Appropedia:Village pump/2013

Speaking of deleting pages... Where there's any ambiguity about deleting a page, but the page is not suitable in its current form, one option is the Russian Wikipedia solution. That is, all unsuitable pages, e.g. about someone's cat, get moved to a namespace meant for that purpose. The pages can be recovered later - e.g. if the cat becomes famous, in Wikipedia's case ;-). For our case, we could move such pages to Appropedia:Attic/PAGENAME. Just an idea.

Another way is to move the article to someone's userspace. But the advantage of the "Attic" is that anyone can browse all such articles if they want.

Either way, best practice would be to uncheck the box to create a redirect when moving. If the page isn't very good, we don't want to direct people there from mainspace.

Maybe I'm thinking too much... anyway, please comment if you have preferences either way. And... happy new year! --Chriswaterguy 20:58, 7 January 2012 (PST)

To me, the "Attic" sounds a lot like the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Incubator - a place for nonindexed pages deemed worthy of further work before returning them to article space. All this raises three basic questions for me. What are the criteria for userfying a page? What are the criteria for throwing a page into the Attic/Incubator? Most importantly, what are the criteria for a page to remain in article space? The more I play Surprise me! the more I think there very easily could be (put your number here) of articles that wouldn't meet even basic criteria for inclusion in article space, and iffy in Attic/Incubator space. What this says to me is Appropedia article space absolutely could use some cleaning up, one way or another. --RichardF 17:17, 8 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks RichardF... and for anyone reading this old discussion, please see A:Incubator. --Chriswaterguy 20:18, 2 April 2013 (PDT)

A question from our Facebook page - answer either here or there: What should we call a collaboration by a group of editors to improve a certain area of Appropedia, or to do a certain kind of task? This would help people know what needs work and what other people are up to, and provide a place to discuss strategy.

Not many answers yet, but the most popular suggestions so far are Approcolab and Approforce. Not sure if I can make the question visible to non-FB users, so here's the full list:

• ApproCoLab
• Approjam
• Approclean
• Collabropedia
• DiaT
• Approforce
• Approject
• Approlab
• Approteam
• Collaboration
• ApproProject
• MetaProject
• WikiProject

I added Approforce, thinking that if I added something deliberately bad, others would come up with something better. Maybe it's not that bad... or maybe it really is. (Reminds me of the cry of "G-Force" from Battle of the Planets - showing my age...) Please vote & comment. --Chriswaterguy 06:18, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

I do like the concept ... as I've been thinking about this sort of thing in urban planning and transport pages. I think ApproCollab or ApproProject get my votes (though could still call ourselves Approforce with tongue-in-cheek ;) ). --PatSunter 04:06, 21 May 2013 (PDT)

I'd like to see a consistent way of formatting Appropedia, and it would be great if we could decide on a few issues. None of them are huge issues, but we need to decide one way or another.

I know one source of inconsistency is that some of us are following Wikipedia standards based on their Manual of style, and others of us are following academic journal style guides. We won't resolve this in one discussion, but maybe we can start by discussing these few issues:

• Titles - plural or singular?: I pushed for plurals in the beginning, and that's become the default for some of us. But sometimes I think my original idea was daft. There are some words where the plural isn't obvious (E.g. is it technology, as an uncountable noun, or technologies?)
• Template names: I use all lower case and don't run words together, which makes sense to me. If we do them all in one reasonably logical way, it'll be easier to remember when we go to use a template.
• Headers at the beginning of articles, e.g. Introduction, Background, Definition, Abstract, or a header that's identical to the page title. I think the pages will be clearer if we remove these, and that would bring the first sentences closer to the top of the page (by dropping the table of contents lower down as well as by losing the header). But journal papers are required to have a header for the intro, I think. Thoughts? One idea: Avoid the headers and have an exception for journal articles (& drafts & submissions).
• Category tag placement: Categories are usually placed at the end and I find that best and least distracting. Sometimes I see them at the top - am I going to offend anyone if I run a bot to move them all to the bottom?

Thoughts, suggestions? Even if you think "fine" or "don't care", leave a comment so I know you don't have objections. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy 02:53, 11 September 2012 (PDT)

I've expanded on these at Appropedia:Manual of style. Please indulge my pedantry briefly, and comment there or on its talk page as appropriate. Consistency will make Appropedia more usable and more pleasant to use. --Chriswaterguy 01:39, 30 January 2013 (PST)

I have been porting a bunch of wikipedia templates over to get the nice table in the Arduino article. Tried to get the in to mm conversion working but getting errors -- if anyone that is more familiar with templates could have a look - it would be most appreciated. --Joshua 19:18, 2 January 2013 (PST)

The conversions appear to be working now. It just needed a few more templates. :-) --RichardF 17:56, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

I have been talking to Chris about an idea I've had for a direction we might consider for 2013. I thought it might be useful for me to try to explain it here.

I think it might be useful to collaborate to assess low-tech sanitation systems, particularly with regard to their effectiveness and safety. There is a lot of technical information around the internet, but this is often hard to find and rarely subject to intense criticism. If we could collate the information - particularly if we can encourage different experts to edit and discuss - I think his would be the start of an evidence-based toolkit for practitioners to understand interventions. Joeturner 06:57, 14 January 2013 (PST)

Thanks for the initiative, Joe.

This fits with work that HSU is doing with Appropedia, under Lonny's direction. I'm sure they'll continue to contribute good info.

From my experience, the way to really get Appropedia growing in a particular area is to recruit an academic to using Appropedia with their class. A focus on critical thinking and assessment will certainly appeal to some instructors - as well as being the right direction for Appropedia, IMO. --Chriswaterguy 02:57, 6 February 2013 (PST)

I really like this idea and love the work that Joeturner has been doing already. I will be on the look out for a teacher/class or business that would be into this and would love to hear ideas from Joe. thanks, --Lonny 18:47, 12 February 2013 (PST)

Hi I have created Appropedia:User experience/MainPageRedesign5 to test out a new look for the main page I would like to include it in the main page please it has a new disgn and some more information added to it and I would like to also ask could this website have a minor disgn change by adding the serve bar to the top of the website and suggest coming down from when your typing please and would like you to make this website other available languages and could you allow people by putting for example in an article en or fr to link it to the languages available to that article just like Wikipedia does please User555 16:17, 12 February 2013 (PST)

Hi User555

Thank you for all your work on templates and the main page update. There a few easy items left to change there, e.g. the links to recent deaths and news shouldn't be there, the portals should link to actual portals, and a section for announcements is probably still needed.

Regarding a serve bar... i am not sure what you are referring to

Regarding separate languages the way wikipedia does it... we hope to have that complete in less than one month

Thanks again, --Lonny 18:43, 12 February 2013 (PST)

hi I have done a minor change to it I have added announcements I have also created in the news User555 01:07, 13 February 2013 (PST)

Hi. I am sorry, I think we have a misunderstanding. I will try to be more clear:

• There should not be a section for news.
• The section for announcements looks great.
• The portals in the header should lead to actual portals.

Does that make more sense?

Thank you, --Lonny 21:15, 13 February 2013 (PST)

yes I have removed in the news now I am just creating the portals and then the page will be finish thanks for telling me User555 08:16, 14 February 2013 (PST)

hi do you mean for announcements to create it side bar like what I did in the new should I put announcements where in the new use to be before I removed User555 08:18, 14 February 2013 (PST)

I have created the portals User555 06:29, 15 February 2013 (PST)

it is now ready User555 03:15, 16 February 2013 (PST)

Thanks User555. I love the idea of having these new sections - "did you know", featured pictures - and when we have content ready for these sections, I'd like to roll them out. Now, this will take some work... how do we take the first steps? (I even like the idea of a news section, and once we get a few communications classes working on Appropedia, we'll be ready to look at that, I think.)-Chriswaterguy 17:46, 20 February 2013 (PST)

ok User555 13:20, 23 February 2013 (PST)

Hi I would like to suggest several new features and disgn changes I would like to sea please 1. I would like more languages for example website address change to www.en.appropedia.org - for English or www.fr.appropedia.org for the French version of here simpler to Wikipedia address but in stead of saying Wikipedia it would say appropedia

2. I would like it to be easer to search this website for example please out the search bar at the top with suggestion popping down please and I would like this website to support

 <div></div> 

tags please

3. I would like to see support for link the article to other pages in different languages please for example I would like to do en:example or fr:example so it links to that page but in different languages please

4. I would like to sea in version history the option to revert the edits please and I would like to sea a new updated screen in show changes so it show a white back and show what words you change and what words you've added and I would like to see in history is how many letter you've added simpler to Wikipedia like if you added more it would show + how many you've or if you taken away it would says - how many

User555 13:06, 13 February 2013 (PST)

We are currently updating the version of mediawiki and adding language support. I hope you will like the changes which will take place this month. Thanks, --Lonny 21:36, 13 February 2013 (PST)

ok thank you User555 02:09, 14 February 2013 (PST)

could you also change the design and make the design moder simler to Wikipedias but different please User555 06:17, 15 February 2013 (PST)

We have a version of the Vector skin, adapted from Wikipedia (thanks User:RichardF) but we need help to get the Facebook and Google Plus buttons to work. Do you know someone who can help with the CSS? --Chriswaterguy 18:03, 20 February 2013 (PST)

no not really I will look online and find on how to use codes to input Facebook and google bottom 86.173.149.162 11:06, 23 February 2013 (PST)

I have created facebook twitter and other buttons User555 14:51, 23 February 2013 (PST)

hi I have change the portals I created and replaced them with the ones created on here User555 08:50, 9 March 2013 (PST)

I have a suggestion how about we create a project on here for each things sillier to wikipedia called WikiProject. We could create one for improving the main page. Another one could be for creating or improving a page or many more User555 13:25, 15 February 2013 (PST)

I agree in principle. The challenge here is the smaller (so far) community. From my experience in trying such things, I suggest:

• Keep it simple
• Choose a logical discussion "hub" page for a given project. E.g. I suggest Appropedia:User experience for working on the main page and its talk page for discussion.
• Let us know here. Assuming we're on the same wavelength, we can work together and make sure it's linked from the right places, and that the right people know about it (i.e. keen Appropedians working in that area).

What do you think? --Chriswaterguy 19:16, 20 February 2013 (PST)

yep User555 11:07, 23 February 2013 (PST)

Could you create an account on google+ please User555 12:33, 23 February 2013 (PST)

We have a page there - Appropedia on G+ - is that what you mean? --Chriswaterguy 20:25, 23 February 2013 (PST)

ok thanks 90.222.250.124 11:10, 8 March 2013 (PST)

I nominate User:Joeturner -- lots of good edits and spam fighting - would be more efficient to have him go at the spammers directly. -- Joshua 03:56, 26 February 2013 (PST)

Happy to help in any way I can with the spam. Is it always this bad? Joeturner 07:02, 28 February 2013 (PST)

I second that nomination. It is not always bad. It is a consistent battle and we slowly adapt. So the spam gets worse for a while until we figure out how to stop that method and it quiets for a while... then the cycle starts again. Thanks! --Lonny 16:48, 1 March 2013 (PST)

Supported. See more at Appropedia:Administrators/Nominations#Joe Turner. --Lonny 15:12, 8 March 2013 (PST)

Excellent - welcome to adminship, Joe! --Chriswaterguy 19:12, 8 March 2013 (PST)

It looks like this wiki has spam trouble. Perhaps one of the admins should try this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Asirra

(ConfirmEdit is more "official" but it looks like most spam bots can now bypass it.)

Lonny and User:Sam Rose are currently doing a big upgrade - after that I reckon it's time to look at Asirra and its super spam-fighting kittens. --Chriswaterguy 19:21, 8 March 2013 (PST)

I'm just getting into it but I think the open source movement is so much more than software. Examples abound on this site!?! I may get around to editing the Wikipedia entry but I thought I'd put it out there in case anyone else wants to do it.

Incidentally, studying openness, technology and media through the #ETMOOC right now. Check it out! Natalie

Hi could someone create a bot to copy from en wikipedia and put the content in to here please Appropedia:Selected anniversaries so the bot will copy from each date on en wikipedia and put it on to Appropedia:Selected anniversaries day it is today it is for the new main pag eo am creating in Appropedia:User experience/MainPageRedesign5 86.173.149.162 13:01, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Currently Appropedia:Selected anniversaries seems to be a mess of stuff. In addition, I am fairly concerned about the changing of templates which has been causing problems. I would like to caution care in changing existing template. What is the purpose of Appropedia:Selected anniversaries and will the page be fixed? Thank you! --Lonny 15:03, 8 March 2013 (PST)

the page is for the new main page redisgn Appropedia:User experience/MainPageRedesign5 User555 03:59, 9 March 2013 (PST)

OK, so are you going to fix it? Joeturner 01:43, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

I nominate User:User555 he has made lot of good edit as seen at Appropedia:User experience/MainPageRedesign5 he has made lot of templates which are needed on here for example he changed the design of template:documentation check User555 contribution to see his contribution here User555 16:25, 23 February 2013 (PST)

I added a new section to the Main Page, called Selected categories. It’s near the bottom of the page. It includes categories for all of the Areas shown in the Navigation panel on the left side of every page plus the top-level content category, Topics.

Because this section uses category trees, you can click on the [+] character next to any category and see all of its subcategories, as far down as they go. This makes it possible to browse the wide variety of content areas available on Appropedia without having to leave the Main Page.

Please let me know if you have any feedback about this new section. --RichardF 08:07, 9 March 2013 (PST)

Hi could you change the theme to vector please and could you change the default skin to vector please &useskin=vector User555 08:43, 9 March 2013 (PST)

We haven't got a solution for the social media buttons yet. You posted something about this, but I couldn't understand what you meant. Do you have a way to make the the FB "Like" & G+ "+1" buttons work? --Chriswaterguy 19:32, 9 March 2013 (PST)

Well I can hyperlink Facebook button like I did in the redisgn main page User555 00:52, 10 March 2013 (PST)

Hi could you change the theme to vector please and could you change the default skin to vector please &useskin=vector User555 00:52, 10 March 2013 (PST)

Howdy,

We plan on updating the skin as soon as the sitewide mediawiki upgrade is done, hopefully in the next few days. Thank you, --Lonny 18:39, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

thanks User555 09:22, 19 March 2013 (PDT)

Hi I am in the middle of creating a template which allows you to create a form for example

Template:Forum

I am in the middle of adding more but I have added first name and last name I am adding more

If you go here Template:Forum you can help I am using inforbox User555 11:31, 9 March 2013 (PST)

I'm sorry, I don't understand the rationale behind the changes you are making. Why do you think we need a form? I can't think of any good reason why we need that template on Appropedia.Joeturner 06:15, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

Further to the above, I have temporarily blocked User555 for 24 hours due to excessive importing of templates and other structural elements. I have asked that User555 explains on a new page why additional changes are necessary and an improvement on the existing structure before making further changes. These changes are too many and too fast and User555 has not been checking the effects of the changes, leading to considerable extra work to fix broken elements of Appropedia. [Joeturner 06:46, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

I expect the edits from 90.222.250.124, 86.173.149.162 and 46.45.182.142 are by this user as well.

--RichardF 09:41, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

The edits from 46.45.182.142 occurred after the user was blocked. --RichardF 10:45, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

OK User555, how about you discuss with RichardF any other changes you are planning to make, otherwise I'll just go behind you reverting everything you do? oeturner 12:13, 10 March 2013 (PDT)

Someone requested someone to create it in one of the archive in village pump User555 15:01, 11 March 2013 (PDT)

Hi could I create a page called Daily Appropedia News please it will have news from Appropedia and also news around the world please User555 13:05, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

The Main Page already has a section called, "Hot topics / In the news." Based on the very low turnover in this section, I see no evidence for the need to create a daily version of noteworthy Appropedia-related news items. --RichardF 16:07, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

could I create a seprate section for in the news on Appropedia:User experience/MainPageRedesign5 please User555 00:36, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Trying out things on a test page like that is fine with me. --RichardF 04:49, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

ok thankyou User555 09:21, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Can you explain to me how your daily news page will work? where is the content going to come from? Joeturner 09:36, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

well first I will copy it from wiki news then I will change some things around and how the content is shown User555 12:43, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

so you will be doing that every day from now until... whenever..? I really do not think we need this. Joeturner 13:17, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

well I am not copy every page from Wikinews only the main page User555 09:28, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

why? what value is it? who is going to copy the wikinews pages when you are not here? Joeturner 09:40, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

I doint know but I will change a few things on it User555 09:23, 19 March 2013 (PDT)

KVDP and I disagree on the value of video embeds. I think videos are a useful addition to pages, and sometimes explain subjects in a much better way than the text. KVDP thinks they slow down the loading of pages. Anyone else have any thoughts? Joeturner 13:22, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

The mere existence of Widget:YouTube indicates Apporpedia's support for the use of videos on the site. A while back, Chriswaterguy and I were working on a yet-to-be implemented feature to show testimonials and videos on the Main Page. As part of that activity, I created Appropedia:List of videos. Based on the size of this list, Appropedia and its users clearly support the inclusion of videos here. --RichardF 16:24, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

I think videos can be very helpful and in fact require some projects to have them. If they are slowing down page loading (which should not be the case) we could probably delay their loading. So far, KVDP has a lot of great energy, but has been in error on almost every technical issue. KVDP, if you know more about web than appropriate technology, please let me know how the embedded videos are slowing down the pages and I will work with you to ameliorate that. Thank you all and please excuse my candor, --Lonny 18:34, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

I just updated Category:Videos and Appropedia:List of videos. As of today, I found 165 pages that contain videos. That's starting to look like a trend to me! ;-) --RichardF 10:26, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Playing DA, I guess that doesn't prove that the embeds don't slow the loading of the page, but it does at least indicate that I'm correct in thinking that video embeds are a fairly common feature of Appropedia pages. I'm not sure how we'd know whether the pages are really slowing down for people on slow connections. This can't be a unique question with regard to wikis, so I'm thinking KVDP needs to provide some evidence that this is a real issue. Joeturner 10:53, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Clearly, having a slow connection makes any high-data page difficult to access. Personally, I have a dial-up connection at home, so I don't watch videos. However, that does not stop me from being able to view a page with an embedded video. What causes me more problems is Long pages. That's why I recently archived a zillion topics on this discussion page! ;-) --RichardF 11:11, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Thanks for the archiving! Indeed, according to the measurements, long pages are much slower to render than pages with embedded videos. --Lonny 14:49, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Hi could you add extension dynamicpagelist And #tag please User555 08:32, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

KVDP is in the habit of uploading images onto Appropedia. Some of them are good. However, a good number of them are poor quality hand-drawn images that he has copied from a book. I'd like to suggest that this serves nobody any good. For example: File:Hydroponics NFT setup.JPG and File:Agriculture manual 1 2 6 image 8.JPG

The problem is not just that they are hand-drawn. The problem is that the text is hard to read and the content is of dubious value. I cannot see any justification for keeping either of these examples. Content should be accurate, images also need to be accurate, clear and useful. These are none of those things. Joeturner 06:49, 21 March 2013 (PDT)

I appreciate the tremendous dedication that KVDP shows, but I do find these images very hard to understand. Besides which, if we don't know the source for the knowledge or the thinking behind the image, we don't know how to assess it. --Chriswaterguy 19:23, 26 March 2013 (PDT)

I have started a Category:low quality files cat. Some of these are actually better than others, but I think that they all either need to be drastically improved or removed. As I said previously, KVDP has uploaded some really clear images, even on complex subjects, which he appears to have used CAT to produce - which is absolutely fair enough, I don't have that skill. But these hand-drawn images are not good enough. Joeturner 01:55, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Many of the images uploaded by KVDP are wrong. He has been open to change it, but the updated images are usually wrong as well. I wish that KVDP's energy and desire to draw/CAD could be partnered with people and projects that actually know what they are doing. --Lonny 14:44, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

I would venture to add that the majority of KVDP's edits are completely wrong, judging on the edits of subjects I know something about. I *really* don't understand what he thinks he is doing - why would you write things about subjects you clearly do not know anything about, and then argue about it (I take that back, he doesn't argue. He just reverts for no good reason and tells me to go and work on a different page outside of my expertise) with someone who does? None of us can possibly be any kind of expert in all of the subjects that KVDP seems to want to edit. Most of his edits seem to be lifted from basic texts, I cannot speak to the engineering aspects as that is not my area of expertise. At best his images in the natural sciences are so over-simplified as to be essentially useless, they usually have no scale or proper indication of what they are actually about and the text rarely explains them. At worst, they are impossible to make head-nor-tail of. But I feel fairly strongly that there are areas here that KVDP should not be editing.

I don't know what to suggest - but my perception is that KVDP is attempting to create his own version of wikipedia, to hell with any notion of rigour and accuracy and science. At the very least, I think his hand-drawn images should be removed. I'm also open to seeing many of his others being removed as well, particularly where they do not seem to serve any AT purpose and are not even linked to any page. Joeturner 15:25, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Further to the above, I have collected more than 50 hand-drawn images by KVDP in Category:Low quality files. It seems likely that there are more than 100 of these scattered across Appropedia. I think KVDP can be notified that these will all be deleted after 7 days. Other CAT images of his are more difficult for me to assess, but I notice that very few of them have scales or sufficient explanations to be useful. Also I suspect there is not much truth in the idea that hand drawn images based substantially on images from elsewhere (say copyrighted books) are somehow not breaking copyright - or that they can therefore be licensed under the standard SA license. Most of the time these images are too general to be a problem, but I do sometimes wonder. Joeturner 04:08, 29 March 2013 (PDT)

From the early days of Appropedia, we've talked about an "Organizational point of view" applying to pages about an organization - and we've assumed that the same applies to a project page by an organization or individual, assuming the page isn't promoting something wrong or dangerous.

We're going to have to get much clearer about:

(a) whether that's a good approach that should be adopted as policy, and if so,

(b) how we apply the policy. (What about alternative points of view? Who decides if something is "wrong or dangerous," given that the organization has a special status in such a policy?)

E.g. User:Volunteeringsolutions was originally a mainspace article, but was moved to userspace because it looked like advertising. I agree with the move, but we need clearer guidelines. --Chriswaterguy 22:02, 26 March 2013 (PDT)

I continue to support the principle that, until proven otherwise, Appropedia uses the same editorial principles as Wikipedia. In this case, I believe the most concise reference is related to the assertion and section quoted below, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The topical specifics include advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, and advertising. From my observations here, I would say Appropedia does actively serve as a vehicle for mission-related advocacy, recruitment, opinion pieces, and self-promotion. Granted, there’s often a fine line to cross into the realm of advertising, but that line gets impenetrably thicker for me when the object of the page has no explicit connection to any form of interaction on Appropedia.

If Appropedia were to get more explicit in terms of policy or guidelines in this area, I would support taking language like that shown below, modify what is acceptable to describe how that could be implemented, link to examples, and keep language related to what remains unacceptable. I also would start using header templates to designate approved pages in these areas, such as like Wikipedia:Template:Essay.

---

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[1]
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.

---

--RichardF 09:03, 27 March 2013 (PDT)

Hmm. Dunno - I'm not sure we are doing the same thing as Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how helpful that is. I'd say many articles here are opinion or gossip, hence my efforts to try to bring some level of scientific underpinning to the things I know about. Ideally nobody would ever say anything on an Appropedia page that was not scientifically proven - or at the very least inject some notes of caution into ideas which are in dispute. The reality is that nobody has time to be arguing with people who insist they have the right to edit and insert wrong information. In fact, you know, I probably would have time to argue with people, because if they argued and discussed, I'd have less of a problem. What makes me really mad is uncited unproven hearsay, particularly when the end result is actually dangerous. Is that a soapbox? Possibly. But I think we have far more of a responsibility to ensure that our information is correct than wikipedia. Because at the end of the day, we're actually expecting people to use this stuff. I therefore think we need a scientific board. None of us are infallible, of course, but I think the first priority should be on accurate and safe advice. I don't think it is really too much to ask people who are making wild claims to provide sources and to discuss the points. Joeturner 10:23, 27 March 2013 (PDT)

Oops, rereading Chris' point, I think maybe he is referring to the point-of-view of the organisation which is inserting the page. My point above was addressing whether Appropedia itself should have a point-of-view. Sorry for the tangent! Joeturner 10:28, 27 March 2013 (PDT)

• 1. A schematic on how to make an air-rifle: File:Indiginous hunter air rifle.jpg. Is anyone seriously thinking that someone will be able to use this to make a gun? Even if we wanted to tell people how to do it, the process is high precision engineering. The idea is absurd. Joeturner 02:20, 28 March 2013 (PDT)
• 2. A compound bow, File:Improved compound bow.JPG for similar reasons. I think you've got a good chance of cutting yourself in half if you attempted to use this diagram to make a bow. Joeturner 02:24, 28 March 2013 (PDT)
• 3. Maps that are hard to read and/or do not really add anything. For example: File:Native honey producing stingless bees.png Joeturner 09:28, 28 March 2013 (PDT)
• 4. Religious diagrams that infer certain religions can be considered to be at the centre and others at the periphery. File:Religion pendant.PNG Joeturner 09:33, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Icons such as this typically are used on Wikipedia to visually represent a topical theme. For example, Wikipedia:Portal:Contents/Types TOC shows a collection of icons used in the table of contents for Wikipedia:Portal:Contents/Portals, among other contents pages. Since Appropedia doesn't have such a structure or style, I'm not sure how such an icon would be used here. --RichardF 12:52, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Richard, if you look at the image description, KVDP is clearly making a statement about the relative worth of different religions. If find it hard to believe that there is anyone from any religion (except perhaps unitarianism) who would not find this diagram offensive at worst and laughable at best. I don't think KVDP is attempting to create icons for portals, but heavens, I have no idea what he is doing other than filling pages with worthless piffle. Joeturner 15:14, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Okay, my original comment wasn't about the description on the page, just the image. When I searched for it on tineye, I came up empty. That suggests the image is original work. I'll comment on the broader issue of this topic below. --RichardF 17:01, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

• 5. Projectile Weapons: for example this pipe bomb File:AT mortar.JPG Joeturner 09:36, 28 March 2013 (PDT)
• 6. Chainmail. Words fail. File:AT haubergeon.JPG Joeturner 09:40, 28 March 2013 (PDT). Actually, y'know I quite like that one. But under what circumstances would someone coming to Appropedia find it useful to know about medieval protective clothing?
• 7. Marvin, the slightly scary looking Android File:Android design.JPG
• 8 The airship project. Not-at-all my area of expertise, but I really doubt that this has any merit on a AT wiki, and I'd suspect is mostly wrong. Seriously, who is going to read this stuff? AT CAD Team/AT airship Joeturner 15:34, 28 March 2013 (PDT)
• 9 Pages which do not seem to relate to their titles - for example Original environment rehabilitation manual 2.11 appears to be a ridiculously oversimplified page about afforestation. Joeturner 04:21, 3 April 2013 (PDT)
• 10 Electrical shock weapon. File:Doble baston design.png Really. What.The.Hell.Is.This.Here.For? Joeturner 00:54, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

KVDP, maybe you can enlighten me what any of these things have to do with the focus of Appropedia. Most of them are not even linked to any pages, so why on earth are they here? Joeturner 09:49, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

The broader issue I see here is the need for clearer criteria about files and pages that are candidates for deletion, such as at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Files for deletion. The basic reasons for deleting a file there are:

• Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
• Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
• Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
• Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
• Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
• NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.

If we had clearer criteria here, it would be much more straightforward on how to proceed. --RichardF 17:01, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

I strongly support the idea of strong, clear criteria. We could combine and change the ones above into something like:

• Not used – The file has been replaced by a better version or is otherwise not being used on any page of Appropedia.
• Very low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
• Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
• Dangerous – The file represents something very wrong or something dangerous without clear warnings.

On a side note: I think we should have a separate namespace for speculative pages. Something like appropedia.org/Speculative:Some_page.

Thoughts? --Lonny 17:26, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

I like the prospects of moving forward with a clearer mechanism for deleting questionable content, whether files or pages. The revised examples above for files are fine with me. The notion of a "Speculation" (counterproposal :-) namespace sounds worth pursuing too. Wikipedia's Wikipedia:WP:SPECULATION no-nos include at least a couple of page types probably worth supporting here.

3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

4. While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

The Speculation namespace also could relate to parts of the discussion at Appropedia:Village pump#Organizational point of view, particularly in terms of essays. Here's a repeat comment I made there. If Appropedia were to get more explicit in terms of policy or guidelines in this area [promotions & opinions], I would support taking language like that shown below, modify what is acceptable to describe how that could be implemented, link to examples, and keep language related to what remains unacceptable. I also would start using header templates to designate approved pages in these areas, such as like Wikipedia:Template:Essay. What come to mind here for me is the collection of essays, The future we deserve (Book:The Future We Deserve|Book). To me, those pages meet the criterion of "worthy speculation." The question then becomes, is such speculation worthy of its own namespace. My answer: Sure. Why not?!

At the same time, we also will need to keep in mind the role of Appropedia:Incubator. Criteria for distinguishing whether a page should go to Speculation or the incubator will need to be clear enough to make that call. I assume speculation pages should be well written and supported but unproven. Incubator pages need work and/or are of questionable value even if well written. --RichardF 18:56, 28 March 2013 (PDT)

Lonny and Richard - my thoughts are that I don't like the idea of the speculation namespace. In my view, if material is dangerous, low quality etc it should be removed, not just moved to userspace or a speculation namespace. Having this (the speculation) namespace suggests something might be dangerous or low quality etc but is kept on the basis that it might at some point in the future get to be useful on Appropedia. To take the airship example, I am not qualified to assess the aeronautical design, but even if I was, it requires a massive leap of the imagination to see that as relevant to Appropedia. Unless we actually have someone who is skilled in that area - and unless they can give a reasoned argument about how this could be used today in an Appropriate Technology context, this is nonsense/dangerous. Simply moving it to another namespace does not hide or change the nature of the piece nor (I think) does it hide it from external search engine view or make it unviewable by visitors.

The only possible reason for keeping space for things that are 'speculative' as defined above is for ideas that groups are working on. I think theFWD project can properly be described as worthy speculative, although the pieces individually stray into areas which are not AT, in my opinion. The vision was to create something collaboratively, the process was one of learning, and the idea was that the authors and others read and engage with what the others have said. I think that is a useful model to keep, encourage and repeat. I'd therefore agree that future books and projects of this kind can be put into their own namespace. These and student projects are always labelled as works-in-progress and I have faith that instructors watch and remove questionable content in these spaces. KVDP's pages that I have highlighted above are not, as far as I can see, in any way collaborative work-in-progress projects and they are not about AT either.

I'd therefore propose that the incubator be kept for projects that individuals are developing that meet a basic standard for inclusion - in the vast majority of cases are about AT. Group projects whilst in progress might be in their own namespace, clearly labelled, but individuals should not be able to use group namespace as cover for their own ideas - because if all pages can be viewed, we all have some level of responsibility for the way that it reflects onto Appropedia and everything else here. If it is simply an individual's personal speculation with no conceivable way to ever get back to the point of Appropedia, it should be removed altogether. Joeturner 02:13, 29 March 2013 (PDT)

Joe, all your points are well taken. If an individual piece does not meet Appropedia's criteria of relevance and quality, then it should be removed. What would help the community better make those case-by-case decisions is to clarify those criteria by which content should be judged. Moving forward, not only would that help making decisions about what should stay or go, but authors also would have a better idea about what should or shouldn't be added in the first place. --RichardF 04:51, 29 March 2013 (PDT)

Re chainmail: "under what circumstances would someone coming to Appropedia find it useful to know about medieval protective clothing?" The best positive answer I can think of is in preparation for a zombie apocalypse - which is often used as a metaphor for a major disaster, and even used in disaster preparedness efforts by the CDC (US Center for Disease Control). It does seem to be a useful and engaging metaphor. Seriously, though, I'm not convinced that information is chain mail is useful here, but I don't think it's very harmful.

Re airship: I didn't realize that was in mainspace - thanks. I've now userfied it, deselecting the option to create a redirect so it doesn't have exposure in mainspace. (Admins can suppress redirects). For now it's at User:KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT airship - see User talk:KVDP #Userfied some pages for others. Ultimately we need agreement about how to handle such pages, and this will presumably be deleted.

Re speculative content: There is value and danger in speculation - the challenge is to keep content which is "well written and supported but unproven" (RichardF) but remove that which is dangerous, low quality etc. I support removing content entirely from all Appropedia namespaces if it's dangerous or promotes something very counter-productive, such as so-called free energy devices or unproven aircraft designs.

Note that we have a {{status-design}} tag: "This OSAT has been designed but not yet tested - use at own risk." This is in a similar spirit to speculative content.

Note also the page Appropedia:Speculative content from 2010.

My ideas re both speculative content and incubators:

• Speculative content that seems reasonable (by whatever standards we agree on for mainspace) stays on Appropedia, either:
  1. In a speculation namespace, or
  2. In mainspace, clearly flagged. I've suggested a {{status-speculative}} tag to A:Status. Given the seriousness of someone overlooking such a tag, I suggest we also have some variety of unmissable {{speculative}} notice at the top.
• Dangerous content, content which could seriously mislead readers, and content which could lead Appropedia into disrepute is deleted. (We'll want to carefully define "could lead Appropedia into disrepute" so it's not open to misuse or perceptions of misuse.)
• Seriously problematic content that's not dangerous or spammy gets moved to some kind of incubator. I worry about the incubator getting cluttered though, so I'm thinking about splitting the incubator - e.g.
  1. An incubator for each university class. This (A) reduces the cleanup needed after each class (which generally falls on the volunteer community); (B) reduces the exposure of articles which don't yet have anything that makes sense; and (C) enables an academic to easily see which of their students' work is still in the incubation phase.
  2. One for serious works in progress ("for projects that individuals are developing that meet a basic standard for inclusion" in Joeturner's words).
  3. One for off-topic and "what the heck is this?" pages. That's more of a storage space than an actual incubator, as most of the pages would never re-enter mainspace. This one serves several purposes for Appropedia: (A) It enables us to be more friendly and maintain goodwill - not causing unneeded grief to people who've made honest mistakes, so we're more likely to make friends through the process, than enemies. The person who gets an article on crystal healing deleted may easily become a friend who tells people about Appropedia, or a contributor in a different area. (Note that Wikipedia has a few annoying enemies, and I think a lot of them started out by having an article deleted and having unfriendly notices left on their Wikipedia talk page.); (B) It minimizes the damage done by honest mistakes, if an admin thinks something is complete crap when it's not; (C) It softens the immediate reaction by people who've had their content removed from mainspace, which in turn reduces the stress and time demands on admins.
  4. A:Userfication where one editor creates a significant number of pages that need to be removed from mainspace. This is especially useful if they don't have strong prospects for going back to mainspace. They're out of the way, but accessible, and the ball is in the editor's court, to improve the page and prove it worth putting in mainspace.

--Chriswaterguy 21:01, 2 April 2013 (PDT)

Chris - even in a circumstance of zombie attack, you need high level blacksmithing skills to produce chainmail. Even if you had/were interested in getting those skills, I do not believe KVDP's diagram is useful because I see no evidence that he has any technical skills in blacksmithing. Hence the page is superfluous at best, and I believe brings Appropedia into disrepute.

I was thinking about this over the weekend, I believe KVDP regularly suffers from a form of false precision. Take for example his recent page Making jam, jelly and marmalade. Making jam (or any other kind of recipe) is a subject which fills enormous bookshelves, so the idea that you could write anything sensible on a single page is largely moot to start with. And I think we have to ask ourselves whether we serve any function in providing information that has the appearance of precision (in a fairly complex subject such as this). In each case we have to imagine a person arriving here at Appropedia without a basic understanding of the subject. In this case, he would have to at least know the word 'jam' to find it. Would the page then give him enough accurate information to use and get reliable results? I don't think so. In fact, I think we are far better in a large number of situations in having a single paragraph of explanation and links to better sources where the breadth is too great for us to explain and which we would inevitably confuse by summarising. If we attempt to reinvent the wheel, but in the process miss out several of the spokes and make the thing sound far more simple than it actually is, how are we helping and who are we imagining would find this information useful? I think we should focus on signposting, collating and discussing information (in particular when it is hard to find) in AT in almost all situations where we do not have personal experience. I can't see that there is a need for jam or other recipes here at all. Joeturner 00:50, 3 April 2013 (PDT)

Regarding Chris' 'making enemies' point, which I think is a good one: we have to balance the potential for offence with the seriousness of the error and the length that the editor has been working on Appropedia pages. There is a certain level of offence implicit in removing any amount of material, particularly large amounts that I am advocating of KVDP's images above. For me, the need for standards is more important than avoiding all possible offence to editors. I'd suggest that material which does not meet standards is quarantined (with a clear template) for a set amount of time with the editor responsible notified of imminent deletion and the reasons why. I agree with Richard that this process is much easier if there are clearer standards, but I do not even think it is so difficult with the policies and standards that we have. The alternative is that we get editors who add large amounts of material without any form of peer review or discussion and the worst they can expect is for some of it to be userified. In my view that isn't good enough. If the user consistently refuses to engage with the (and let's be honest, it is a pretty mild form of) peer review process and refuses to improve the pages they have started, they should just be removed in short order. In my view the difference is between taking time to work with a new user to discover what it is that they know and helping them to present it in a reliable/readable way and allowing long time users to fill pages with rubbish. If everyone is agreed that these (kinds of) years-old pages are not good enough, why are we keeping them? At present it seems a little unfair that we're talking specifically about KVDP, but it seems to me that he has been adding more pages and images than anyone else recently. Delving deeper may well uncover other questionable content, but my impression is that there are a very large number of largely worthless pages on Appropedia, which dilutes the effect of the really good ones. Joeturner 03:23, 3 April 2013 (PDT)

30 days of edits

User	Edits
RichardF	1,127
Joeturner	997
KVDP	396
User555	338
J.M.Pearce	146
Chriswaterguy	141

Chris – I support your suggestions on how to address speculative, dangerous and seriously problematic content. What do you suggest as next steps?

Joe – I agree many of the pages on Appropedia diminish its overall quality and usability. I expect Chris’ suggestions can address the page quality issue as time goes by. What we also appear to need in this area is a few more appropriately sustainable collaborative process solutions for separating the wheat from the chaff. ;-)

Taking a look at the group of users who made more than 100 edits in the past 30 days, four of them are admins and two are users who have been the subjects of several quality control issues of late. This says to me that our overall quality control administrative processes lack sufficient rigor. If admins take appropriate steps to address user editing process issues, then page quality issues can be more systematically addressed and improved over time. My suggestion on this front is for consistently high-volume, questionable quality users to be contacted by site leadership (Lonny and/or his explicit designates) to point out the applicable issues and establish a set of expectations for improvement within a given timetable. If those expectations are not met within the allotted time, then editing privileges will be curtailed.

By addressing recurring high-volume process issues, admins and other users will have more time to address sorting out existing and future page quality issues. --RichardF 08:47, 3 April 2013 (PDT)

As a general observation, it appears that the majority of projects in the AT CAD Team are largely, or entirely, KVDP's work. I think all those pages need to be looked at by qualified admin, but given what has been said about aeroplane projects above, I'd particularly point to :File:SP airplane 2.png and Watervehicle conversion and AT CAD Team/AT Stirling motors and AT CAD Team/AT freight aircraft as being at least potentially dangerous. One project even has an anon comment on the talkpage that suggests the idea is impossible: Talk:AT CAD Team/AT catamaran Joeturner 00:34, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

I am going to make an executive decision to immediately remove weapons and torture devices I find on Appropedia pages. I'm sorry, but this stuff should not be here. At all. I thought I'd seen some stuff, but that just about takes the plate of biscuits. Joeturner 00:58, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

• Appropedia members: List of members with contact columns and no contact information, which would be inappropriate if present. --RichardF 19:53, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

Here’s a template I like to use to help me see how far behind schedule I am. tl|Progression displays a bar 100% wide that is colored some percent complete. It can display the percent complete from a single number or from one number divided by another. It also can display a custom label on the bar. Here are a few examples.

given percent

{{Progression|36.7}} :

Template:Progression

calculated percent

{{Progression|200|300}} :

Template:Progression

calculated percent + label

{{Progression|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}|6000|task=Go from {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} to 6,000 articles}} :

Template:Progression

{{Progression|{{#expr:({{CURRENTWEEK}}-1)*7+{{CURRENTDOW}}}}|365|task=This year is}} :

Template:Progression

Try it out! :-) --RichardF 12:05, 9 April 2013 (PDT)

I added some Appropedia site stats to the top of this page. I also added a simple graph to show how page views change over a little slice of time. I didn't bother to show the total number of users (17,498) because the vast majority probably aren't real people. Too bad we can't tell how many of the edits and views are by real people. ;-) --RichardF 07:41, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

Are redlink userpages classed as 'real' pages? Is there some kind of database where we can remove them? Joeturner 08:11, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

A red link isn't a page, so those aren't counted as pages. However, they are counted as users. I expect there is some way to delete them from the database, but that's beyond my pay grade. --RichardF 09:52, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

After watching the edits and page views for a day, the Edits are at 158 and the Views are at 35,807, for 227 Views/Edit! Until I looked at the numbers like this, it really didn't sink in how popular this site is...with the bots. Overall, the Views/Edit are at 173, suggesting the site is getting even more popular with somethings as time goes by. --RichardF 12:24, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

That is depressing. I wonder how many of those edits were content rather than admin - not many I'd guess. Sometimes I look at pages and wonder if the content makes a visit here more useful than wikipedia. Mostly, I doubt it. We could lose 99% of pages and be no worse off I think. We are drowning in repeated and/or poor content and we really need to work on providing more directly relevant AT material otherwise we are fighting a losing battle. Joeturner 01:48, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Welcome to Appropedia/Selected quote/9

Yes, sometimes less is more. --RichardF

I agree that we could do way better at getting people to great content fast. Eventually it would be great if a visitor could answer a few questions (e.g. location, context, desired outcomes, resources) and get suggested content. I agree that we would benefit from merging the best parts of information based pages into less pages. I also think that the project based pages, which bring something very unique, are great to have in large numbers. Learning how different groups addressed similar problems in various contexts, seeing their successes and failures, and learning from the various methods allows for much greater understanding. I think that divergent project pages followed by convergent analysis will allow us to not only provide those varied examples but also be able to cull more general rules for our non-project based pages. Does that make sense?

PS - That stats bar is so cool!

--Lonny 17:29, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

I agree, the student pages and reports of in-field experiences are the best and most useful parts of appropedia.

other pages mostly only repeat what is better said elsewhere, and could be replaced with relevant links.

to get the unique-to-us pages into a find-able and readable format and to remove or change the rest would be a major task. And a serious chànge of direction. Joeturner 23:39, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Lonny - can the Semantic search features help with finding the most relevant pages? If so, a project that focused on the "search-worthy" pages could pull out those topics that highlight Appropedia's strengths while ignoring the "extra" pages. This search feature could be highlighted on the Main Page. That way, it's not so much about cleaning the entire house, it's more about putting the good stuff in the parlor. ;-) --RichardF 06:06, 14 April 2013 (PDT)

(undent)I have no idea of the way that the Appropedia Foundation finances work, but I assume that large numbers of bots and lots of pages must have an impact on bandwidth and storage costs. I still think that bad pages have an impact on everything else - so am not really sure there is an alternative to a root-and-branch cull. It might actually be easier to identify good pages, then improve them and delete everything else, but I could be totally off beam on my understanding of this. I don't know how the semantic search works - could it give results from wikipedia (or other sources) for subjects where we do not have content?

I interpret Lonny as saying that pages should either be:

• Project pages by students & others - involving direct experimentation (or other forms of information collection) on a subject directly related to AT
• Descriptive pages by practitioners about how different tech has been used in the field
• Curated general pages linking together these in a format which is readable by someone coming to Appropedia looking for information on that subject

I'd also add

• Curated pages on other subjects, which are not prescriptive, and which signpost to good sources of much more detailed information elsewhere.

It seems to me that the best pages are already arranged like this. Maybe we just need to get out of the mindset that we are in any way trying to replicate a version of wikipedia and play to our strengths - which are either writing about things we directly know about or providing useful links on subjects where we do not. Joeturner 07:53, 14 April 2013 (PDT)

The stats now show the recent Edits/Day, currently at 213. When are project assignments due? ;-) --RichardF 19:29, 10 May 2013 (PDT)

Hey folks,

Just went to bookmark appropedia at my hostel's public use computer, and realized the default title was just Appropedia. I'd like to propose something like what Slashdot.org has, maybe "Appropedia - A Sustainability wiki" or something similarly informative. I decided I didn't even realize the site's quick descriptor/tag at all, and a search on the front page didn't see it. A second skim produces a line that doesn't stand out (in terms of font size especially) from the rest of the page "Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.". I would suggest something replace, or combine with, 'welcome to appropedia.'

hope this first entry finds all well! :) --Ajay (aka @) 17:16, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Hi Ajay,

Thanks for the bookmark and the sound SEO advice!

--Lonny 17:31, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

I am just recording a discussion we've just had about the removal of Black powder

do we need a page on making gunpowder? seems unlikely to me. Joeturner 01:59, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

Useful when the zombie apocalypse comes? Seriously though, the zombie thing is sometimes used as a useful metaphor for collapse....but I'm not comfortable with actively supporting the idea of making and using weapons. A survivalist might say that weapons are essential for self-defence, in some contexts, and they'd be right - but I'm still uneasy about it. --Chriswaterguy 05:29, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

Apart from anything else, I'm not sure if we have anyone with the skills to tell whether these recipes would work - and I'm not offering to test it. If we don't know for sure, I think we have to treat this as untested and dangerous. And I really don't think we need to tell anyone how to make explosives, if they really want to know they can find the information someplace else. Joeturner 05:32, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

Very good points. I say delete, but preserve this conversation somewhere (village pump?) --Chriswaterguy 05:49, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

The page is now removed. Suggest all other weapons etc pages are removed for similar reasons. Joeturner 06:05, 17 April 2013 (PDT)

Support. --RichardF 13:46, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

How about we list such pages here on the village pump, and then propose deletion of them? I think I'll support deletion, but I'd like us to know which pages we're deciding about. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 10:01, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

They're in the list of 'pages which should not be on Appropedia' above, Chris. I deleted two pages with gun designs, one which specifically relates to an electric baton and blackpowder. There are still several others in that list which we need to decide about. Joeturner 10:14, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

I haven't looked at the village pump page for a while now (reading it is time consuming and I rather spend my time on other more pressing things). Anyway, Joe seems to be spending all his time focusing on trying to criticise and even delete my writings and images, undoubtably triggered by the fact that I wasn't entirely in agreement with some edits he made on such articles as Composting, Composting toilets]], ... I can only conclude that he never did nor does any editing at Wikipedia, as accomplishing changes to articles there often brings much more conflicts with other users than what is the case here. Anyway, as everything I wrote is now under scrutiny, here are some arguments against the first batch of easy targets (ie the so-called "weapons" he describes, ...):

• Black powder: regardless of what professor cum laude Joe says, I made this page to discuss the production of gun powder, primarily for demolition tasks (for example clearing stone for dams, railways, destroying broken foundations, ...) I also discussed it for hunting tools (not defensive weapons)
• File:Indiginous_hunter_air_rifle.jpg, File:Improved_compound_bow.JPG, File:AT_mortar.JPG: again unlike what our educated friend tells us, the first two were intented as hunting tools and are not that complicated to make. If he had for example studied the compressed air rifle better, he would have noticed that there are no grooves in the barrel, and so it's not all that hard to make. The design of the projectile instead keeps the projectile of flying straight (similar to an arrow). The bow designs I had included a compound and recurve bow. The designs shown in the original sketches were severely altered/updated as the 3D model was made (no longer the same). I thought I allready removed these by now (I tag them with a deletion tag as I progressed on these models). Perhaps some may have not yet been removed or perhaps I forgot to tag some of them. Then the mortar, conveniently dubbed by Joe as a flying "pipe bomb". I actually originally made this to fire off a rope, ie from a boat, for mooring purposes. It's similar to the Hale rocket which too was used for this purpose. Another task I thought might be useful was for riot control (spreading of ie tear gas, ...) the File:Doble_baston_design.png was also made for riot control purposes (so intented for police) instead of some type of event directed by George A. Romero Finally, Joe closes off his effort with "I am going to make an executive decision to immediately remove weapons and torture devices I find on Appropedia pages" :~ ...

KVDP 06:21, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

hi could you upgrade your mediawiki from 1.17.0 to 1.20.4 please 86.139.246.76 13:25, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

hi could you please update php from 5.3.13 to 5.4.14 and MySQL from 5.1.53 to 5.6.11 please 86.139.246.76 13:30, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

I think Appropedia:User experience/MainPageRedesign5 is ready to be put into the main page because the improvement is that there are more colour to make it look nice it include a social bar and improves the desgn 86.139.246.76 13:55, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

"The New Media Consortium (NMC) is a community of hundreds of leading universities, colleges, museums, and research centers. The NMC stimulates and furthers the exploration and use of new media and technologies for learning and creative expression. All content Creative Commons.

"The NMC Horizon Report > 2013 Higher Education Edition is a collaborative effort between the NMC and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), an EDUCAUSE Program.

"The tenth edition describes annual findings from the NMC Horizon Project, a decade-long research project designed to identify and describe emerging technologies likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry in higher education. Six emerging technologies are identified across three adoption horizons over the next one to five years, as well as key trends and challenges expected to continue over the same period, giving campus leaders and practitioners a valuable guide for strategic technology planning."

--RichardF 10:02, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

License nitpicking follows...

Something to watch for with file uploads - the morgueFile License (as used on File:Wind Energy.jpg). This only has these restrictions:

Stand alone basis - You can not sell, license, sublicense, rent, transfer or distribute this image exactly as it is without alteration.

Ownership - You may not claim ownership of this image in its original state.

The second condition is no problem, I think. To meet the first condition, I've uploaded a slightly modified version of File:Wind Energy.jpg.

Excuse the pedantry - I just want to avoid us using content, including images, in any ways that we haven't been permitted to do. --Chriswaterguy 14:25, 25 April 2013 (PDT)

How bizarre. The whole of their license seems pretty odd - the text in the summary does not appear on the main license page. I'm wondering if what they mean is that the image can be used commercially (say printing on a mug or using on a poster) but cannot be put onto another page which would compete with Morguefile's (paid-for) service. The relevant section seems to be:

1.2 Without limiting the generality of Section 1.1, Licensor acknowledges that morgueFile may sublicense Subscribers to use and publish the Photos in magazines, greeting cards, advertisements, brochures, on the Internet and in all other media, both in print and electronically. The only limitation on morgueFile's right to sublicense shall be that morgueFile shall include in its agreements with Subscribers a limitation prohibiting Subscribers from publishing any Photos on a standalone basis.

I guess the question is what a 'standalone' basis is. I wonder if this just means having the images available for free when they'd otherwise need to be paid for. Slightly changing the images appears to meet the criteria in the 'human-readable summary' but I'm not sure how much it would need to be altered to fit the 'standalone' criteria in the full licensing text. I Am Not a Lawyer etc, just observing. Joeturner 01:35, 1 May 2013 (PDT)

Starting with a conversation at the 4Rs category, we (the usual suspects) have been developing new Appropedia navigation designs for bibliographies and glossaries based on how Category:Portal subpages|portal subpages and other portal features, such as id tags, work.

The two most developed examples of this approach right now are the AT Sourcebook and Glossary of sustainability terms. If you have ideas for other pages that would benefit from using this design approach, please let us know. --RichardF 08:22, 26 April 2013 (PDT)

CBS Sunday Morning - 3-D printing: The next dimension

April 28, 2013 7:34 AM

"Instead of just two dimensions we can now print in three. A new way of manufacturing is being used to make everything from toy tractors to electric cars. Now, researchers are using 3D printing to engineer human tissue."

--Serena Altschul reports.

Wow! When can I print my next dog! ;-) --RichardF 14:55, 28 April 2013 (PDT)

What do you think about adding a translation widget to appropedia -- [1] ? --Joshua 05:34, 2 May 2013 (PDT)

Looks good to me. --Chriswaterguy 08:41, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

Re the new usage of glossaries (announced above) I've been having second thoughts.

• Stub pages, even tiny stubs, invite the addition of content.
• Most of our traffic comes from search engines. A separate page with its own title is much more prominent than an entry in a glossary, and better for search engine optimization.
• Intuitive linking doesn't work with glossary entries (unless each term has a redirect to that point in the glossary).
• If I search for a term and I get the search results page, with the glossary somewhere in the results, I'm less motivated to check further than if I come to an actual page.

A glossary is tidier, arguable... but I'm okay with some untidiness if it's conducive to visibility and growth. Thoughts? --Chriswaterguy 09:08, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

Well, actually most of our traffic comes from bots (Richard did not specify the type of bots above, presumably a lot of search engines plus A.N.Other). I don't think the main issue is tidyness, but being honest with ourselves about the value of the content that we have. If we have hundreds of pages with single lines of content - which is itself mostly only copied content from another wiki - then we have only created a glossary. I don't really think that this has any value, but if we really want to keep content that is that low quality, I think it might as well be in a glossary, and if we really want to create new pages with defined and linked terms, we can still do that with the terms in a glossary page. I'd be interested to see evidence that suggests single line stubs get turned into pages, my perception is that these have generally sat around unchanged for many years. Ultimately having an entry in a glossary page does not prevent someone adding a more substantive page either. Again, I think this comes back to the point discussed above - the purpose of Appropedia and whether we really want to fill it up with very low quality content. 09:20, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

Also, I'd be surprised if there was any difference in the SEO of a glossary vs individual pages - providing the content is still there. Joeturner 09:28, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

Using a very famous wiki as a model, literally, glossaries can be a very effective type of navigation tool, not to mention a content production management tool. Obviously, there's nothing to stop a glossary item from linking to its corresponding article. One advantage of a glossary over not having a glossary I see is that people like me (hey!;-) who look at one term will tend to also look at related terms and then tend to browse the wiki more than otherwise would have happened. The more browsing here, the more likely other forms of participation here. Isolated, stub pages are more likely to discourage further browsing, an untended consequence of propagating high volumes of low quality pages. --RichardF 16:47, 8 May 2013 (PDT)

For your browsing pleasure, I made a simple list of about 10,350 Main space pages copied from Special:AllPages. Roughly 5,400 of these pages are articles, while the remaining 4,950 are redirect pages. I wonder how long it will take User:Joeturner|Joe to start culling the list! ;-) --RichardF 13:08, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

I've been lurking around Appropedia for a while, and I recently spotted Joeturner's concern about not being able to properly evaluate the engineering aspects of KVDP's work. I had some spare time this weekend, so I've gone over KVDP's uploads and designs, with an eye towards safety, and to a lesser extent, basic functionality. I don't have a formal engineering background, but you can't hang around engineers for thirty years without learning a bit about the field.

• File:Self-erectable wind turbine.png - A ducted wind turbine cannot be turned to minimize drag in high-wind conditions, which can result in it being blown over or otherwise damaged.
• AT CAD Team/AT mobile shelter and File:AT mobile shelter.png - Not enough detail is present to tell if there are any hazards, but the water supply and the heating system are both possible problem areas.
• File:Heat pump system on rainwater pit.png - The system depicted is overcomplicated and probably non-functional, but the only safety hazard I can see is possible biological contamination of the water tank.
• AT CAD Team/Modular train and related images - When used for passengers, this sacrifices the safety provided by a well-designed single-piece train car to deal with the uncommon situation of passengers crossing a break-of-gage. When used for freight, this is a poorly-done re-invention of containerized shipping. Additionally, decoupling the wheels on an axle by the use of a differential prevents the wheel shape from steering the train, leading to increased wheel-flange wear, increased rail wear, rail spreading, and increased risk of derailment, in addition to providing a point of failure that traditional designs don't have.
• :File:ICE powered locomotive.png - There's no inherent danger in using a mechanical transmission in a diesel locomotive, but anyone who builds one will discover why they're not used: the gearbox simply can't take the stresses, and will break down frequently. The bottom-mounted fuel tank is a different matter: in a derailment, it's in one of the areas most likely to be damaged. Fortunately, diesel fuel doesn't usually catch fire. File:ICE EE powered locomotive.png shares the problem with the location of the fuel tank.
• File:Tram and train undercarriage.png - No suspension system is depicted. Without the ability to adjust to variations in loading and relative rail height, these bogies are at high risk of derailing through flange climb. Additionally, the "Tram rail bogey (regular vehicle)" appears to be supporting the train on the bogey frame rather than on the wheels, while the "Tram rail bogey (light rail vehicle)", by supporting the weight on the wheel flange, is going to derail the first time it tries to take a corner.
• File:Tram and train rail in trench.png - I don't know enough about the details of rail track design to say exactly why these designs would be a problem, but my gut instinct is that they'd be a maintenence nightmare, and inadequate track maintenence is one of the leading causes of train derailment.
• File:Wood fueled space heating system.png - I don't believe this system would be functional, but I don't think it presents any unusual dangers, either.
• AT CAD Team/Modular kiln, File:Modular kiln.JPG, and File:Modular kiln.png - This design is completely unworkable, and probably dangerous to anyone who tries to make it work. Induction furnaces only work with conductive materials, so they can't be used for things like lime burning or pottery firing. Burying the system is counterproductive for working with metal: for casting, you want good control over the cooling of the cast, which the high thermal mass of the earth prevents; a smelting furnace needs good access to extract the resulting metal, because you don't want to move multi-ton pots of liquid metal any further than you need to. There are other problems (eg. the automation envisioned doesn't work very well at multi-thousand-degree temperatures), but these are the big ones I see.
• AT CAD Team/AT IC motor 1 (gasoline) and File:IC motor 1.png - The motor depicted will be completely non-functional for a variety of reasons. Additionally, attempting to use high-pressure nitrous oxide as a fuel may present an explosion hazard, depending on the construction quality of the motor.
• AT CAD Team/Portable wood gas stove, File:Wood gas stove schematic.png, and File:Portable wood gasifier stove explaination.png - The "improvements" to the airflow appear to make the stove completely non-functional, but not dangerous.
• File:Smokeless Strawbridge Stove.png - Wet scrubbing of exhaust fumes is difficult to get working properly, while attempting to inject them into the ground is likely to instead cause them to back up into the living space.
• File:Open design electricity system.png - Without a mains isolation switch, this design risks killing anyone working on the public utility wiring. On a lesser note, the positioning of the surge protector limits the protection it can provide.
• AT CAD Team/AT dish washer and File:AT dishwasher.png - Rinse water, especially with a low enough soap concentration to effectively rinse further loads of dishes, provides fertile ground for microbial growth. A lesser concern is that a clamped door is harder to align properly than a hinged door, leading to water leaks.
• AT CAD Team/AT electric skateboard, File:AT rollerskates and mountainboard.png, and File:AT electric skateboard.JPG - I'm not sure why KVDP is so concerned about aerodynamics in a vehicle that's unlikely to ever go faster than 20km/h or so.
• AT CAD Team/PCBU, File:AT underwater vehicle.JPG, File:PCBU.png - Without a check valve on the air tube, anyone using this will be killed (either drowned or crushed) when the compressor fails. There are probably other problems I'm missing because I'm not familiar with the hazards of working underwater.
• AT CAD Team/AT crane and File:AT crane.JPG - This appears to be a hybrid of a truck-mounted crane and a gantry crane that has neither the gantry crane's load capacity nor the truck-mounted crane's mobility. It doesn't appear to have any hazards beyond those typical of cranes.
• File:Crockpot still.JPG - This will work as a still. The vapor recovery won't be as high as for better designs, but the key design criteria for a moonshining still is that it can be easily hidden from the authorities, which this design meets quite well.
• File:Worm still.JPG - Unlike the above still, this one has no provisions for releasing pressure if the cooling tube becomes blocked, and so presents an explosion risk.
• File:Fractionating column.png - I've got no idea if this will work or not, because I can't make heads or tails of it.
• File:AT dicycle.png - By putting all the heavy equipment at the top of this vehicle, it becomes likely to overturn.
• File:AT monoxylon.png, File:AT monoxylon.JPG - At its core, this is a dugout canoe -- a type of boat that is only one step more effective floating around on a log. The various attachments (hydrofoils, windscreen, keel with propellor) don't provide any benefit (a canoe going 5km/h can't generate enough lift to rise up on the foils, and doesn't generate enough drag to need aerodynamic streamlining), but do present an entanglement hazard in the event of capsizing or collision, while the deep keel negates a canoe's advantage of having a very shallow draft (using a dugout canoe rather than a skin-over-frame canoe also partially negates it).
• Oxyhydrogen as fuel, Oxyhydrogen booster, File:Oxyhydrogen booster.JPG, File:AT HHO generators.JPG, File:Maritime ICE systems.png, File:Oxyhydrogen fed AT IC motor 1.png, File:Rotorsail (oxy)hydrogen hybrid ship.JPG - The "oxyhydrogen" being discussed here is not the hydrogen/oxygen mixture used in some welding systems, but part of an "increase your fuel economy"/"run your car on water" scam that KVDP appears to have fallen for. The systems depicted here are, at best, a low-efficiency way of running a combustion motor on electricity.
• AT CAD Team/AT cable car and related images - Cable cars are inherently unsafe, with numerous single points of failure. Safety is achieved by keeping the system as simple as possible, by rigorous inspections, and by very high safety margins on critical parts, none of which is mentioned in the images or the article.
• File:Coach.png - Like the Amish, this design ignores the past century or so of improvements in vehicle suspension systems.
• File:SP airplane 2.png, File:SP airplane 1.png - There is just barely enough detail in these pictures for a determined person to try to build it. As designed, this airplane is safe: it has two critical flaws that will prevent it from getting off the ground. If those two flaws are corrected, a third critical flaw will become quickly apparent: the airplane is uncontrollable in pitch and will quickly crash-land -- hopefully quickly enough that the pilot is uninjured. The airplane probably has additional flaws (for example, the lack of cross-bracing between the wings may or may not be an issue, and I don't think the ailerons will provide the desired degree of roll control).
• AT CAD Team/UAS, File:AT UAS.png - There isn't much visible detail in the image, but this aircraft appears to be uncontrollable in pitch and yaw, and is probably too heavy and underpowered to get off the ground. The use of a Stirling engine also contributes to the uncontrollability, as it cannot provide the range of power output an airplane needs. Fortunately, this airplane is supposed to be unmanned and used away from population centers, and the design isn't detailed enough to actually build.
• AT CAD Team/AT freight aircraft, File:AT freight aircraft 1.png, File:AT freight aircraft 2.png, File:AT freight aircraft overhead view.png - The Waco CG-4 isn't a horrible starting point for designing a freight aircraft, but it isn't a good one, either. Adding a second wing, changing the airfoil cross-section, and reducing the number of frame members all have the potential to render the aircraft uncontrollable or structurally unsound. Using a Stirling engine with its constant power output rather than a variable-output gasoline engine will greatly reduce the controllability of the aircraft, and unfortunately a CG-4-based design is probably large enough to fly even with such a heavy engine. The "it's like a CG-4, but with these changes" directions are potentially problematic, but since there are no CG-4s outside of museums, I doubt anyone's likely to try to follow them.
• File:AT autogyro.png - This appears to have the same stability and control issues I brought up a year ago. Fortunately, it's less detailed than what was deleted last time, so it's unlikely that someone will actually try to make this. "Part 103" aircraft such as this are not a good starting point for design in general, as the weight (254 pounds or less) and speed (24 knots max stall speed, 55 knots max level airspeed) restrictions involved often make for questionable designs.
• User:KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT airship and related images - All three proposed lifting gasses are flammable, and one is toxic and reactive. No provision is made for dealing with this. Running an airship at positive buoyancy and using thrust to maintain altitude is risky, as an engine failure will result in an uncontrollable ascent (and potential envelope rupture followed by uncontrollable descent). No pressure relief valve is provided to deal with envelope heating or excess altitude. Since this is a non-rigid airship, a means is needed to maintain envelope pressure; none is provided. The inability to land the airship means that departing the airship is dangerous: with the specifications given, the airship will jump several hundred meters in the air when a passenger gets off. The airship does not appear to have any means of pitch control: since the envelope acts as a huge low-efficiency wing, this makes altitude control difficulty. The gondola suspension doesn't have any provision for preventing sway, which makes the control issues even worse. Filling the envelope to only 85% capacity means you've got a floppy, unaerodynamic gas bag holding you up, and probably increases the risk of envelope rupture. With only two or four engines of 1-2HP, the airship is grossly underpowered and will have trouble holding position in any but the lightest winds, much less flying against the wind. There are probably other issues as well, especially with the "refueling station".
• AT CAD Team/AT catamaran and related images - I applaud KVDP for his efforts at economizing on signal flags, but I expect that the only flag this will need is "D". Most of the "improvements" to the basic catamaran design appear to make for a boat that is slow and unmaneuverable; fortunately, none of them appear to compromise a catamaran's basic stability.
• AT CAD Team/AT Stirling motors and related images - I don't see any provision for circulating the heat-transfer oil beyond "hope convection is sufficient", and I don't see any sort of active temperature-control system on the heater. The long, skinny transfer rods are likely to fail as soon as the motor is used with any load. Using nitrous oxide as an oxidizer is likely to cause an overly-hot flame; trying to use it as a fuel the way I think KVDP intends is likely to result in a stopped motor and a room full of nitrous.
• File:AT mortar.JPG - I can't tell if this is safe or not. The diagram focuses on an overly complex motorized alt-azimuth aiming system, and almost completely omits the parts that matter (the mortar itself). The most likely failure points are the air hose connections, and recoil forces acting on the mortar mount.
• File:AT haubergeon.JPG - Chainmail body armor? Seriously? A page on making chainmail might be a good idea, as chainmail gauntlets are used as protective gear when butchering animals, but body armor?
• File:Areas suitable for AT villages.png - KVDP forgot one criteria when picking these areas: access to a water supply. Four of his five areas are among the driest deserts in the world. There's a reason these areas have low populations...
• File:Windmill (oxy)hydrogen hybrid ship.jpg - A windmill ship is just barely capable of powering itself -- the few in existence are radio-controlled models built to prove it could be done.
• File:CPR1.JPG, File:CPR2.JPG, File:CPR3.JPG, File:CPR4.JPG, File:CPR5.JPG - these images do not actually depict CPR.
• File:Stationary pneumatic systems.JPG - Designs #2 and #3 appear to be perpetual-motion machines.
• File:Steam powered locomotive with steam turbine.png, File:Steam powered locomotive.png - The big safety issue with these two images is that the water level is below the top of the firebox: this will cause the firebox to overheat, weaken, and rupture, causing a boiler explosion. A lesser safety issue is the lack of leading wheels on the locomotives, which makes them likely to derail at any but the lowest speeds. There are also a host of technical problems that will prevent the locomotives from actually working, such as the "superheater tubes" that work to cool the steam, or the closed-cycle steam system without a condenser to turn the steam back into water.
• File:Smokestackless firebox.png - Airflow doesn't work that way. Try to build this thing, and the best-case scenario is a mix of steam and exhaust gases forcing their way out the water intake pipe. Worst-case scenario, you'll get a full-on boiler explosion killing everyone in the area.
• File:Steam engine valve gear plate.png - The valves of a steam engine need to operate 90 degrees out of phase with the piston, and usually have a complex linkage to make switching happen as fast as possible. The valve is usually a piston-based design rather than a plate-based design to prevent the steam loss and other issues noted in the image.
• File:Light tube daylighting system.png - A parabolic concentrator can generate extreme heat levels. No provision is made to ensure the concentrated beam can never strike a non-reflective surface.
• File:Brushed electric engine.PNG - This motor is mis-wired and can't work.
• File:Emissionless biochar production.JPG - I can't figure out how this is supposed to work, but the phrase "The schematic makes it clear that the co2 cannot escape" leaves me worried about an explosion hazard.
• Low cost water filtering, Chujio la maji la gharama nafuu and File:Homemade waterfilter.jpg - I don't know what purposes the sand and grass layers are supposed to serve (I don't have access to the book this is supposedly from), but I know the explanation of the charcoal layer is wrong (it acts as a chemical filter through adsorption). Because of this, I'm fairly sure the maintenance instructions are wrong, and there are probably some critical construction details that have been omitted.
• Home canning - If followed exactly as written, I think these canning directions are safe. Even minor variations (eg. canning something other than fruit) can result in botulism-contaminated food.
• File:3 stage communal water filter.png - Because this is derived from the above misunderstanding of the filter, I doubt this will work as a way to purify water.
• File:EC battery electric wiring.png - A lead-acid battery built using this wiring diagram will explode due to multiple short-circuits within the battery.
• File:Ship compartmentalization.png - You know what helped the Titanic sink as fast as it did? The watertight bulkheads didn't extend more than a few decks above the waterline.
• User:KVDP/Nitrogen peroxide and File:Nitrogen peroxide production.png - I don't think the reaction depicted here works (dinitrogen tetroxide reacts with metallic copper to produce copper nitrate), but if it does, no mention is made of the fact that dinitrogen tetroxide is a highly toxic gas.
• File:Nitric oxide production.png - Nitric oxide is a toxic gas. No mention is made of this. Further, the diagram appears to confuse nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen peroxide (dinitrogen tetroxide) -- the reaction depicted produces nitric oxide.
• Nitrous oxide and File:Nitrous oxide production.png - Ammonium nitrate (the feedstock used to produce nitrous oxide) will detonate when sufficiently heated, and is a powerful oxidizer. No mention is made of either of these hazards. I don't know if nitrous oxide will work as a monopropellant the way that KVDP envisions, but I doubt it.
• KVDP's heat engines in general: KVDP does not appear to understand that heat engine efficiency is usually quoted as "percent of Carnot efficiency". Carnot efficiency depends on the temperature of the heat source and heat sink; sticking a 70% efficient Stirling engine between a 100C heat source and a 30C heat sink extracts less heat energy as work than sticking a 40% efficient steam turbine between a 500C heat source and a 30C heat sink. Attaching a Stirling engine to another engine's cooling system provides very little additional power.

These are not all the images and designs with problems. In particular, I don't feel qualified to evaluate things like sewage handling for hazards, and I've skipped over images that appear to have simply been copied from somewhere else. --William W 23:16, 2 June 2013 (PDT)

Hello all, I stumbled upon the Chicken example containing a permaculture infobox, and had a quick browse around the wiki for information on where you guys are at with semantic-izing things. I couldn't find much, so I thought I'd knock up a quick prototype of this using Semantic Mediawiki. It focuses on the creation of a Permaculture element page type, which stores a needs (inputs), products (outputs) and functions as semantic data.

I've touched upon the idea of also creating a Permaculture system page type in the last infobox item (which would use a dynamic query to list all systems which use that element), but for the sake of this prototype I've not done that. If this idea is well received, I'll be happy to complete it.

Pages

Chicken example

A demonstration page to show the infobox and semantic data working in context. If you click edit you can edit the data and article text using the appropriate form.

Grain example

Another demonstration page. This one demonstrates the query functionality in the lower half of the infobox - in this case the Need of field shows Chicken, based on the data entered on the Chicken example page.

Template

Permaculture element

This template renders the infobox and stores the semantic data using the property values passed to it. It also assigns the page to the Category:Permaculture element|Permaculture element category.

Form

Permaculture element

This is the default form for all pages in the Permaculture element category. It allows the editing of the semantic data as well as editing of the article text.

Form

Permaculture element data

This form can be used to edit just the data of a permaculture element page. It will leave all content and other templates untouched.

Template

Permaculture element fields

This template is used to store the semantic form template definition for the Permaculture element template. This allows the same form fields to be shared between the above two forms.

Category

Permaculture element

All articles edited or created using the Permaculture element form will be assigned to this category. In turn, all articles assigned to this category will use the Permaculture element as their default edit method.

Semantic properties

I haven't actually created these as pages, but they exist as properties without page definitions:

Property

Has need

The needs (inputs) of a permaculture element.

Property

Creates product

Stores the products (outputs) of a permaculture element.

Property:Performs function

Stores the functions a permaculture element performs.

I hope this is useful in some way even if you've no direct need for it. If you're interested in developing it further, let me know and I'd be happy to help, although the amount of hours I can commit are pretty limited. This took me about an hour or so altogether.

Andru

Perhaps letterpress printing with vegetable oil and carbon black ink with wood or metal type made using old or simple machinery and printed using old (work for over 100 years) or simple manual or mechanised presses onto hand made paper suggests a sustainable information distribution system.

Using chipped ink jet cartridges in a plastic consumer printer (13 month expected lifespan) than has to use machine made paper makes me feel all vulnerable if I wanted to publish a newsletter after the zombie apocalypse.

Greetings from Johannesburg, South Africa - - - KalleP 04:12, 6 June 2013 (PDT)

This may be of some value to some people.

Not sure if there is a pest prevention section here. It might fit in with mosquito nets and such.

http://www.kaleva.fi/uutiset/oulu/saaskikesan-pelastus-sukkahousut-ja-tuuletin/632213/

The site is in Finnish but the pictures are self explanatory.

Johannesburg, South Africa - - - KalleP 03:53, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

I wonder if there would be mutual benefit in collaborating with Open Source Ecology. There seems to be a lot of common goals.

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki

I recently saw a DIY tool design, pan bender that is used to make all sorts of metal box like things. It might fit there or here but I am not sure where it should go.

http://web.archive.org/web/20131112233141/http://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com:80/f13/homebuilt-panbrake-21195/

KalleP 09:42, 24 June 2013 (PDT)

Yes - what would be good first steps? It will have to be led by those who are inspired to do so... I'm happy to bat ideas around, though.

How about making sure all their projects are referenced on Appropedia - even if it's just a page with a brief, one-paragraph description and a link. Likewise, any Appropedia projects of relevance to their work could be linked on their wiki.

How does that fit with what you're thinking? --Chriswaterguy 07:14, 13 August 2013 (PDT)

Wikivoyage is a travel guide, so there is not that much overlap. They do have pages on " Cooperating with ...", like [2], and someone could make one for Appropedia.

They also have articles like Retiring abroad that do overlap some. The last section of that has links to some sites that might be linked here. Pashley (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (PDT)

Currently the [w] button works great except for links that have a doi it replaces the text and the link with a template for DOI that doesn't contain the text...and isn't here -- is there any easy fix for that? --Joshua 05:00, 3 July 2013 (PDT)

Sorry Joshua, just saw this... try it again now. I copied the doi template from Wikipedia. --Chriswaterguy 07:14, 13 August 2013 (PDT)

hi could you upgrade your mediawiki from 1.17.0 to 1.21.1 please and could you please update extension and add extension vector and extension wikieditor please 109.155.45.204 03:39, 6 August 2013 (PDT)

Hi - Lonny's currently arranging an upgrade with a developer. Hopefully we'll be upgraded in coming weeks! Thanks --Chriswaterguy 07:14, 13 August 2013 (PDT)

I'm starting a newsletter just for keen Appropedians. It will be very short, very simple and frequent - between once a week and once daily.

Working title: The Appropedia Connector - because it will serve to keep us informed and connected. Any other name suggestions?

Sign up at http://tinyletter.com/Appropedia - --Chriswaterguy 07:21, 13 August 2013 (PDT)

Just a heads up, I'm not sure what others think of Portal:Politics and conflicts. I think that at the very least, as this stands it is a page rather than a portal. I'm also not convinced about the content, which either seems to be not suitable for Appropedia or so over-simplified as to be essentially useless. I also note that it has been entirely written by an anonymous editor.

I'd vote that it shouldn't be a portal, and very likely doesn't even need to be a page. I haven't tackled it for deletion as I'm not sure whether deleting a portal will glue up all the software. As an aside, I think there might be an argument for a politics and/or politics and conflict portal, but this is going to be difficult to police. Joeturner 01:34, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

I'm pretty sure deleting portals is safe. I've deleted it and left a message. Thanks for the heads up. --Chriswaterguy 01:51, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

I'm outa here, folks. Good luck with everything. Joe

We've chatted by email, but again, many thanks for your great work, Joe. I wish you all the best with your next adventures. --Chriswaterguy 17:53, 14 October 2013 (PDT)