Editing Talk:Wiki linking

[http://disinfopedia.org/ Disinfopedia] is probably more relevant to Consumerium work than meta Wikipedia, so, it would be nice to easily link to there.  They like us are about exposing evil, so, we may need to let them do for instance the identifying of people and organizations with agendas.  Also opponents of any of our [[faction]]s would want to write articles on them there, and we should keep an eye on that.

Disinfopedia doesn't have an [[w:InterWiki]] namespace... I added Consumerium to the [[w:MeatballWiki]] InterWiki-map, but it has a delay and is propably not propagated to Wikipedia or Disinfopedia. I really haven't investigated the issue properly.

But on linking to [[Wikipedia]] from other wikis using Wikipedia-software:

One neat feature for Wikipedia Phase IV would be Javascript that automatically checks are your links blue or red while editing and TAB-completion like on UNIX shells. When editing [[Consumerium]] we have to "preview" and then "open in new window" all links going to [[Wikipedia]] to check that article name is correct, which is just putting unncessary load on the 'pedia. It'd be supercool if the Javascript would also store few first lines of content and show that in a hoverbox, so one could quickly make sure it's pointing to the right concept (like [[w:LLC]] has no mention of Limited Liability Company, but some stuff about Logical Link Control, which is propably not what we mean)

I should mail Wikitech-L about this.... I have some other suggestions too
----
== proposed standards ==

*[[interwiki link standard]]
*[[interwiki identity standard]] - for links between authors and articles which are presently treated as "special", despite the fact they are often very tenuous
*[[standard wiki URI]]

There are some temporary hacks which violate standards of the vast majority of [[GFDL text corpus]] articles, and others which make it difficult to move away from a service-specific hierarchy to a language-specific hierarchy.  These are:

''This current practice also violates the proposed [[interwiki link standard]], which would reverse this to [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce_�quitable]], putting the language first to create a language-specific hierarchy, and requiring the full service name "Wikipedia".''

:Proposed by some trolls. Can we focus on real issues like how to subdivide the [[wikis]] so that people ([[consumer]]s,�[[developer]]s, [[researcher]]s...etc) get adequate access to the information without being engulfed into global Consumerium. That is we need local [[Wikis]] in local [[languages]] but how are things to be [[designer|designed]] so that it works smoothly (read: people can access services in a language natural to them and access only locally relevant information, not some comparison of some [[supermarket]]s on the other side of the globe)? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:28, 13 Mar 2004 (EET)

::No point in further discussion by [[trolls]] of any language issues until the [[Lowest Troll]] demonstrates that he understands enough of them to be worth talking to about it.  It would take you two seconds to make sure that [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce_�quitable]] works, and that [[W:fr:Commerce_�quitable]] goes to a page saying "please put the language first, how am I to know what the "w:" means until I know you are in French?".  Who really cares if [[w:]] goes to [[en:Wikipedia:]] or [[Wikipedia:en:]] behind the scenes?  This is a service policy issue, it's irrelevant what [[GetWiki]] or [[MediaWiki]] do right now.  Services have to set the right precedents.  We'll work hard on this when the links are in the right order.  And [[en:]], [[fr:]] should just go to the best source, period, which might be [[Recyclopedia]] or [[Disinfopedia]] or [[Wikinfo]] or [[Metaweb]] for some articles.  There should be nothing assumed about the service that one is invoking when one simply indicates language codes.  That's what the ISO says, anyway.  And they set standards, not trolls and not developers.

::So make [[en:w:]] and [[fr:w:]] work, and disable the reverse, and we'll try to solve language problems;  until then, you are asking us to solve Wikipedia problems, and we refuse

::[[en:gfdl:]] and [[en:neutral:]] would be even better.  Then the best GFDL source, or best neutral source, could be determined dynamically by the service, without requiring every author to care, or track the decline of [[Wikipedia]] or the rise of [[Wikinfo]] or [[Metaweb]] or whatever.  Really the best GFDL source this week is [[Recyclopedia]] since it has a very recent [[Wikipedia]] dump, and more accurate articles that have no censorship of concepts critical to [[Consumerium]].