleting, especially when they don't create knowledge themselves!;-))--jeanpol 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, it is ok for a small company to add an article on itself saying what is their business. But if it is just a link and contact information, with no real information at all, then it is deleted. On the other hand, if the company writes a huge text saying what it is about and how great they are, the part about how great they are can be considered not a neutral point of view, and so you can delete it and leave just a small text saying what the company does. Also please note that if you think a page should de really deleted, you should add {{delete|reason}} to it instead of just blanking it so that an administrator can detete it. -- Bani 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)