Let's start the discussion. :)
Hi Yaron, thankyou for your response :)
Yes, I am totally aware of Navigation popups. But, WikIcards are almost totally different from Navigation popups.
First, the similarities between the two:
- A photo.
- Both have a thumbnail photo of the topic placed at top-right corner.
- Both are popups.
- Both aim at providing a kind of summary of the topic.
WikIcards: Contains links to search results of relevant wikimedia projects.
Navigation popups: No links other than the main wiki article. It may be that there's nothing much on wiki page, but a whole pile of information (more relevant) is on wikinews for that topic but, unfortunately the user doesn't know about it in any way! Even if he tries to do so, by going to different project sites and searching about the topic, he will end up wasting much of his time in searching and filtering still not being sure whether he will get the information or not, which is not what our motive is. Its rather "We will give it, if we have it".
W: Will be editable, and the main motive of the edits will be to improve the existing definition on the card and not the wiki article.
N: Are editable too (in a way), but to make any edits, the first para of its main article on Wikipedia has to be edited. That can sometimes make the article go out of its literal structure.
W: Accessible from anywhere across the web.
N: Accessible only when I am on wikipedia, and that too, restricted for registered users and even filtering to those who have enabled it.
W: Edits will be voted for.
Note: The displayed wikIcard in the image was just an example to show the structure. The description part will not be the first lines of its main wiki article as shown in image for the subject (here, JFK).
W: content.. will not be the first lines of wiki article, rather it will define the subject. Yes, for many, it will be the same as the introduction part of its corresponding wiki article, but not for all.
N: displays the first lines of wiki article.
To make things a bit more clear, consider this example:
For Madonna, Navigation pages popup shows- "Madonna Louise Ciccone (born August 16, 1958) is an American singer-songwriter, actress, director, dancer, and entrepreneur. Born in Bay City, Michigan, she moved to New York City in 1977 to pursue a career in modern dance and performed in the music groups Breakfast Club and Emmy."
What's wrong with this?
The first sentence is informative and yes, it will be the same in WikIcard too. But, the rest of all is not what defines or identifies her. Instead, it could be like... An influential pop culture icon, Madonna is known for continuously reinventing her music and image. Her work often include explicit content and drives her into controversies. (And then some of her best musics.)
Sorry, I am a bad content-writer, but what I want to explain is that the content should be more like which defines and identifies the topic. On wiki page introductions, sometimes it gets diverted to something related to the topic and fails to define the topic.
N: No APIs are avialable to create custom apps.
W: APIs will be available.
I am not sure with this one, but I think navigation popups are there to check whether the link is useful or not, as alongwith the content, it shows the no. of WikiLinks, images and other stats about the page.
W: They are not for this! They are to give a kind of hub of information on the topic.
Please, do correct me if I am wrong, but I think one of the problems wiki is facing right now is that the credibility of this huge knowledge on wiki cannot be easily tested, sometimes, leaving it untrustworthy. And, the main cause for this is its size, we can't introduce any checks like voting on such big articles. Even imagining it, looks ridiculous. But, we surely can do this if the information we are reviewing is of small size. Hence, for wikIcards containing not more than 200 letters on it, voting can be implemented, which will increase quality and user involvement.
- Thanks for the clarification. Since you ask, I don't personally think Wikipedia suffers from a credibility problem, but that's a matter of opinion. Yaron Koren (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely! I agree with you. I too use Wikipedia the most, for gathering any kind of information on any topic and I love the random button. But articles and hoaxes like Bicholim conflict ( a full 4500 words article describing something that never happened in history) do hurt my dependency on Wikipedia articles for my serious projects. Hope, this will eventually be coped up with.
I have some more questions... what should I do next? Who will be the mentor and how should I reach to him/her? And the most important, is my project feasible? Its yes in my opinion but, what you think about it? and what other Wikimedia mentors think about it?
I know you might be having a busy schedule and I don't want to burden you with these questions. Reply only when possible.
- In terms of being feasible - my guess is that a project like this would be considered too ambitious for GSoC. If you look at at the GSoC guidelines section, it says "NO to projects requiring Wikipedia to be convinced." However, anything could happen; if you're looking for a mentor, I would suggest going through the mentors list and writing to a few of them who have interests relevant to this project. Yaron Koren (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not recommended for GSoC'13Edit
Hi Gaurav, first of all for drafting and presenting your proposal so soon and so well. After going through all the feedback and your replies, and also after asking some key contacts knowing well the Wikipedia community I believe this project is not suitable for Google Summer of Code. It's an interesting project, and if you believe in it you could still pursue with some chances of success. But we don't feel like searching a mentor for it, since the chances of not being implemented in a Wikimedia project in the short time are pretty high - even if you deliver a fully functional feature.
The key factor considered is NO to projects requiring Wikipedia to be convinced. One could also argue that this is a variation of an existing feature (Navigation Popups), but this is secondary. Also, some unique features you are proposing will probably generate community resistance. The first one is voting content: a no-go in a project like Wikipedia, where consensus is a policy. The other one is to open a new type of content that requires editing and watching, and that is prone to vandalism and spam just like the existing content types. This could be solved relying on Wikidata content, as others have suggested.
If you are interested in participating in GSOC'13 with us, then you are encouraged to look for another project. Check the featured project ideas if you need inspiration or a specific project. If you want to continue with your idea, that is also fine. It is a good idea nonetheless! Perhaps the maintainers of Navigation Popups are interested in seeing your ideas and working together? Thank you for your understanding.--Qgil (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)