Psychology Wiki

This wiki's URL has been migrated to the primary fandom.com domain.Read more here

READ MORE

Psychology Wiki
Ppiotr (talk | contribs)
Line 152: Line 152:
   
 
My reversion of the article was prompted by an anonymous IP blanking various sections of this article with no explanation, usually if it's fair play they enter an explanation the 2nd time. I had no evidence to prove it wasn't malicious so I kept the article intact. Cheers. --{{subst:User:Charitwo/SigX}} 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 
My reversion of the article was prompted by an anonymous IP blanking various sections of this article with no explanation, usually if it's fair play they enter an explanation the 2nd time. I had no evidence to prove it wasn't malicious so I kept the article intact. Cheers. --{{subst:User:Charitwo/SigX}} 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Semantic Media Wiki ==
  +
  +
Hi. Any interest in testing Semantic Media Wiki extension? It may be useful for a scientific wiki like yours.
  +
* [[wikia:Forum:Semantic_MediaWiki_update|forum thread]]
  +
* [http://fp007.sjc.wikia-inc.com test wiki]
  +
-- [[User:Ppiotr|Nef]] <staff /> ([[User talk:Ppiotr|talk]]) 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:32, 25 February 2008

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Psychology: Debates · Journals · Psychologists


Please put your new messages at the bottom of this page and I will get back to you promptly.

Archive 1

RE:How did you do that

MediaWiki and Wikia software will do anything in the world you want it to, except editing; you just need to know how to work it. I'm not sure I have the knowledge to run a bot, but, being a 16 year old with too much time on her hands, I know how to work special pages. I found the list of double redirects here, of which there were about 400 (this will show the exact number, subtract one edit for my response here). From there it was just a bunch of consistency. Special:Specialpages should be a page you check often, daily if possible, to do minor "cleaning up" edits. Christine

I need a sysop, and someone who actually knows about psychology =D. On this page there are images that are not used in any namespace. If you can find a use for them in any articles, you may want to add them, or delete any unnecessary ones. On this page there are redirects that lead to non-existant pages. For these, I'm unsure of where to direct them to, so someone with knowledge of the articles on this wiki would be best for this job. If those can't be used, they can be left to create wanted pages and therefore give editors an idea for projects to work on, or they can be deleted.
As for my interest in psychology, I guess I am, but I don't think it's something I'd be thinking of career-wise. Editing wikis in general is just a hobby of mine, and I'm rather anal about keeping the special pages that control the functionality of the wiki and searching as clean as possible to make searching easiest, whether I know anything about the topic of the wiki or not. I'm a sysop at the RuneScape wiki, and yes, its an online game, but, a wiki is a wiki is a wiki. I've learned a lot from editing there, and I'd love to help out here in any way possible, but as for content editing I've never been very good. Do you by any chance have a speedy deletion template and/or category? I didn't see one when I looked in the template namespace. Christine Yes, I'm remembering to date this time. I need to set up a sig here.. 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything is all set up for speedy deletions. I've created Template:D which can be added to pages to be deleted. It can be added to a page with:
{{D|Page is spam/broken redirect/unused image (etc.)}}
Any page which uses this template will be added to Category:Speedy deletion candidates which should be checked at least on a daily basis. ChristineTalk 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would mark all the redirects for deletion to make things easier for you, but then again it seems rather trivial and/or redundant because they're all listed out for you on the Broken redirects special page, hence its already pretty easy anyways. And at least that way, with your knowledge of the articles here, you can see if there are proper articles to redirect them to. ChristineTalk 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion process

Just a thought...you might want to develop a "Speedy deletion" "policy" and process so that it doesn't all fall on your shoulders. For example, maybe have a place for people to comment on speedy deletion and then delete the page within a specific time period if two admins agree...I'm just thinking that setting up a process now while the work is small may come in handy when the site gets much larger and has much more activity. regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys need a deletion policy too... ChristineTalk 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I'd be glad to work on that if Dr. K would like....I could draft some language that the admins could kick around. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've written this on a category talk page, but maybe these are better. I found Template:Proposed deletion and Category:Pages proposed for deletion after (of course) I created similar pages and templates titled "Afd" and "Articles for deletion." Which name do you prefer? ChristineTalk 00:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My Bot can fix missing images

Hi Joe- you may recall I visited to fix your navbox template.


Over at Genealogy, I put together some Bot code to fix images. Given an article refering to images on Wikipedia or Commons, the Bot scans for the images and automagically uploads them to the site. I successfully tested this on Biological symbiosis. The code will work not just on WP source articles, but snippets of articles or original articles that simply reference Commons or WP image names that are not yet on your wikia.


If you have a list of pages requiring such fixing, please list them (and feel free to invite others to do so) at User:PhloxBot/pages with missing images and ping me at genealogy:User talk:Phlox ~ Phlox 07:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It reads the article, and for each Image: statement, it sees if the image exists on your server. If it fails to find it, it first checks commons, and uploads it and the description to your wikia. If commons doesn't have it, it tries en:WP.
  • Obviously, if the article already has images uploaded, or if it has no images, then the Bot does nothing and moves on to the next article in the list.
  • The list of articles to scan can be derived from the "what links here" for template enWP. Alternately, I could scan ever single page in your wikia.
~ Phlox 08:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OK Joe. I will do a test run of a few dozen pages in the next few days, then do a volume run in the wee hours when server load is low. The bot is throttled so that it doesn't monopolize the server, so this may take a few days to get through the entire wikia. If anything looks wrong, the way to pull the plug is to simply block PhloxBot. Regards, ~ Phlox 08:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


>>>> Query copied from Phlox talk on genealogy <<<<
Are you happy it is going OK? Like you say it is hard to monitor it from our end as we cant get onto it to do "what links here". I am trusting that its doing the job correctly. I have looked at the list of uploaded files and while there is the odd one or two titles I find unexpected they are probably linked to articles. Certainly the speed of the site is not noticeably impaired for users.We are really grateful for your help here as it is clearly saving us a lot of time.Dr Joe Kiff 07:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The processing is satisfactory. For images, "what links here" cannot be used as you noted. Instead, for any image that you are curious about, use the section at the bottom of its Image: page entitled "Links" EG: Image:Plastic 3d glasses.jpg notes in the Links section that it is used by Anaglyph image.
  • I see your articles are also missing a considerable number of templates. If you are happy with the results of the image run, I will perform a subsequent run to pull the templates over. What are the downsides? Some of these may suffer from the htmltidy problem. Overall though, I think once the template run is done, your wikia will have a bit more polish to it. ~ Phlox 07:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to change Template:wp. The purpose on Genealogy is to create links to Wikipedia articles in cases where no Genealogy article exists. You may instead want all of these to be red links, in which case I can do a pass and remove them, or you can immediately achieve the same by forcing the template to always generate a local link. Template:wpcat performs a similar function for wikipedia categories which may not be relevant to your wikia. ~ Phlox 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
With Template:wp it is best if the links remain red so we can copy over the pages in time and edit them for our purposes. It is best to generate local links with Template:wpcat as many of the catlinks on WP wont be relevant here.Dr Joe Kiff 07:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Okey dokey- The bot won't insert them from the E's onward, and those already with them- I'll alter the templates.
It is a problem we come up against at genealogy. I'll do what you say, but question whether it scales- at some point you depart your domain. In your case, are you really going to have an article on Chicha? (linked to from template Template:Alcoholic beverages) I don't have any great answers- from the standpoint of wikia as a business proposition, I don't particularly like the idea of sending eyeballs to WP..., can't red text them because the content doesn't belong. Can't black text them because obscure references deserve to be explained.... ~ Phlox 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a vandalization that hid behind a flood of changes created by phloxbot on 11/7. Apparently, a community team member can assign a bot flag. I have put in a request at w:User_talk:CatherineMunro#PhloxBot_Needs_a_Bot_flag. Please post there stating you approve the request. ~ Phlox 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I had the same question concerning the vandalization mentioned on Jack Phoenix's talk page (ref'd on Catherine's page). I poked around your logs, but perhaps Jack's cleanup activities removed all traces of its existence. I was unable to find anything. Supposedly it happenned on the 7th. ~ Phlox 18:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A database glitch on wikia caused whatever note you left on catherine's page to go to bit heaven. Could you repost thanks. ~ Phlox 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Phloxbot now has a Bot flag on your wikia. If in the future you request any large volume run, you may want to alert your folks that they can now hide PhloxBot's edits so they can easily monitor edits. ~ Phlox 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks Phlox. We will be in touch.Dr Joe Kiff 06:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about Archiving

Is there an easy way to archive old talk page threads other than creating a sub-page, Talk:Article Name-Archive#? Also, is there a policy on this or do you think we need one? Finally, do you think we need a policy/procedure regarding deletion of pages? and if so, would you like me to draft one? regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe, take a look at [[1]] for my draft on a policy and procedure regarding archiving. If this is ok, it can be set up (by you I'd guess) as our official policy and procedure and then I'd go ahead and bring over the redlinked articles we need connected to this...once that is done, I will take a stab at a P&P on page deletions. regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Joe, I believe that with the move, the entire talk page gets archived, so that current discussions will have to be copied and pasted back into the talk page. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Point six on moving says this...but I can add more if you think that's needed. If the page is ok, you could then copy it to a help page or policy page and I will then clean up the redlinks (just let me know where the official page is located.) regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If the draft needs more work, let me know what you want done. If it is ok, it can be put onto the help page and set up as a Psychwiki policy...just let me know the page and I will then work on eliminating the redlinks by adding the appropriate references. regards...Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem Editing

Joe, I am having a problem editing. When I make changes to the article Circulatory system some get saved and then suddenly, the article is back in its original state. I am trying to remove some of the redlinks....Also, when I've tried to add an article on Sphygmomanometer it won't save my material. I get an error message. What is the problem? regards, Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am having these troubles too at the moment I suspect it is a problem with the server not updating quickly as the changes seem to appear after a wait.You can see that the changes are recorded on the recent changes listing. Good work recently on the template front Dr Joe Kiff 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

do we have a means of blocking disruptive editors? See [[2]] whose vandalism has been repeatedly repaired by another user promoted my question. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Art. I have blocked him now.Dr Joe Kiff 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks. 69.204.15.239 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC) OOPS, forgot to log in, sorry. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another one that might be considered for blocking: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.143.226.129 Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see User:Angela has already taken care of it. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HI!!!

Thanks for the welcome! *hugs* --NOTASTAFF GPT(talk)(eating) 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh... I'm a bit too paranoid to use my real name, sorry. {='( Anyway, I'm just a teenager who really knows nothing about psychology, and I'm just a little interested in it so I'm looking around a bit... I won't be talking much other than this though so I won't really be signing much anyway, so not using my real name hopefully won't be too much of a problem. I probably won't edit much either, as I know nothing about psychology so far--though I will fix anything I can, as this is a trade-a-fact website, and I'd hate not to help out.... yeah. See you around! =D --NOTASTAFF GPT(talk)(eating) 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Log

There are a few articles up for Speedy Deletion [[3]] I was wondering who will actually do this? Who checks this category? regards. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on this list Art.Its been very useful Dr Joe Kiff 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nice new logo for the site. I like it. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Art. User:Remi Oyen did it some time ago aand it has taken me a while to find it and work out how to change the old one. I think it makes the page look a lot cleaner. Im thinking it could do with a frame around it what do you think? Thought we would just live with it for a while and see as we get used to it. Dr Joe Kiff 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
At this moment, I'd like to see a frame of some sort, but nothing too bold...maybe a light shadow-frame of some sort. Well, let's see what others think over time...no rush. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki stuff

Hi, Joe! I just responded to your post on my Central talk page, and came by to see how things are going here. I'm always really impressed by how much work you do on this wiki every day. I have a couple ideas that might help you out, if you're interested. How are things going on the wiki? Is there something you're trying to do that I can help with? -- Danny (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over . What ideas do you have up your sleeve? Dr Joe Kiff 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's a few things that I think may get in the way of a new person becoming a contributor. Right now, it looks like the main goal for the site is to get more people involved. You've got almost 22,000 pages, which is huge. So I think it's worth asking -- two years into the project, with 22,000 pages, and you're on the site every day -- why aren't more people contributing?
There are a lot of possible answers to that question. I have a couple ideas, based on what I know about wikis.
First up, I think the templates you're using at the top of each page are a little overwhelming. You've got more than thirty links at the top of each page, in four different type sizes. That's sitting directly between the title of the article and the content, so it's not easy for a reader to tell where to start reading. It might just be me, so feel free to ask other people if they find that off-putting. If you like, I could give you some pointers on different ways to build that navigation structure, so it doesn't have to sit on the top of each page.
The other thing -- and you're not going to believe I'm saying this -- is that you have too many pages. This wiki isn't unique in that way; I've seen some other wikis that fall into the same trap. It's really satisfying to create pages, and to see your wiki grow bigger and bigger... but at a certain point, you have to stop creating new pages, and focus on editing and expanding the pages that you have.
Right now, you've got twelve different stubs categories, with more than 3,800 pages listed as "stubs". You've got thousands of articles copied from Wikipedia, which are filled with redlinks, broken templates and category tags for categories that don't exist on this wiki. And looking at your stats, you're still creating about 15-20 new articles every day.
When new readers come to the site, they'll probably browse around for a while. It's really typical for new readers to hit "random page" a few times, just to get an idea of what's covered on the wiki.
I think it's a good exercise for a wiki founder to try that yourself, every once in a while, to see what kind of things come up when you hit "random page" ten times. How many of those ten pages feel "finished" to you? How many are stubs? If all you knew about Psychology Wiki was those ten pages, would you be interested in helping with the project?
Let me know what you think... I'm really impressed with your dedication to the wiki, and I'd love to see more people getting involved, to help you build the site up. -- Danny (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Joe, Interesting and good points. If you can suggest ways I can help, please let me know. I've been focusing, recently, on working on pages to elim all redlinks either by deleting the [[ ]] not needed or by creating linked pages, if relevant. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Danny. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It has been a mystery to me why more people havent become involved - but I have such a clear model in my head of how all this knowledge fits together that I am sustained by that. I am taking the long view and for my part I am working to a masterplan. If I had my way I would be building this in private at this stage for the reasons you point out, it can look unfinished and there is a lot of pruning to be done and it is still only a draft of what it will be. But I still dont quite understand why others do not contribute more. There is plenty for them to do. I am hoping that they recognise that it is an academic wiki and that raises the bar around contribution. That is off putting and daunting in one way, but will help maintain quality in the long run. I still think that perhaps the qualified people who might contribute, may think that an academic wiki is a contradiction in terms and do not come on board as it is not officially sanctioned. There was talk at wikia of advertising it more but that has not really been followed up. My own preference is to develop the structure further and then approach the scientific community to persuade them to engage with it as a learned text which is really my view of why it will be valuable and different from Wikipedia. That point is about 2 years away.

Im more concerned about usability and thought your observation on the links at the top of the page were spot on. What suggestions would you have for improving that situation?Dr Joe Kiff 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To understand why people don't contribute, you have to think about why people would -- what motivates people to contribute to a wiki. People won't contribute just because it's a worthwhile topic, or because there's a lot of work to do.
For the most part, people contribute to wikis because it feels like their contribution makes a difference. If they're going to spend time working on the site, then that work needs to feel meaningful. Otherwise, it feels like a waste of time, and they won't bother.
There are three things that a wiki founder can do to make people feel that their contributions are meaningful:
  • Social: You welcome every new contributor, and make them feel welcome. When a contributor adds a lot, you tell them how much you appreciate their work. If it looks like someone is trying to do something, but can't quite figure it out, you ask on their talk page if you can help.
  • Design: You design a site that actively encourages people to contribute. On the front page, you show people what needs to be done, and how they can help. You highlight your best pages, so they can see what a really good page looks like.
  • Role modeling: You contribute to the wiki in the way that you would like to see other people participate. That shows other contributors the kind of participation you're looking for.
From what I can tell, you guys are very good with welcoming people, and you're definitely a good role model for participation. I think the area that doesn't feel as welcoming here is the design. The front page reflects the masterplan that's in your head for what the site is supposed to be like in the future -- but it doesn't explain to people what they can do right now to help.
The design also suggests that this is a textbook, with links to "Books" leading to "Chapters". But that's not actually how people use wikis, either as readers or contributors. A wiki isn't meant to be read "cover to cover". It's meant to be browsed or searched -- starting with one point of interest, and then using links and categories to lead people on to more.
My overall suggestion is that you check out some of the other wikis on Wikia, and see how their main pages are organized. Three good examples are Muppet Wiki, Memory Alpha and FFXIclopedia. Those topics are obviously different from yours -- those are TV shows and video games, so the tone is going to be different. Try to put that aside for now, and just look at the way they organize their content. Look at what they choose to display on the front page, and how they invite people in to participate.
If you want a site where you can work privately for the next two years without anybody getting in your way, then this is great -- you have all the time in the world. If you'd like to have more people join you in that work, then I think it's worth looking at some wikis with active communities, and seeing what you can learn from them. -- Danny (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Danny. I am going to have to think about this. To me this is primarily a new kind of textbook, which is organised around a comprehensive knowledge structure. It has many of the advantages of a wiki (so you can move around and browse) but also overcomes some of its limitations (so it is structured, and comprehensive and able to be peer reviewed). It remains to be seen whether or not it falls between two stools we shall see. But in the long run there is a balance to be struck.

You didnt say what your ides were on the links at the top of the pageDr Joe Kiff 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One idea for the links is that you can move those to the sidebar -- you can edit MediaWiki:Sidebar and put those in there. Then you don't have to have them up at the top of every page.
I think your idea of creating a hybrid between a wiki and a textbook is interesting -- and as you say, you'll see how it works. I think it would be valuable for you to look closely at the wikis I linked to, and see how those are organized. If you're going to create a new kind of wiki, then I think it would be helpful to understand how wikis work. It's like the cliche about playing jazz -- you can break the rules, but first you need to know what the rules are. -- Danny (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi Joe,

My reversion of the article was prompted by an anonymous IP blanking various sections of this article with no explanation, usually if it's fair play they enter an explanation the 2nd time. I had no evidence to prove it wasn't malicious so I kept the article intact. Cheers. --{{subst:User:Charitwo/SigX}} 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Semantic Media Wiki

Hi. Any interest in testing Semantic Media Wiki extension? It may be useful for a scientific wiki like yours.

-- Nef (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)