Talk:Association of Structurist Wikipedians/Archive 1

Hm. Are you in favor of making empty catagories, or just somewhat anti-mergist? If the latter, I'd join. Tlogmer 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm anti-mergist plus we encourage the creation of things mergists want to merge. For instance if you know something exists or identify a missing article you should create the article, catgorise and stub it. Even if is it's existance is all you know.--JIrate 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I was going to form another association, but the fractal convinced me otherwise. Here's the original write-up:

Association of (a) Wikipedia Sectionalist(s) (aka Loose collection of (a) Wikipedia Trans/Cisclusionist(s))

Penultimately, each main section of an article will have it's own page, with it's own commentary.

Ultimately, each sentence and/or paragraph will have it's own page that is linked to from the "main" article page.

This is generally anti-deletionist, anti-mergist, ultra-inclusionist and even more ultra-structuralist (and may or may not be anarchistic).

Read #User Agents on how these sub-sections can be usefully integrated.

After that

After we graduate from wikipedia (and wikinfo, etc...), each word will have it's own page (possibly on different servers), to be integrated into a main page by a User Agent (generic, or tailored by each individual user). Certain words can be integrated in, while certain ones are left out. The newest section or word can be used in some cases, older words in other cases (thus allowing CVS-oldversioning for individual words and sentences), words unique to each individual that are not stored on the server(s) can be specially integrated by each individual's User Agent.

We will then be the Association of Wiki (Information) Sectionalists, at least until the wiki format is traded for something else (possibly an integrated wiki/blog/forum format intermediately).

User Agents

Will probably initially be Style Sheets/XML configurations, cookie-based cgi-engines, and/or browser plugins (an initial low-end form can use wikipedia Templates, or others forms of transclusions and inclusions). In this way, someone can edit an entire article at once, while still retaining the ability to save different parts of the article to different pages. User agents can statically and dynamically integrate.

Examples

John (is/was) (a/my) (boy/car):

• John is a boy
• John was my car
• John was a boy
• John (is/was) my boy
• etc...

Pros

• This allows individual or regional grammars, words, idioms, spellings, etc...
• Allows multiple "authoritative" (ie. "signed" and encouraged to be read) versions

Cons

• These should be fairly obvious (time and non-server technology mostly)

Addition: Things to Consider

• multilingualism. A character in traditional chinese may be more than one english word. An english word may be described with 2 or 3 french words. Etc.... This will make subdividing and translating more fun.
  • A character or word(s) may have to change to a different word if the meaning of the word(s) it is translating changes due to it's proximity to other words. This can be handled by a semi-"intelligent" agent.

---

24.22.227.53 09:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like this is already being done: [1] 24.22.227.53 13:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Doing this with images, movies, and other forms of media (why only media???)!!!

See the "project" site for the potential implementation of this in wikimedia.

Future of the Association

This Association is in serious trouble. From now on, I think it would be a good idea if everything we do is in the name of the organization. Article edits/creations should not be signed in your name; they should be signed in the name of the organization. This should spread popularity and a general sense of brotherhood within the organization. With our founder indefinitely censored, we need to work together.

UNDER NO LEADERSHIP.

Al-Kadafi 05:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Irate (founder)

Hm. Irate seems to have been a fairly notorious vandal; now he's banned, personally, by Jimbo. But I like the structurist philosophy (obvisouly, since I came up with a lot of it =P ) and don't want to see the association tarred by his involvement. So I'm thinking of removing the "founded by" line from the main page. Tlogmer 21:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I never vandlised anything. It was things like accusing people of having "shit for brains" in talk pages that I was banned for. Something I feel like doing again and I was only band from English Wikipedia. It may be time to hang some kulaks.--JIrate 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletionist Structurists

They exist. Right now structurists are just inclusionists who wear good clothes.

Instead of favoring the more important benefits of structure, like

• ease of finding relevant information
• efficiency of reading
• creating trust
  • (probably the most important benefit structurists can provide Wikipedia)

you're diverging on dreams and "increasing potential."

We should dream, no doubt. But what doesn't exist yet should not be the focus of structurists. Structure exists now. It makes everything else that exists now better. It does so primarily for reasons like the above list, but also because it facilitates the creation of new perspectives and more detail.

Structurism is independent of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum, of which mergism is the center. We're anti-mergist. That means we add a new dimension to the spectrum. Structurists must be able to freely associate with either inclusionists or deletionists.

I will join if there are others who recognize that structurism can be more than "dreamy inclusionism." --Slac 18:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I quit wikipedia and have decided to do things of real benefit in my own life. If anyone wants to actually program what I've described (it shouldn't take more than 6 months for someone who really knows the system) feel free to and to take the credit. --Formerly the IP-address 24.22.227.53