Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

Not logged in
Log in | Help

dKosopedia:Meta Main

From dKosopedia

See also to-do, bug reports, Meta Stubs, Namespaces, Meta dKos, Meta CustomMediaWiki. Older discussion at Meta Main/Archive 2004

This page should be called dKosopedia:itself for reasons you can read about most generically at this page on Names like 'meta main' are just wrong as they do not fit in a sane sentence.

--DRolfe 04:58, 7 Aug 2005 (PDT) Why? given meta means 'about' this page could be parsed as dKosopedia:About, which is semantically similar to your suggestion dKosopedia:[about] itself. Why include the pronoun? Main merely denotes that this is the main page for discussions about the site. Are you just trying to be pedantic?


What dKosopedia is not...

dKosopedia is NOT Wikipedia. Most of the topics covered will already be covered (more extensively) in Wikipedia not to mention many many other places on the internet. Why bother repeating what's already done? What is dKosopedia NOT? That is a good way to define what it is. It is not yet another objective non-partisan reference source. It is my understanding that dKosopedia pages on an issue are highlighting a specific angle on that issue and are not attempting to say everything there is about a topic. DavidByron 17:58, 29 May 2004 (PDT)

Neutral Point of View

Under the Policies and Guidelines dKosopedia:Policies and Guidelines page it says, "This is a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic site. Articles should be written from that standpoint." It then refers to the Wikipedia site for other policies, but the number one policy of Wikipedia is the NPV. It is my understanding that dKosopedia rejects NPV deliberately. DavidByron 17:58, 29 May 2004 (PDT)

[Link repaired by Iks(TkPg) 15:58, 8 Jun 2004 (PDT)]

You are correct. We will need to generate our own page with our LLPPOV policy (Liberal-Left Progressive Point Of View. or LPPOV which is easier to say, with one L covering two L words.)-wegerje 08:50, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT)

Style Sheets

--Centerfielder 19:45, 28 Jul 2005 (PDT) yes, i agree. heading level styles are set by the current style sheet, which is based on an older version of MediaWiki. Once I upgrade the software (one of these days...) we'll get more logical heading styles -- and more consistent with other MediaWiki sites. See here for a post-upgrade prototype.
--DRolfe 21:31, 28 Jul 2005 (PDT) - Right, but even now the nostalgia and blue skins don't enforce the (braindead) headings all the same size -- only the orange 'dKos-styled' "wikistandard.css" one does.
DRolfe 21:58, 28 Jul 2005 (PDT) - Ah, I've found part of the problem. In bare h1 is never styled, only h1.pagetitle is. h1 must be inhereting it's style from somewhere bad. Yes, a.headline is taking over the styling of headings. This was probably a result of a little shortsightedness when copying styles from somewhere.
Also, if you edit the stylesheet -- change ".blockquote {" to "blockquote, .blockquote {" so that normal old wiki-approved blockquotes get styled. Also, consider changing "#quote" and "#quote-attribution", using classes is more flexible unless you plan to alter '#quote' in the DOM via scripting. This is why IDs should be unique -- and hence have a name like identifier rather than class.

Examples moved to: dKosopedia:Meta Stylesheets

New software

DRolfe 20:37, 4 Aug 2005 (PDT) - By now I think many of us have played around at When are we going to move to a newer platform? Is it manpower that's the issue? I personally will create a new skin and stylesheet in the style of dKos for the new software. Or is the idea that this will all be folded into Bluepedia? The new templating and category features would be super helpful. Visit Special:Categories to see what I spent just a little while filling out. The way we are doing Biographies and Quotes (and the Kossary) and such are wildly ineffecient.

Uniting with Demopedia

Thanks for what you've made everyone, this is something I've been dreaming about ever since I discovered the internet in 1994. And now, go figure, I've just discovered that my dream has come true...Twice?

Why are there two different 'pedias? Seems like rather innefficient to have to write an entire encyclopedia twice, doesn't it? Competition only works if there's something at stake - making money, winning an election, etc. We should unite them. How do we do this?

And when we do, I think Bluepedia is the best name for it. Why is Bluepedia in the background while an unpronouncable, unmemborable, difficult-to-type name is the official one? (I myself just did a google-search for "kdosopedia" and google asked Did you mean "'Kidsopedia'?")

Also, Sourcewatch is excellent, but they're too professional and NPOV to merge with us, though everything in it is relevant to us. We should copy as much as we can from them, (always linking, of course[[.]])

Also, we need a publicity blitz. I hadn't heard of Demopedia until I went to read their forum during Katrina. I hadn't heard of here until a blogger at mentioned dkosopedia in passing. We need to get people in here and get momentum going.--PatriotismOverProfits 20:02, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

--Centerfielder 17:18, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT) Thanks for your recent contributions. dKosopedia is associated with the Daily Kos political weblog. Daily Kos is often shortened to dKos (a previous incarnation of the blog used this nickname in the banner), and playing on that theme the wiki was named dKosopedia. There's a link to DailyKos at the bottom of the left menu bar; if you like dKosopedia you'll love dKos itself.

NPOV, POV, and Disinformation

I've noted some materials on this Wiki that go beyond having a point of view and on to trumpeting ungrounded accusations. Does anybody remember the flap where Wikipedia just about got sued because somebody published an untrue account of a former government official? I don't have a problem with somebody expressing a point of view, but putting up stuff that is ungrounded and/or untrue will be of no benefit to us in trying to convince responsible people to adopt reasonable policies and drop the ideologically blindfolded leadership of Bush in the bushes. I've put one page up for deletion. Possibly it can be salvaged, but the evidence for accusations ought to be up front, not (supposedly) is some linked site. People seem to have forgotten how John Kennedy took Nixon to the woodshed on nationwide TV in their debates. It wasn't by calling him a bunch of names, it was by hammering him with the results of research and leaving Nixon gulping like a goldfish. p0m 19:24, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

It seems to me that NPOV should remain the default starting point for most factual articles (as opposed to advocacy articles, how-to guides, frameshop articles, and the like), for a wide variety of reasons, beginning with the fact that it is simply more "professional." An article which wastes a bunch of words calling J. Random Person a goober is much less effective than one which sets forth, in a straightforward manner, J. Random Person's words and actions. If J. Random Person really is a goober, there should be plenty of gooberific words and actions to use as demonstration of the fact. --Ray Radlein 10:38, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../m/e/t/dKosopedia%7EMeta_Main_8975.html"

This page was last modified 17:38, 11 June 2006 by Ray Radlein. Based on work by Jeff Wegerson and dKosopedia user(s) Patrick0Moran, BartFraden, Renegade, Doomdaymassacre, Jbet777, PatriotismOverProfits, Centerfielder, DRolfe, Anonymous troll, Ikswazi af Fahr, Outlandish Josh, DavidByron, Pyrrho, Waltisfrozen and Matts. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ

View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes

Special pages
Bug reports