Difference between revisions of "Talk:Citations"
(add a couple more loose ends to the story of citations) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
It's just that I want to be able to quickly enter a Citation in "Chicago Style" (''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style The Chicago Manual of Style]'') or ''the'' general 80% use-case citation style by filling out a dialog box or template but without needing to brush up on things I might have learned while writing papers in college. | It's just that I want to be able to quickly enter a Citation in "Chicago Style" (''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style The Chicago Manual of Style]'') or ''the'' general 80% use-case citation style by filling out a dialog box or template but without needing to brush up on things I might have learned while writing papers in college. | ||
| − | It's great that the open source community - both developers and editors - has been hacking away at Citations as a feature for years (e.g. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2021/Results/Citations 2021 Wishlist Survey results for Citations] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Results/Citations 2022] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023/Results/Citations 2023] and an entire conference series called "WikiCite" eg. WikiCite 2020 presentation "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJbbvjXtkg The frontend of WikiCite]" {{#ev:youtube|gCJbbvjXtkg|start=6:18}}). | + | It's great that the open source community - both developers and editors - has been hacking away at Citations as a feature for years (e.g. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2021/Results/Citations 2021 Wishlist Survey results for Citations] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Results/Citations 2022] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023/Results/Citations 2023] and an entire conference series called "WikiCite" eg. WikiCite 2020 presentation "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCJbbvjXtkg The frontend of WikiCite]" {{#ev:youtube|gCJbbvjXtkg|start=6:18}}) which also has an [https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/The_frontend_of_WikiCite extensive etherpad]. |
There has also been a years-long initiative to create "'''Global templates'''" | There has also been a years-long initiative to create "'''Global templates'''" | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Taxonomy | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Taxonomy | ||
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Taxonomy#Citations | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Taxonomy#Citations | ||
| + | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Alternative_solutions | ||
| + | * https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Transition | ||
But in a 3rd-party context, I don't want to have to know or understand any of that in order to accomplish the simple task at hand: creating a citation/footnote in a standard format. | But in a 3rd-party context, I don't want to have to know or understand any of that in order to accomplish the simple task at hand: creating a citation/footnote in a standard format. | ||
| + | |||
| + | And, from a competitive landscape perspective, if Drupal, WordPress, and writers tools like Scribbr have Citation generation "built-in"<ref>Check how these other projects use CSL and/or perhaps use a library for CSL like Citation.js? https://citationstyles.org/</ref> then why doesn't MediaWiki? | ||
{{ambox| | {{ambox| | ||
| Line 50: | Line 54: | ||
Without an easy '''existing''' solution, users will simply not adopt the software, or not reference information that should be referenced. You could ''maybe'' resort to third-party tools to help you create parenthetical referfences (e.g. [https://www.scribbr.com/citing-sources/citation-styles/ Scribbr]), but that is a failure from the MediaWiki project perspective if users need to use other tools for basic functionality. | Without an easy '''existing''' solution, users will simply not adopt the software, or not reference information that should be referenced. You could ''maybe'' resort to third-party tools to help you create parenthetical referfences (e.g. [https://www.scribbr.com/citing-sources/citation-styles/ Scribbr]), but that is a failure from the MediaWiki project perspective if users need to use other tools for basic functionality. | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''One idea''' |
We can develop a basic set of templates and possibly Lua code, system messages and Project namespace content bundled into a Page Exchange bundle. | We can develop a basic set of templates and possibly Lua code, system messages and Project namespace content bundled into a Page Exchange bundle. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
Latest revision as of 15:25, 5 February 2024
Citation needed[1]
What methods do people use to turn their MediaWiki instances into actual useful software?
OK, I know that's a loaded question, so let me explain.
I want to be able to do "Wikipedia-style" citations. And, you might think that this is a feature built-in to the software. It is not. And adding the Cite extension does not provide the polished feature functionality that I want. (Extension CiteThisPage is beside the point - although very useful). As an aside, the more that 3rd-party wikis can resemble Wikipedia, the easier it is to gain editors of Wikipedia (they've already learned how) at the same time that contributors to Wikipedia will be familiar with the software presented by 3rd-party instances.
Admittedly, if you review the mw:Help:Cite (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Cite) page, the Cite extension is very powerful and feature-rich.
It's just that I want to be able to quickly enter a Citation in "Chicago Style" (The Chicago Manual of Style) or the general 80% use-case citation style by filling out a dialog box or template but without needing to brush up on things I might have learned while writing papers in college.
It's great that the open source community - both developers and editors - has been hacking away at Citations as a feature for years (e.g. 2021 Wishlist Survey results for Citations 2022 2023 and an entire conference series called "WikiCite" eg. WikiCite 2020 presentation "The frontend of WikiCite"
) which also has an extensive etherpad.
There has also been a years-long initiative to create "Global templates"
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Taxonomy
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Taxonomy#Citations
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Alternative_solutions
- https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Transition
But in a 3rd-party context, I don't want to have to know or understand any of that in order to accomplish the simple task at hand: creating a citation/footnote in a standard format.
And, from a competitive landscape perspective, if Drupal, WordPress, and writers tools like Scribbr have Citation generation "built-in"[2] then why doesn't MediaWiki?
 |
I probably am writing this prematurely. I need to upgrade this site to the latest version of MediaWiki and VisualEditor because there are (apparently) some functionalities built-in now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualEditor#Using_standard_cite_templates
It looks like you need to create your own templates - the original problem! To quote from WMDE Technical Wishes/extending references: And then, you install the Visual Editor citation tool |
It has bothered me for a long time that you can't re-use templates from WMF due to "dependency hell" (using that term loosely here to describe the cascading inclusion of dozens of templates and modules). I imported dozens of templates and modules in 2017 in an attempt to get basic "citation" and "Infobox" templates. This is still the technique for implementing the Citation Tool
- Citation Style 1
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_Style_1
My Wiki is Not Wikipedia[edit source]
Wikipedia (and the world-wide collection of language and project encyclopedias) has developed an extensive toolset, policy for citing sources, and technical infrastructure for citations and footnotes. For example, there is the "Sfn" (short footnote) template which combines citations in a page and creates a footnote. I don't need all that. I don't want all that.
As an additional aside, 3rd-party wikis should absolutely create their own "Manual of Style" and other guidelines to assist their community -- something which obviously doesn't come with the software.
Solution[edit source]
Without an easy existing solution, users will simply not adopt the software, or not reference information that should be referenced. You could maybe resort to third-party tools to help you create parenthetical referfences (e.g. Scribbr), but that is a failure from the MediaWiki project perspective if users need to use other tools for basic functionality.
One idea
We can develop a basic set of templates and possibly Lua code, system messages and Project namespace content bundled into a Page Exchange bundle.
See Also[edit source]
- Workboard for a "Cite Extends" or so-called "book referencing" from German Wikipedia community
- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Technische_W%C3%BCnsche/Topw%C3%BCnsche/Erweiterung_der_Einzelnachweise
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/4256/
- ↑ This wiki doesn't even have the Template:Citation needed template! One more example of the need for Global templates
- ↑ Check how these other projects use CSL and/or perhaps use a library for CSL like Citation.js? https://citationstyles.org/
