Life In 19x19

kirkmc wrote:Just to repeat something I said earlier in this thread, the biggest problem is that Sensei's is not a wiki (at least the way Wikipedia is).

Further proof that Wikipedia destroyed any understanding of what a Wiki is meant to be. Wikipedia is sort of the big anti-wiki. People there are quite rigid in formalism, actively discourage contributions, even introduced a special new feature to automatise discouragement (at least in the german edition "sighted versions"), they cite 100 references per page, but still get everything wrong (at least in any contentious matters). For all mistakes of its own, I hope Sensei's Library will never be like that.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?SLIsNotWikipedia

kirkmc wrote:Just to repeat something I said earlier in this thread, the biggest problem is that Sensei's is not a wiki (at least the way Wikipedia is), it's a collection of comments in a chronological order. If the discussions took place on Talk pages, and the articles were edited like articles, and not forum threads, it might be more useful. Comprehensive pages are great, if they have a narrative, and not just a series of comments.

To be fair, I don't consider myself qualified to contribute much to Sensei's, but the structure will prevent me from ever doing so, as it's not conducive to serious explanations.

When I read this post the first time I thought Kirk was describing L19x19 SL is a real wiki imo. The real articles are just that, articles written at some length and then added to or modified by subsequent contributions. Granted, good articles are spoiled by inappropriate questions or irrelevant contributions inserted into them but that doesn't change the wiki nature of SL. And yes, there are pages that are just a sequence of comments but those could well be a good article in process of creation.

SL is a repository of go knowledge and thinking which has its flaws but is more useful than any other single source on the web. Other sources, such as L19x19 are poorly organized for a role as a repository of systematic knowledge or thinking. Also, in L19x19 no one can edit anyone else's posts so L19x19 really is a collection of comments in chronological order. The comments are never consolidated into a unified article, as happens on SL as a result of a master edit. Discussions can be easier to do on L19x19 but collection of knowledge is easier on SL.

I wanted to revive this thread, because the discussion of where to post book reviews has bubbled over into a discussion of SL.

At one point in that discussion, John Fairbairn suggests that a new structure for SL should include less discussions because discussions are better organized here. This makes a huge amount of sense. Discussions that clog SL could be fruitful if carried on here, particularly if the collaboration between SL and L19 were improved.

One idea would be to install a sub-forum specifically for SL and to link to it prominently on SL.

The reason I suggest this (and others have as well) is that the L19 forums function better than the SL forums and may be better suited to unite and ignite the somewhat stagnant SL community. What do you think?

I would like to mention a page that I think we got close to right on SL, the 10,000 year ko page ( http://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYearKo ).

Several people collaborated on a WME in October, 2005, which has held up pretty well. Structure is part of the reason. There are a number of subpages, which have made information available without cluttering the main page. Since the WME, a couple of subpages have been added. Recently new material has been added to the main page, and I hope that it will result in another subpage or two, or perhaps in another WME.

I think that there were three keys to making a good page: 1) collaboration, 2) attention to structure, and 3) knowledge. People who were interested in making a good page and who knew something about it got together, talked about it, ironed out their differences, and got it done. With the resulting clear exposition and clean structure in place, it has been relatively easy to add new material without messing things up.

I wonder whether it would make sense to put disclaimers at the end of SL pages along the lines of:

"This page discusses a [basic, intermediate, advanced] concept and is aimed at players from [lower rank bound] to [upper rank bound]. Please do not edit this page unless you consider your strength to be [upper rank bound +5] or stronger. If you are weaker than [upper rank bound +5] and believe you see a typo or style problem, post a comment on the discussion page."

jts wrote:I wonder whether it would make sense to put disclaimers at the end of SL pages along the lines of:

"This page discusses a [basic, intermediate, advanced] concept and is aimed at players from [lower rank bound] to [upper rank bound]. Please do not edit this page unless you consider your strength to be [upper rank bound +5] or stronger. If you are weaker than [upper rank bound +5] and believe you see a typo or style problem, post a comment on the discussion page."

This functionality already exists. You can set page difficulty for each page. (Introductory, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert) It is shown in the upper right.

(But opinions may differ, and setting page difficulties is one of those tasks nobody generally volunteers to. I.e. there is the feeling that some of the Beginner Exercises may be intermediate or even advanced, but re-evaluating the pages and re-setting difficulties is tedious.)

I don't see the point in even discouraging changes on typo, style or language (many contributors are not native speakers) problems. On pages I wrote I always prefer people changing whereever they believe it is necessary instead of adding overhead by asking "Your sentence is non-grammatical, may I change it.", please do change.

tapir wrote:I don't see the point in even discouraging changes on typo, style or language (many contributors are not native speakers) problems. On pages I wrote I always prefer people changing whereever they believe it is necessary instead of adding overhead by asking "Your sentence is non-grammatical, may I change it.", please do change.

I brought it up because Bill had mentioned weaker players doing "grammar edits" on his pages that completely destroyed the meaning. Obviously if original editor would like a copy editor, that's fine with me. (As you know! )

jts wrote:I brought it up because Bill had mentioned weaker players doing "grammar edits" on his pages that completely destroyed the meaning. Obviously if original editor would like a copy editor, that's fine with me. (As you know! )

Yes, I know. In any case a grammar edit that destroys the meaning is a minor annoyance at worst and easily undone after all. If we have a 1000 contributions a day, monitoring them will start looking like a task, nowadays it really isn't.

If enough people think it's worth having a forum here just for discussing Sensei's Library, I would be in favor of adding it.

jts wrote:I brought it up because Bill had mentioned weaker players doing "grammar edits" on his pages that completely destroyed the meaning. Obviously if original editor would like a copy editor, that's fine with me. (As you know! )

This can definitely be true with poor editors, but if the editor is actually any good, this could actually reflect an ambiguity in the source context (that is, highlight a mistake that already existed). (Note, I'm not at all suggesting that Bill's experience was an example of the latter ).

jts wrote:

tapir wrote:I don't see the point in even discouraging changes on typo, style or language (many contributors are not native speakers) problems. On pages I wrote I always prefer people changing whereever they believe it is necessary instead of adding overhead by asking "Your sentence is non-grammatical, may I change it.", please do change.

I brought it up because Bill had mentioned weaker players doing "grammar edits" on his pages that completely destroyed the meaning. Obviously if original editor would like a copy editor, that's fine with me. (As you know! )

Actually, I was not referring to grammar edits, which are almost always innocuous. I was talking about edits that destroyed or altered the context of certain material, thereby altering its meaning.

I like SL. Often, I don't actually use it to look up specific information, but pick a random page and then "hop" from page to page, based on interesting sounding hyperlinks or linked sub/follow-up pages. Not surprisingly, I frequently do the same with Wikipedia. It's inevitable that I learn something new, even if it may be trivial, so it's a bit like an educational trip into the unknown wilderness of knowledge buried on the web.

(Hmm, now that I think about it, I did the same already as a child, just with encyclopedias and dictionaries.)

If you want to see one of the things wrong with SL, look at the just posted "Bent Seven in the Corner is Dead". Having signed articles would help combat this type of moronic behaviour.

I think that page is a (failed) attempt at humo[u]r. It's not linked from anywhere else on sensei's, so I don't think it's causing a great deal of harm...

John Fairbairn wrote:If you want to see one of the things wrong with SL, look at the just posted "Bent Seven in the Corner is Dead". Having signed articles would help combat this type of moronic behaviour.

I agree with your evaluation of that particular "article" but I don't blame SL for it. I doubt that having signed articles would make much difference even if "nicks" and "handles" were forbidden and only real names allowed. After all there are plenty of moronic postings on L19x19. That sort of thing is hard to avoid on the internet. As for "Bent Seven", waste of server storage though it is, it is flagged as humour and will most likely sink without much of a trace eventually. Actually, articles like that and the B-2 Bomber material are probably a reflection of people, likely rather young people, who don't really understand the game and are expressing their lack of self esteem and confidence.